Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:But they would fight as if conformed.

Then why does the same principle not apply here?

It does apply and they are conformed in the diagram. 2 red bases are conformed at the top, 1 at the side. Therefore, since they have rear ranks six dice.

philqw78 wrote:It does apply and they are conformed in the diagram. 2 red bases are conformed at the top, 1 at the side. Therefore, since they have rear ranks six dice.

It is things like this that attempt to ruin the game. I appreciate you are being clever with Christmas quiz and are doing this for mirth. The rules in numerous places are attempting for your interpretation to not be the case. I see how you are confinagling a Ruddock inside a gazebo with a dr Who chaser to string this together. And it is amusing. But if it was done against a newer player, I am sure they would feel cheated.

Not that an orb is common, but that it now has a vulnerablity that was not intended makes them worse.

I don`t know the answer because I am actually too old and too stupid to make any sense of the rules and still use RFCM and WRG 6th.

Perhaps philqw78 would come down to me in Wales or France to explain them to me.

Better bring his own booze and women though

philqw78 wrote:Orb is all round defence, a circle, square or triangle even. Bits don't stick out, they'd get hurt.

Anyway, equal numbers fighting in impact means:

A has 2 dice at ++ v Green 2 dice at --

B gets two dice at even, v Green 2 dice at even.

Melee is bases in contact

A gets 4 dice at -, v Green 2 at plus
B 2 dice at plus, v Green 2 at minus

If disrupted green must lose a dice, and can chose against whom. A would move to even POA and B to ++

So its much better to form orb with smaller BG as they can get more dice than bases, larger BG have more bases than dice in most circumstances

I know an orb is an all around defence. I did not say it was not. The diagram I gave is in essence how the bases face, not how they stick out.

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:It does apply and they are conformed in the diagram. 2 red bases are conformed at the top, 1 at the side. Therefore, since they have rear ranks six dice.

It is things like this that attempt to ruin the game. I appreciate you are being clever with Christmas quiz and are doing this for mirth. The rules in numerous places are attempting for your interpretation to not be the case. I see how you are confinagling a Ruddock inside a gazebo with a dr Who chaser to string this together. And it is amusing. But if it was done against a newer player, I am sure they would feel cheated.

Not that an orb is common, but that it now has a vulnerablity that was not intended makes them worse.

Well said Dan.

Ummm...calm down chaps!...this talk heading the way of "cheating" seems in danger of heading into The Land Of Overblown (hummed to the tune of a much-loved Buck's Fizz classic.)

1) Phil's position seems quite a sensible interpretation of the RAW to me.

2) And I don't think it is as unsensible from either a game balance or realism point of view as some of the Orb-adherents are suggesting.

So you go into Orb and you end up fighting with 2 dice vs. 4 in melee. How unfair! you cry. Well...don't go into Orb then Except you presumably did so for reasons other than getting a good match up with a single frontal opponent of equal numbers.

Opponent not getting overlaps might mean you are fighting 2 dice vs 4 instead of 4 dice vs. 8. That seems like a positive to me - you are still likely to lose but you are likely to lose more slowly.

Or if there is a flank and frontal opponent each of equal numbers to yourself, the situation might be 2 dice vs 4 and 2 dice vs 4; instead of being disrupted at impact, which loses you 2 dice anyway, may lose you a POA vs. the frontal opponent (or allow them to gain one - e.g. they are sword vs. your spear), makes you --/++ in impact vs. the flank opponent, ,and then in melee you are down a POA against both opponents for fighting in two directions.

(Haven't got rules handy - I am assuming you don't count -1 POA for fighting in two directions when in Orb? If so, now that I would call unfair.)

>Not that an orb is common, but that it now has a vulnerablity that was not intended makes them worse.

Orb shouldn't be common IMO, based on my understanding of how commonly it occurred in ancient/medieval history. Which admittedly might be more often than authors bother to mention it, but that would still suggest that when it was used it seldom produced a noteworthy result.

And I'm not sure anyone should be presuming to know what the intent actually was - so far it's all a matter of opinions. Waking up the authors from their long snooze and dragging them in here for a ruling would be nice, although I'm not holding my breath

hazelbark wrote:It is things like this that attempt to ruin the game.

No Dan its things like this that attempt to fix the game so that we are all singing from the same carol sheet. There are few occassions where the rules are not clear and this is one of them. My interpretation is just as valid as yours.


But its my Quiz so I win!

Dan wrote:Not that an orb is common, but that it now has a vulnerablity that was not intended makes them worse.

So you admit the vulnerability is there? How do you know it was not intentional? I remember saying to RBS "Orb is crap" to which he replied "It should be"

philqw78 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:It is things like this that attempt to ruin the game.

No Dan its things like this that attempt to fix the game so that we are all singing from the same carol sheet. There are few occassions where the rules are not clear and this is one of them. My interpretation is just as valid as yours.

Actually no. You can have an interpretation I can have absolute certainty.

I appreciate a part of your objective is to get things cleaned up in the rules. And I appreciate that. As I said, I appreciate the Mirth as well. I also think the same song sheet bit is good.

Now I appreciate when I play in UK events there is a risk of the rules being played as you laid out. Honestly I can't remember when if ever I have formed Orb. I doubt the UK players with there preference for benny hill will be forming orb in droves either.

But the rules and clarifications should evolve toward clarity and common sense. It seems like some quarters there is an effort for that not to happen and attempt to bend the rules in favor of gamesmanship. That is undesirable for the health of the game. Before you assume this is you, ask yourself if you prefer gamesmanship and rule bending over a widely played and enjoyable game understood by all.

But I understand the rule differently to you Dan

And what I don't understand is how my interpretation is so bad it would help break the rules

philqw78 wrote: And what I don't understand is how my interpretation is so bad it would help break the rules

Perhaps it my perhaps paranoid, however warrented, assumption that some people are looking to build into this set of rules things that are the equivalent of: toe nail of death or buttox of death, etc.

For me one of the real poisitive steps for FOG was a move back toward strategy and manuver and such being the driver of victory and hopefully enjoyment. I would like to insert common sense but that may be asking too much.
To the degree we slide toward the exploitation of clever rule gaps as being the key to victory we slide toward the end of the game. I say Gap because if you put enough variables together, then you are bound to find a gap in any rules. I remember the old GDW game battle for madrid that stated you could NOT enter a ZOC. Since there was almost no ranged fire, this was clearly a typo and in error. But in the pre-internet world an errata spread slowly. People chose to play that you could actually attack your foe.

Now in the only game that you and I played, I do not recall any exploitation of clever rule gaps. We found a gap, but that was an oversight that shocked us both. The game's course was otherwise determined by army selection, strategy and the use of rules that are laid out clearly and obviously.

So I go back to this quiz point. I see your interpretation. I see how you get there and I see how you defend your position as logical. Fortunately it is not significant and fits nicely into christmas mirth and be of good cheer. So I don't want to be too much of a downer. I happen to think that your intrepretation is contra-indicated by other points of the rules. My concern is the assembly of anomalies creates a world in which people seek exploitative anomalies that lead in a bad direction.

Hopefully the authors will take it on board and clean things of this nature up.

Maybe I'm missing the point somewhere, but I don't really understand your position Dan.

How about this scenario:

I have an 8 base BG of, lets say superior Roman legionaries. (Yes, you might say that makes me stupid, but let's just say, for the sake of argument...)

Facing them you have a 4 base BG of superior Roman legionaries. (Because you OTOH are a sensible chap.)

I need to break one BG to win the game, there's a lot of Hills O'Benny happening elsewhere on the table, and the clock is ticking. I am confident however that I will quickly come to grips with your legionaries, and within a couple of turns my 8 bases will all be rolling dice and your 4 bases will rapidly dwindle in both numbers and cohesion under the weight of numbers, and it will soon be game over.

But wait! You form orb in front of me, and somehow when I charge in I end up fighting 2 bases against 2 and can never bring superior numbers to bear. It's magically become an almost even fight (still slightly in my favour because I am better able to withstand base losses, but with only 2 dice per side the chances of either side taking any damage over the course of a few turns is considerably reduced.

Wouldn't I be entitled to feel a bit miffed by the rules in that situation.

I know I would, because impact foot cannot form orb.

I know I would, because impact foot cannot form orb.

And fight with only 1/4 of their bases in each direction if they could - so it would be 2 dice for you against 1 for the orbed Romans.

Kevin

ShrubMiK wrote:Maybe I'm missing the point somewhere, but I don't really understand your position Dan.

First at its core, i don't care about the orb or any of the Orb rules as the are used infrequently.

My fear is progression toward the DBM situation of being unable to contact someone and other insanity. I fear a spirit of exploitation of the rules rather than a fun game.

At its core I think the orb rules were designed (perhaps badly written) to only allow equal number of bases in the front rank for the attacker and the orb'd. No overlaps. That seems designed to prevent superior numbers. The Orb'd person lacks many POAs which is how you are supposed to beat them I suppose.

So I applaud Sir Phil for this and many other attempts to get the authors to work some of the bugs out. But there are players who look for bugs as a way to win a game. That is not good in my view.

I think I've made my point plenty of times and will retire in hopes of seeing Quiz 6.

hazelbark wrote:So I applaud Sir Phil for this and many other attempts to get the authors to work some of the bugs out. ... I think I've made my point plenty of times and will retire in hopes of seeing Quiz 6.

Ah, so now you're singing from THE same carol sheet under choirmaster Sir Phil. Glad to see you're in the spirit of the season.

viperofmilan wrote:I know I would, because impact foot cannot form orb.

Call them Spartans instead then

And fight with only 1/4 of their bases in each direction if they could - so it would be 2 dice for you against 1 for the orbed Romans.
Kevin

But half of those are front rank and half are rear rank. Which is two seperate bits of bases. Does that count as 2 bases? 2-12 bases a quarter of which fight in each direction. One eighth fornt rank, one eighth rear. How many dice. It could be getting a bit complex there.

What happens when the Orb is a 12 base BG. How many dice? 2 and a half dice/Bases, 1 and a quarter in each rank. They have the same frontage as an eight or a four orb. Do the enemy still only get 2 dice or do they get 4 or 3?

(Note this is not Q5)

Who said the legionaries were impact foot?

OK, so my example is still flawed in the details even so. Let's not get too hung up on that.

The point is I still say the purpose of Orb is to guard against flank/rear attacks, not prevent a bigger unit or multiple units getting greater numbers into the fight.

>At its core I think the orb rules were designed (perhaps badly written) to only allow equal number of bases in the front >rank for the attacker and the orb'd. No overlaps. That seems designed to prevent superior numbers.

And this is where I disagree - I think you are starting with what you interpret to be the intention, and then using that to argue how the rules should be interpreted to fit that presumed intention.

Another possible interpretation of intent would be that superior numbers are still presumed to have an effect, it was understood that the RAW would allow the attackers to get twice as many dice over the 2 files in contact, i.e. *effectively* an overlap, so allowing normal overalsp in addition would be too much.

>My fear is progression toward the DBM situation of being unable to contact someone and other insanity. I >fear a spirit of exploitation of the rules rather than a fun game.

I can sympathise with that, although I don't think something like this is in quite the same category. In the ideal world everybody would have the same understanding of what the rules are, whether they like or agree with all of them or not (and I know there are plenty in FoG that I don't!). So there would be no nasty shocks and no feeling of having been cheated, or your ignorance or misunderstanding exploited.

What happens when the Orb is a 12 base BG. How many dice? 2 and a half dice/Bases, 1 and a quarter in each rank. They have the same frontage as an eight or a four orb. Do the enemy still only get 2 dice or do they get 4 or 3?

(Note this is not Q5)

BG in orb:
4 bases - 1 base fights (front rank only)
6 bases - 1.5 bases rounded up so 2 bases fight (1 front and 1 in 2nd rank)
8 bases - 2 bases fight.
10 bases - 2.25 bases so 3 fight (2 front and 1 in 2nd rank). Enemy have 2 bases to contact in front rank so they get 2 files or 4 dice vs 3 for orb.
12 bases - 3 bases fight.

This is another reason to go with the calculated bases fighting and not those making physical contact with a representational presentation of the orb. Otherwise, we are fighting 4 dice to 1 against a 4 base BG in orb and 4 dice to 3 against a 12 base BG. If a BG reduces its frontage and can't be overlapped, wouldn't it make sense that the enemy could get less manpower in contact?

It was still a good quiz question. Looking forward to the next one.

bbotus wrote:

What happens when the Orb is a 12 base BG. How many dice? 2 and a half dice/Bases, 1 and a quarter in each rank. They have the same frontage as an eight or a four orb. Do the enemy still only get 2 dice or do they get 4 or 3?

(Note this is not Q5)

BG in orb:
4 bases - 1 base fights (front rank only)
6 bases - 1.5 bases rounded up so 2 bases fight (1 front and 1 in 2nd rank)
8 bases - 2 bases fight.
10 bases - 2.25 bases so 3 fight (2 front and 1 in 2nd rank). Enemy have 2 bases to contact in front rank so they get 2 files or 4 dice vs 3 for orb.
12 bases - 3 bases fight.

This is another reason to go with the calculated bases fighting and not those making physical contact with a representational presentation of the orb. Otherwise, we are fighting 4 dice to 1 against a 4 base BG in orb and 4 dice to 3 against a 12 base BG. If a BG reduces its frontage and can't be overlapped, wouldn't it make sense that the enemy could get less manpower in contact?

It was still a good quiz question. Looking forward to the next one.

My last post on this one.

That's not an unreasonable way to play it if both players agree. But don't be surprised if others play it as the rules say. This isn't a question of interpretation (so I'm surprised people have called it that). The rules are clear, just not intuitive.