Slitherine

Come to think of it...

grahambriggs wrote:Come to think of it...

I think Simon is getting of lightly here...

grahambriggs wrote:Well I think you have to. If you contact the two central files of a four file wide BG then the rule clearly says your BG conforms to the bases in contact. The "or an overlap" doesn't help you as you can't overlap the two central files.

I seem to remember is the run up to V2 it was suggested that some of the diagrams needed work but that didn't get done. I suppose they could have tweaked the words a bit and done little harm to fit in a bit better - maybe by saying either conform to the bases or be an overlap against one of them. I blame Terry Shaw

But if you only end up in corner to corner contact with a base you have still conformed to it.

according to the definition, a line of bases in contact with the enemy are all in overlap positions as well as fighting

I blame all the time spent play testing V2 and working on spurious stuff like how Almughavars should be reresented or how big Auxilia BG should be (hedging my bets in case one of the authors may see fit to shoot me down next)

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Well I think you have to. If you contact the two central files of a four file wide BG then the rule clearly says your BG conforms to the bases in contact. The "or an overlap" doesn't help you as you can't overlap the two central files.

I seem to remember is the run up to V2 it was suggested that some of the diagrams needed work but that didn't get done. I suppose they could have tweaked the words a bit and done little harm to fit in a bit better - maybe by saying either conform to the bases or be an overlap against one of them. I blame Terry Shaw

But if you only end up in corner to corner contact with a base you have still conformed to it.

True but the sense of the text is 'conform your BG to the enemy bases you hit' whereas the diagrams are more 'conform - front and overlap -to one of the bases you hit but ignore the other one as you only hit that a little bit'.

It doesn't make that much differece but it does make unusual situations hard to work out. You'd hope for something a bit clearer in the rules.

grahambriggs wrote: True but the sense of the text is 'conform your BG to the enemy bases you hit' whereas the diagrams are more 'conform - front and overlap -to one of the bases you hit but ignore the other one as you only hit that a little bit'.

So with a big wheel into your immortals only just contacting each of the centre bases a shortest confrom would move me out to one side, single overlap. Its quite simple but is it correct? IMO it is.

No. incorrect. You have to conform (shortest moves etc) to the enemy bases in contact. If you're only in contact with the two centre ones that's where you go.

But you conform to contact or overlap by shortest move. So I disagree

But you conform to contact or overlap by shortest move. So I disagree

Struggling to understand why you are being so dogmatic on this one Phil.

The first paragraph clearly says you conform to the enemy bases in contact.

The first reference to an overlap position is followed in parentheses by '(see below)'. (1st bullet)

The 'reference below' is where a base is in contact with the flank of an enemy as a result of a charge which was not a flank charge. This is the only other reference to conforming to an overlap position in this entire rules section. (3rd bullet)

If 3 bases contact 2 bases frontally - one will end up as an overlap after conforming. If 2 bases contact 2 bases they should conform to be in contact with each other.

petedalby wrote:

But you conform to contact or overlap by shortest move. So I disagree

Struggling to understand why you are being so dogmatic on this one Phil.

The first paragraph clearly says you conform to the enemy bases in contact.

The first reference to an overlap position is followed in parentheses by '(see below)'. (1st bullet)

The 'reference below' is where a base is in contact with the flank of an enemy as a result of a charge which was not a flank charge. This is the only other reference to conforming to an overlap position in this entire rules section. (3rd bullet)

If 3 bases contact 2 bases frontally - one will end up as an overlap after conforming. If 2 bases contact 2 bases they should conform to be in contact with each other.

This is the crux of the matter. Does the front corner count as part of the front ege? They are referred to separately throughout the rules, so I believe it isn't. In which case aligning corner to corner does not count as conforming.

Page 77 states "conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position (see below)". This means to conform you _must_ conform to the base you hit - in this case it's obvious because all bases (including the archers) only have one base in contact with them.

Page 92 deals with units that cannot conform - this just indicates who they fight. It states "they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' or 'overlapping' as if they had conformed." i.e. the two cases dealt with on page 77. Therefore in the situation described in the orginal post, the knights would fight one base against the elephant and two bases against the archers. The Knights could also expand on either side to match an existing overlap or to create a new one.

Or to an overlap position by shortest possible. Even if you are in front edge contact you can still be in an overlap position

Or to an overlap position by shortest possible.

But it doesn't say that Phil.

To Gozerius - I have now seen the diagrams on pages 97 & 99 and quite understand your view that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Unfortunately the diagrams are where most errors were made in V1 and remain uncorrected in V2. Check out the official errata for V1 - 5 of the items published relate to errors in diagrams.

philqw78 wrote:Or to an overlap position by shortest possible. Even if you are in front edge contact you can still be in an overlap position

But if I have a BG:



If your charge hits and then the positions are not overlapping - you can only overlap the BG on the ends of the line, where is and only then if is fighting.

But Pete,
None of the diagrams I have referenced are included in that errata.

gozerius wrote:But Pete,
None of the diagrams I have referenced are included in that errata.

Pete was illustrating a point.

You (as per usual) completely fail to acknowledge that the rules as written mean very different things than the diagram illustrates.

philqw78 wrote:Or to an overlap position by shortest possible. Even if you are in front edge contact you can still be in an overlap position

Oh, I see you are trying to consider that a base can be in both frontal combat and in an overlap position.

P82, which defines overlap position says:

"BGs can move into contact with an enemy BGs in the manouvre phase, but only to join an existing melee in an overlap position only" . I've emphasised the 'only' as i'm sure you'll want to come back to that. It then includes four positions that count as overlap positions; the second bullet being the one you are after: "front corner to front corner and side edge to side edge contact with a friendly base facing in the same direction that has It's full front edge in contact to the enemy base (the base in overlap will therefore have a corner to corner contact with that enemy base)". So I think you're claming that this allows you to conform into the base next door to the one you hit because that would put you in an overlap position to the one you hit?

There's several reasons that I disagree with this:

1. This is clearly identified as the means of fresh BGs engaging (as show in the diagram on page 47). It goes so far as to say that "any other contact must wait until the next impact phase and is initiated by charging". Which implies that you can't fight frontally and also be in an overlap position. The 'only' in the statement could be seen to undermine this were it not for the other rule sections. It's presumably there to say you can't move into overlap and also contact another BG frontall, you have to charge to do that.

2. Page 92 give further information. "a BG can only be overlapped by one file at each end of any of it's four edges." So it cannot be overlapped in the centre. Confirms the page 82 sense of overlapping being something that applies to BGs rather than bases.

3. If your 2 wide lancer BG charges into the centre of the 4 wide immortals and hits the central two files say no other BGs are close. You then conform your bases 'to the overlap position i.e. to go into the outer file of the immortals. Where is the "friendly base facing in the same direction that has it's full front edge in contact with the enemy base"? There isn't one, because you charged at an angle. Or were you planning to move another base first? shame it can't fit because of the other bases, you can only move them all together.

4. A 12 base BG in orb counts as having 2 front rank bases per side. Say a group of lancers loses control a has to declare a charge. The orb cannot be overlapped (p130) but iaccording to your reading BOTH of these bases are overlap positions? It just doesn't work.

A shame they didn't put a diagram in for this but there again...

grahambriggs wrote:But if I have a BG:



If your charge hits and then the positions are not overlapping - you can only overlap the BG on the ends of the line, where is and only then if is fighting.

Writing as someone who has exactly one game of FOG:AM under my belt , I find this interpretation a little confusing.
When I read this rule, I took the phrase "overlap a BG on the end of the line" to refer to the end of the smaller of the opposing battle groups, rather than the unit which had the wider frontage. Otherwise it seems to give a very large handicap to units with very wide frontages, when the intention (I assumed) was to give them a benefit.

Saxonian wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:But if I have a BG:



If your charge hits and then the positions are not overlapping - you can only overlap the BG on the ends of the line, where is and only then if is fighting.

Writing as someone who has exactly one game of FOG:AM under my belt , I find this interpretation a little confusing.
When I read this rule, I took the phrase "overlap a BG on the end of the line" to refer to the end of the smaller of the opposing battle groups, rather than the unit which had the wider frontage. Otherwise it seems to give a very large handicap to units with very wide frontages, when the intention (I assumed) was to give them a benefit.

Hello. What overlaps do generally is to give an advantage to width. So, if you had unit six bases wide and two deep and I hit it with a two wide unit in the middle, you'll get more dice in melee due to your overlaps.

The 'moving into overlap' bit says that if, for example, we're both fighting six bases wide with gaps on both flanks, whoever's turn it is can move up a new unit and get a couple more dice. However, if there are enemy standing there you'll have to charge them.

Dave,
As usual, my argument is that the diagrams are integral to the understanding of the rules. To say "the rule says this but the diagram shows that, therefore ignore the diagram" is to me like saying the rules interpret themselves. So why include diagrams in the first place? Just to confuse the unwary? I don't think so. Conforming by the shortest route necessary brings all bases into contact with the least lateral shifting, whereas exclusively conforming only those bases initially in contact with each other causes all sorts of unnecessary shifting, especially when bases strike at an angle and only contact with a corner. You are playing with boxes rather than units of men. But the boxes represent units of men and should perform as such. A unit of men presses forward into the men directly in front of them. It doesn't sidestep to fight somebody else just because Bjorn got his shield tangled in the spear of the last guy of the yellow jersey band.

gozerius wrote:Dave,
As usual, my argument is that the diagrams are integral to the understanding of the rules. To say "the rule says this but the diagram shows that, therefore ignore the diagram" is to me like saying the rules interpret themselves. So why include diagrams in the first place? Just to confuse the unwary? I don't think so. Conforming by the shortest route necessary brings all bases into contact with the least lateral shifting, whereas exclusively conforming only those bases initially in contact with each other causes all sorts of unnecessary shifting, especially when bases strike at an angle and only contact with a corner.

I'll quote the rules again Page 77 states "conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base". However much you like to ignore this - you can't. The rules clearly state that you conform to the base you hit.

You are playing with boxes rather than units of men. But the boxes represent units of men and should perform as such. A unit of men presses forward into the men directly in front of them. It doesn't sidestep to fight somebody else just because Bjorn got his shield tangled in the spear of the last guy of the yellow jersey band.

Exactly - you charge forward and end up with Ted fighting against Alan. They don't then miraculously sidestep so they have different opponents in the melee. You'd expect that if you fought somebody at impact (and didn't kill them) you'd be fighting against the same person in melee. Which is exactly what the rule states.

Why would you suddently end up fighting against somebody different in melee? and how does your "real life" example explain this? Well, they just shifted 20 yards to the side as that made it easier....

You want me to accept that the unit shifts 100 meters to the side because the last guy on the base bumped into the first guy in line of the enemy base, rather than following the example of play which shows that the base lines up with the enemy by the shortest move. This may result in the conforming base still in contact with the original base, but only at the corner, because the impetus of the charge has brought the rest of the unit into contact with the base directly in front of it. You are ignoring the illustrated example so that you can interpret the meaning of the term "bases in contact" to only apply to those bases directly in contact with the charging bases, rather than applying to all the bases in the contacted line. The examples clearly show that the intent of the rule is that the bases shift by the shortest move to line up with the enemy bases of the contacted BGs. Otherwise the "simple conform" illustrated would have the bases lining up with one base in front edge contact with the originally contacted base, and one in overlap, since neither base touched the second enemy base.
I understand that lining up with only those bases originally contacted has certain advantages to the charger, since a slight wheel can be made to bring only a corner into contact with an enemy front, thereby avoiding contacting that which is directly in front of the charger. But it is illogical and bad form to insist that a rules interpretation which contradicts the examples of play is valid. Barring an official errata retracting the information in the illustration.