Rules for Review.

[hammy]

Not so much a broken rule, but there seems to be a widely held assumption that the Diagram on page 87 which shows an example of a melee that cannot line up is incorrect. Or rather, the information is correct, but is incomplete. (Try that on your tax auditer.) I would like an official clarification that either validates the information on pages72 and 87, or presents a cohesive decision tree for determining the order of priority for conforming.

I agree, the HF BG should conform to the left. Is this not already in the errata? If not I will see about getting something done.

[philqw78]

That it was left in intentionally doesn't mean it is not broken (or at least dubious). I play lots of mounted armies and never so far used a road to prevent terrain placement. Still it's only a handful of games where I found the terrain to much. Using roads and perhaps also rivers would reduce this even further. Even mounted armies should not be guaranteed perfect battlefield conditions every time IMO.

In six games at Britcon I got road and river on opposite flanks once. That was because my opponent put the road down. It doesn't guarantee anything.

[hammy]

Robert,

While this thread was a good idea it does rather seem to have spiralled into a big mess. I would be tempted to either significantly prune it or to copy this thread and give it a new title then cut out all the radical suggestions and such.

I am happy to give this a go if you want me to but as you setup the thread I thought you might want to do it.

[philqw78]

I think Simon requested the original thread that I set up with a number of 'Broken Rule' issues be split as well Hammy. Unfortunately people are still posting on that thread as well. From the Poll the most broken rule seems to be interpenetration, then, swarms, road and river terrain selection, game end mechanics, evading off table, intercepts, and finally Dave Ruddock.

[spike]

...... and finally Dave Ruddock.

Well its the evil spirit that in habits him (Hammy and I are in agreemment, that he adverely effect the luck of the games)


Spike

[nikgaukroger]

Robert,

While this thread was a good idea it does rather seem to have spiralled into a big mess. I would be tempted to either significantly prune it or to copy this thread and give it a new title then cut out all the radical suggestions and such.

I am happy to give this a go if you want me to but as you setup the thread I thought you might want to do it.

In a possible abuse of power I have unilateraly decided this thread no longer deserves sticky status for the reason Hammy mentions. If people want to try it again with a bit more focus ...

[philqw78]

I thought about it, but without a way to make it sticky and close the other thread for replies its not really worth the effort copying everyone else posts over. So I'm not.

[gozerius]

Not so much a broken rule, but there seems to be a widely held assumption that the Diagram on page 87 which shows an example of a melee that cannot line up is incorrect. Or rather, the information is correct, but is incomplete. (Try that on your tax auditer.) I would like an official clarification that either validates the information on pages72 and 87, or presents a cohesive decision tree for determining the order of priority for conforming.

I agree, the HF BG should conform to the left. Is this not already in the errata? If not I will see about getting something done.

We agree there needs to be clarification.
We do not agree on the substance of the issue. "The Foot BG would normally move right, but it is blocked, so stays in place" Seems clear to me.
If that statement is false, then all the information in the diagram is also false and a whole new set of diagrams is needed to show what the correct sequence of events is when determining how and when to conform (or not conform).

[hammy]

Not so much a broken rule, but there seems to be a widely held assumption that the Diagram on page 87 which shows an example of a melee that cannot line up is incorrect.

I agree, the HF BG should conform to the left. Is this not already in the errata? If not I will see about getting something done.

We agree there needs to be clarification.
We do not agree on the substance of the issue. "The Foot BG would normally move right, but it is blocked, so stays in place" Seems clear to me.
If that statement is false, then all the information in the diagram is also false and a whole new set of diagrams is needed to show what the correct sequence of events is when determining how and when to conform (or not conform).

P70
"BG's must pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact."
Surely the minimum necessary for the HF to conform is to shift left as it is impossible to conform by shifting right.
There is no restriction on only sliding half a base or anything like that. I have always played that if a conform is not possible in one direction but is in the other then you still conform.

[Ghaznavid]

P70
"BG's must pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact."
Surely the minimum necessary for the HF to conform is to shift left as it is impossible to conform by shifting right.
There is no restriction on only sliding half a base or anything like that. I have always played that if a conform is not possible in one direction but is in the other then you still conform.

I agree, it's the logical choice. It's also correct that the diagram is misleading in that regard.

[gozerius]

Actually, it's not. The diagram states that the foot would normally move right. This is logical because lining up to the right is shorter than lining up to the left. But the enemy BG is in the way. So since the shortest move is blocked, the BG remains stationary. Nowhere in the rules does it say that if the BG can't conform by the shortest move, it seeks a different way to conform. So what is at issue is whether you determine the shortest move based on what is physically possible or what is theoretically possible. The diagram, which is the "official" word on the matter, not having been rescinded in any of the errata, seems to indicate that the shortest move necessary is determined purely on the shortest measurable distance to a valid conforming position, regardless of whether it is physically possible. If it is not physically possible, the BG remains stationary. If the diagram was indeed wrong, then why after all the electrons wasted arguing about it, have the authors not published an official errata correcting it?

[Ghaznavid]

Actually, it's not. The diagram states that the foot would normally move right. This is logical because lining up to the right is shorter than lining up to the left. But the enemy BG is in the way. So since the shortest move is blocked, the BG remains stationary. Nowhere in the rules does it say that if the BG can't conform by the shortest move, it seeks a different way to conform.

Ok, take a look on the diagram below then please. Let's assume the red BG charged and now it's time to conform. Following your logic there would be no conforming? The shortest way isn't blocked, but would end in corner to corner contact and hence no melee taking place. Since you argue that BGs never conform using the longer distance no conform is then possible?

[hammy]

Actually, it's not. The diagram states that the foot would normally move right. This is logical because lining up to the right is shorter than lining up to the left. But the enemy BG is in the way. So since the shortest move is blocked, the BG remains stationary. Nowhere in the rules does it say that if the BG can't conform by the shortest move, it seeks a different way to conform. So what is at issue is whether you determine the shortest move based on what is physically possible or what is theoretically possible. The diagram, which is the "official" word on the matter, not having been rescinded in any of the errata, seems to indicate that the shortest move necessary is determined purely on the shortest measurable distance to a valid conforming position, regardless of whether it is physically possible. If it is not physically possible, the BG remains stationary. If the diagram was indeed wrong, then why after all the electrons wasted arguing about it, have the authors not published an official errata correcting it?

I agree and you do indeed have a good point. It is just that this is not the way I have always played the game. It is more than possible that I have been playing the game wrongly. As things stand if the diagram is infact correct then I have been doing so.

I am just not convinced that the diagram conforms with the wording of the rule.

[gozerius]

Ok, take a look on the diagram below then please. Let's assume the red BG charged and now it's time to conform. Following your logic there would be no conforming? The shortest way isn't blocked, but would end in corner to corner contact and hence no melee taking place. Since you argue that BGs never conform using the longer distance no conform is then possible?

Sorry your diagram did not copy. But in this case the red BG conforms by the shortest move necessary, which is moving Left until the leftmost base is in full frontal contact with the rightmost green base.
Moving right causes the BG to break contact with the enemy BG.
Moving left is both the shortest move necessary and physically possible.
If you look at the illustrations on page 72, and the Impact/Melee sequence on pages 91-93 you will see that the BGs can physically reach the bases that would be contacted by the shortest move necessary. The same is true for the cav BG on page 87. The foot BG on page 87 would normally move to the right, the move being shorter than sliding left, BUT that move is physically impossible, due to intervening enemy. SO it stays in place and fights as if it had moved right. As stated in the rules on page 71, and 86, and in the caption on page 87.


To further illustrate the concept look at the illustration on page 56. here the rightmost 2 files of the charging BG have hit the enemy BG at an angle and the rest of the BG has stepped forward into another enemy BG. Impact is complete and it is clear that the BG cannot conform the 2 rightmost files. Who do they fight in the melee phase? They fight the enemy base they would conform to if it were physically possible. We temporarily ignore the lefthand enemy BG and notionally pivot and slide the bases in contact the minimum necessary to line up. Counting from the leftmost file, we see that file G4 would lineup on file 1 of the righthand enemy BG (R) and file G5 squares up against the center file (R2), leaving R3 as an overlap against file G5. Substituting "shortest physically possible move" for "shortest move necessary" results in G4 being forced over to R2 with G5 pushed to R3. R1 is then unable to contribute because he is not in front edge contact with enemy and cannot count as an overlap because a BG can only be overlapped on its ends.
The symmetry of this is that in the enemy maneuver phase the enemy bases will conform the minimum necessary and be lined up with the bases that fought in the last melee phase.

[robertthebruce]

Nick and James.


No problem guys, I think that this thread has been used in wrong direction, the JDs idea was to search some posibles issues or holes in the rules, not this.


Guys I really think that this a work for the desing team, maybe with support from some selected players just like they did with the army lists.


David

[Ghaznavid]

But in this case the red BG conforms by the shortest move necessary, which is moving Left until the leftmost base is in full frontal contact with the rightmost green base.
Moving right causes the BG to break contact with the enemy BG.
Moving left is both the shortest move necessary and physically possible.
If you look at the illustrations on page 72, and the Impact/Melee sequence on pages 91-93 you will see that the BGs can physically reach the bases that would be contacted by the shortest move necessary. The same is true for the cav BG on page 87. The foot BG on page 87 would normally move to the right, the move being shorter than sliding left, BUT that move is physically impossible, due to intervening enemy. SO it stays in place and fights as if it had moved right. As stated in the rules on page 71, and 86, and in the caption on page 87.

Well we will just have to agree that we disagree. For me if the shorter move is not possible for any reason (intervening enemy or terrain, breaking contact, whatever) then clearly the longer move is the one necessary.

[gozerius]

Ghaz, that's fine. I'll stick to what the rules actually say and show, you can play any way you choose.

[marioslaz]

Well we will just have to agree that we disagree. For me if the shorter move is not possible for any reason (intervening enemy or terrain, breaking contact, whatever) then clearly the longer move is the one necessary.

I play also in this way: the shortest possible move.

[philqw78]

I'm not sure what we play any more as we've done it both ways before now,...... depending who is winning the argument here. I think the authors intent was shortest possible, but that is not what the rules say.

[hammy]

I'm not sure what we play any more as we've done it both ways before now,...... depending who is winning the argument here. I think the authors intent was shortest possible, but that is not what the rules say.

Either the diagram is wrong or the rules are imprecise. In retrospect the diagram being wrong is less likely than loose wording so I am now in the camp that the shortest conform is the one that needs to be made and if that is not possible then the longer one doesn't happen.