I'll have to try them. I already have enough pike for 48 stands but I can always use at least another 12KingHassan wrote:Xyston and Old Glory seem to mix very well.
I saw very nice looking mixed Greeks at the Birmingham tourney this weekend.
Conforming - Photo
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
flameberge
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:31 am
Sorry to bring this debate up again but the whole conforming thing is a souce of mystery and confusion to me.
May I ask, if the cataphracts in the picture weren't there and it was a simple case of Legion hitting the 2nd, 3rd or 4th rank of a phalanx but it not counting as a flank charge, how do the phalangites then conform? Is it a case of a big step back and a shift sideways to end in base to base contact with the Legion's end element for the melee phase? If so it seems a bit odd. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it looks a little strange?
Also, may I ask, if a pike block 2 bases wide by 4 bases deep is hit by a legal flank charge, let's say by a cavalry unit, how many bases turn to face? My interpretation of it is that there needs to be enough to match the phalanx's original depth, so in this example as the depth was 60mm then two contacted bases would turn, others falling in behind, leaving the BG with 2 bases contacting the attackers. But how many other bases turn to provide support? Logically the four bases on the flank that was hit would turn, two bases in contact, two bases providing rear support, whilst the other four bases in the BG carry on facing in their original direction. Have I understood this correctly?
May I ask, if the cataphracts in the picture weren't there and it was a simple case of Legion hitting the 2nd, 3rd or 4th rank of a phalanx but it not counting as a flank charge, how do the phalangites then conform? Is it a case of a big step back and a shift sideways to end in base to base contact with the Legion's end element for the melee phase? If so it seems a bit odd. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it looks a little strange?
Also, may I ask, if a pike block 2 bases wide by 4 bases deep is hit by a legal flank charge, let's say by a cavalry unit, how many bases turn to face? My interpretation of it is that there needs to be enough to match the phalanx's original depth, so in this example as the depth was 60mm then two contacted bases would turn, others falling in behind, leaving the BG with 2 bases contacting the attackers. But how many other bases turn to provide support? Logically the four bases on the flank that was hit would turn, two bases in contact, two bases providing rear support, whilst the other four bases in the BG carry on facing in their original direction. Have I understood this correctly?
Yes to both questions.
The first does look a little odd. However, it is does make the game play straightforward.
I have found that being aware of how bases conform is quite important to playing. I have in the past managed both to block a cavalry break off and got pursuers hitting a flank of one of my BGs because I did not think about the conforming. Always think about how the confroming will end up before charging. Happily FoG does not have many tricky rules that can be exploited, but conforming is an area where you really do need to know what will happen. If playing an inexperienced player, I think it would be good manners to point out the consequences of conforming before a charge is made.
The pike turning situation is quite straight forward. Only two ranks face the flank charge, but the factors are automatically double plus PoA so this is not important. The other file turns to provide rear ranks when it conforms in the manouvre phase, assuming it is not contacted.
The first does look a little odd. However, it is does make the game play straightforward.
I have found that being aware of how bases conform is quite important to playing. I have in the past managed both to block a cavalry break off and got pursuers hitting a flank of one of my BGs because I did not think about the conforming. Always think about how the confroming will end up before charging. Happily FoG does not have many tricky rules that can be exploited, but conforming is an area where you really do need to know what will happen. If playing an inexperienced player, I think it would be good manners to point out the consequences of conforming before a charge is made.
The pike turning situation is quite straight forward. Only two ranks face the flank charge, but the factors are automatically double plus PoA so this is not important. The other file turns to provide rear ranks when it conforms in the manouvre phase, assuming it is not contacted.
First of all thanks rogerg for taking the time to answer. As to what you've said...
"Look a little odd?" Hmmm, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that should an enemy catch the back rank of my phalanx with the corner of a base, my guy's file leaders and file closers are in effect going to say "Wooooah, hold on a minute boys...everybody back, keep going, back a bit more, and a just a little bit more...righto lads, now 20 paces to the left...on command...wait for it....shuffle!!!!...."
Yes I fully accept it is a game mechanism, but at the risk of sounding rude, (which I certainly don't intend to be as I couldn't write a set of rules), it's a bloody silly one! This just absolutely would NOT happen, even if the enemy were polite enough to just stand there whilst this physically impossible manouvre took place.
Roger, I don't mean to doubt you, but are you absolutely 100% sure that your answer is correct about this? Or am I being a bit dim and totally misreading it? If the answer is "no" to both questions then I would respectfully suggest that something in the rules is horribly wrong, game mechanism or no game mechanism.
"Look a little odd?" Hmmm, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that should an enemy catch the back rank of my phalanx with the corner of a base, my guy's file leaders and file closers are in effect going to say "Wooooah, hold on a minute boys...everybody back, keep going, back a bit more, and a just a little bit more...righto lads, now 20 paces to the left...on command...wait for it....shuffle!!!!...."
Yes I fully accept it is a game mechanism, but at the risk of sounding rude, (which I certainly don't intend to be as I couldn't write a set of rules), it's a bloody silly one! This just absolutely would NOT happen, even if the enemy were polite enough to just stand there whilst this physically impossible manouvre took place.
Roger, I don't mean to doubt you, but are you absolutely 100% sure that your answer is correct about this? Or am I being a bit dim and totally misreading it? If the answer is "no" to both questions then I would respectfully suggest that something in the rules is horribly wrong, game mechanism or no game mechanism.
You need to see it on the table to appreciate how it works, remember these are LARGE GROUPS OF MEN, not single soldiers moving about. If the rule wasn't like this, then flank charges would be very, very easy to get (far too easy) and it'd be easy to create situations where your troops could not be charged since the enemy couldn't conform (as in DBM). And we wouldn't want that, I think...
If a BG charges another BG and that charge does not qualify as a flank charge (i.e. no base starts fully behind the line extending the front of the target BG etc.) then when it comes to conforming the charging BG conforms to the front of the target. If it is not possible for this to happen then in the other players movement phase the charged BG conforms to the charger.
It makes everything much cleaner from a knowing who is doing what point of view even if it does look a little strange. Consider that the chagred BG has actually reacted slightly so the initial charge really hit the front or something.
It makes everything much cleaner from a knowing who is doing what point of view even if it does look a little strange. Consider that the chagred BG has actually reacted slightly so the initial charge really hit the front or something.
The way to deal with the odd looking conforming is to step back and take the long view. In the context of the battle, if there is no flank charge, then the the two BG's fight front to front. Does it really matter that the bases get shifted a few inches to make working the combat rules easy? In'reality' the two forces would clash head on. There would be simultaneous movement. Neither side would want the enemy behind them. Both would be wheeling to face each other.
FoG has reduced much of the gamesmanship of engineering 'clever' flank charges that have featured in other rule sets. I very much enjoy the fact that the game is more about tactics and less about knowing rule interpretations and slick moves.
FoG has reduced much of the gamesmanship of engineering 'clever' flank charges that have featured in other rule sets. I very much enjoy the fact that the game is more about tactics and less about knowing rule interpretations and slick moves.
-
Grandviceroy2018
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 5:57 pm
the guys in my three gaming groups love the game, except for the conforming. as this example (and it is an easy and uncomplicated one compared to many we have come up with) shows, conforming tends to cause more arguments and problems than it solves....
why not, like in golf, play it where it lies?
we have found that conforming moves tend to make units do things they can not do under normal movement rules (like wheel backwards while facing the enemy) or put them into absurd positions (like all of a sudden having to conform where they give another enemy a flank or rear opportunity.
things get especially bizarre in battles with lots of mounted units (we did arsouf last weekend...turcopoles, horse archers, lancers, knights, mamelukes, templars etc) swirling about.
has anyone tried to just play the game WITHOUT worrying about all of the conforming? i've played a dozen games in as many weeks, and some of the guys have gamed with other clubs as well, and conforming seems to be the one area where the game consistently gets gummed up and where questions (many much more complicated than the example shown above) of who goes where and does what come up.
why not, like in golf, play it where it lies?
we have found that conforming moves tend to make units do things they can not do under normal movement rules (like wheel backwards while facing the enemy) or put them into absurd positions (like all of a sudden having to conform where they give another enemy a flank or rear opportunity.
things get especially bizarre in battles with lots of mounted units (we did arsouf last weekend...turcopoles, horse archers, lancers, knights, mamelukes, templars etc) swirling about.
has anyone tried to just play the game WITHOUT worrying about all of the conforming? i've played a dozen games in as many weeks, and some of the guys have gamed with other clubs as well, and conforming seems to be the one area where the game consistently gets gummed up and where questions (many much more complicated than the example shown above) of who goes where and does what come up.
I haven't specifically tried to play without conforming but there is no reason that you shouldn't try. Playing without conforms would I suspect make flank attacks much safer as a BG making a flank charge will not have to conform round the full 90 degrees and expose it's flank.
In 60+ games I have had perhaps 3 or 4 situations where something really odd has happened as a result of conforms. Normally things like a BG conforming back and protecting it's flank or forward and exposing it's flank. I play expecting conforms and almost never have problems as a result.
In 60+ games I have had perhaps 3 or 4 situations where something really odd has happened as a result of conforms. Normally things like a BG conforming back and protecting it's flank or forward and exposing it's flank. I play expecting conforms and almost never have problems as a result.
-
lawrenceg
- Colonel - Ju 88A
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
- Location: Former British Empire
IMO as the system works without conforming, the conforming just adds an unnecessary mechanism. This was brought up during play testing and the authors decided to stick with conforming on the basis that it makes things easier when you can conform, and it is only rarely that strange effects occur. So I say, carry on playing without conforming and report back in a few months when you have had more chance to discover any problems or inconveniences.grandviceroy wrote:the guys in my three gaming groups love the game, except for the conforming. as this example (and it is an easy and uncomplicated one compared to many we have come up with) shows, conforming tends to cause more arguments and problems than it solves....
why not, like in golf, play it where it lies?
we have found that conforming moves tend to make units do things they can not do under normal movement rules (like wheel backwards while facing the enemy) or put them into absurd positions (like all of a sudden having to conform where they give another enemy a flank or rear opportunity.
things get especially bizarre in battles with lots of mounted units (we did arsouf last weekend...turcopoles, horse archers, lancers, knights, mamelukes, templars etc) swirling about.
has anyone tried to just play the game WITHOUT worrying about all of the conforming? i've played a dozen games in as many weeks, and some of the guys have gamed with other clubs as well, and conforming seems to be the one area where the game consistently gets gummed up and where questions (many much more complicated than the example shown above) of who goes where and does what come up.
Lawrence Greaves