Slitherine

gozerius wrote:Thank you SD.

Not a problem. But, despite the thrill of debating with dave_r, there are more pressing and mundane matters - like re-basing my 1806-07 Prussians in preparation for the release of FoG:N.

Therefore I must exit the debate.

dave_r wrote:

gozerius wrote:The rules for feeding more bases do not explicitly allow a BG to become seperated.

But they do because the battle group is exempt from being in a normal formation.

Dave, you are full of shit

philqw78 wrote:

dave_r wrote:

gozerius wrote:The rules for feeding more bases do not explicitly allow a BG to become seperated.

But they do because the battle group is exempt from being in a normal formation.

Dave, you are full of shit

Been drinking have we Phil?

I just want to know what happens in this particular scenario. To be brutally honest, I'm not interested in people's opinion unless it is backed up by hard evidence.

It _could_ be argued that the exeption on page 23 for BG's fighting in two directions only applies to the part about having to have all bases facing in the same direction. However, it could also be argued just as effectively that the exception applies to all parts as per the statement "there are four exceptions to this general case".

The rules on page 72 and 73 also don't mention anything about having to maintain base to base contact. But there is a bit of a wooly statement on page 22 regarding mainting base to base contact.

Apparently, this was ruled by Shipman that there was no requirement to maintain base to base contact whilst expanding as the spirit of the rules (on page 72/73) is that all bases end up fighting eventually. And that there is nothing stated explicitly that a BG must remain in contact with other parts.

The hard evidence is that the blanket prohibition on page 22 is only exempted explicitly (as required by the wording on page 22) when dealing with bases seperated during a partial interpenetration.
That is sufficient evidence for me.

Let us be clear that there are many instances where a BG can be forced out of normal formation, but in all but the case involving partial interpenetration, there is a mechanism to ensure that the change does not lead to bases being seperated.
A column kinks, but the bases at the break remain in corner contact.
A partial interpenetration occurs, but the two parts of the seperated BG must remain in contact with the BG being interpenetrated.
Bases stepping forward cannot step forward past the point which would cause a file to lose contact with the rest of the BG
A base turning in response to being contacted by a flank charge or an enemy turning to contact a side edge during the maneuver phase must be shifted back, if necessary, to maintain contact with the rest of its BG.
A base being removed must be replaced, and the other front rank bases must shuffle over to fill gaps if there are no non front rank bases remaining.

None of these instances would suggest that feeding bases into melee, a voluntary action, would allow a BG to seperate. Furthermore, there is no explicit exemption in "the feeding bases in" rules that permit a BG to seperate.

gozerius wrote:The hard evidence is that the blanket prohibition on page 22 is only exempted explicitly (as required by the wording on page 22) when dealing with bases seperated during a partial interpenetration.
That is sufficient evidence for me.

Let us be clear that there are many instances where a BG can be forced out of normal formation, but in all but the case involving partial interpenetration, there is a mechanism to ensure that the change does not lead to bases being seperated.
A column kinks, but the bases at the break remain in corner contact.
A partial interpenetration occurs, but the two parts of the seperated BG must remain in contact with the BG being interpenetrated.
Bases stepping forward cannot step forward past the point which would cause a file to lose contact with the rest of the BG
A base turning in response to being contacted by a flank charge or an enemy turning to contact a side edge during the maneuver phase must be shifted back, if necessary, to maintain contact with the rest of its BG.
A base being removed must be replaced, and the other front rank bases must shuffle over to fill gaps if there are no non front rank bases remaining.

None of these instances would suggest that feeding bases into melee, a voluntary action, would allow a BG to seperate. Furthermore, there is no explicit exemption in "the feeding bases in" rules that permit a BG to seperate.

But as previously noted - none of these are relevant as they don't allow the BG to break contact. There is nothing in the section regarding feeding bases into melee which mentions this. Page 22 is largely irrelevant as it states exceptions are covered by the rules - which they are on page 23.

Unless you can come up with something more tangible within the rules, then there is nothing to say you can't make a gap.

Yes.

I had realised after imbibing enough that it is pointless arguing with the ridiculous as there is no reasonable counter.

So the only course is to stand by the view

You are full of shit

dave_r wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

dave_r wrote: But they do because the battle group is exempt from being in a normal formation.

Dave, you are full of shit

Been drinking have we Phil?

I just want to know what happens in this particular scenario. To be brutally honest, I'm not interested in people's opinion unless it is backed up by hard evidence.

It _could_ be argued that the exeption on page 23 for BG's fighting in two directions only applies to the part about having to have all bases facing in the same direction. However, it could also be argued just as effectively that the exception applies to all parts as per the statement "there are four exceptions to this general case".

The rules on page 72 and 73 also don't mention anything about having to maintain base to base contact. But there is a bit of a wooly statement on page 22 regarding mainting base to base contact.

Apparently, this was ruled by Shipman that there was no requirement to maintain base to base contact whilst expanding as the spirit of the rules (on page 72/73) is that all bases end up fighting eventually. And that there is nothing stated explicitly that a BG must remain in contact with other parts.

I'm sure my reply will not be nearly as eloquent as Phil's but the sentiment might be similar.

Wargame rules are closed legal contracts otherwise they'd run on for several thousands of pages and result in far fewer games and many more wargame rules adjudication cases - to the great benefit of lawyers, I'm sure. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there weren't some degree of ambiguity or difference in interpretation of the "hard evidence" (i.e., word for word quotes from the rules versus paraphrases of the rules). Opinions different from yours are backed up, as much as yours, by the same hard evidence, but I suppose we could all take the view of not being interested in other people's opinions, which would mean little reason for a forum on the FoG rules.

MY OPINION....

You equate "exemption" with "exception". It's true that exemptions are a form of exception but there are many exceptions that are not exemptions. An exemption is a release from obligation while an exception might merely be a variance from the general case. The general rule on page 22 obliges BG's to be in a normal formation (edge / corner contact and facing the same way). The exceptions on pages 23 - in my opinion - are variations where the BG cannot conform with the general rules. In each case the rules explain why the BG can't conform....kinked columns will have bases facing in different directions as will BG's fighting in two different directions, Orbs have a prescribed positioning of the bases and compulsory moves take precedence to the general rule. In no case is there any indication of that a BG is allowed a complete exemption from the general rule....only exceptions where the BG is forced to not comply.

Normal practice is that one cannot assume full exemption when you are allowed an exception unless the exception explicitly states that. That's not the case here, so should assume that the exceptions are only as described. In general (!), if we are to assume full exemptions in wargame rules for exceptions unless the exceptions explicitly state there is not a full exemption we are on very shaky ground.

Anyway, Phil does have a point.

Also, Shipman's ruling is neither here nor there. It's just another opinion.

shadowdragon wrote:Also, Shipman's ruling is neither here nor there. It's just another opinion.

What you said exempting the above. Shipmans ruling does count as he is the most prolific mass murderer in recent UK history. He is also a writer of wargames rules a.k.a. Terry Shaw. Although the way Dave has quoted it is probably completely at odds with what was meant. And I allege he ruled differently.

For proof of this see.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/ship3.jpg
Exactly the same person
http://www.bhgs.co.uk/gallery/IWF2001/P ... layers.htm
The bottom right photo on the BHGS site.

dave_r wrote:The rules on page 72 and 73 also don't mention anything about having to maintain base to base contact. But there is a bit of a wooly statement on page 22 regarding mainting base to base contact.

Excuse me but this appears to be the exact reverse of your position on Wednesday evening!!
So my men fought with only two bases fighting in two directions and STILL f**ked both units!!
After catching the gilmen on the rear but that made very little difference.
But I am cooking Dave tea next week so he may find the pesto has a strange taste!!

dave_r wrote:

gozerius wrote:The hard evidence is that the blanket prohibition on page 22 is only exempted explicitly (as required by the wording on page 22) when dealing with bases seperated during a partial interpenetration.
That is sufficient evidence for me.

Let us be clear that there are many instances where a BG can be forced out of normal formation, but in all but the case involving partial interpenetration, there is a mechanism to ensure that the change does not lead to bases being seperated.
A column kinks, but the bases at the break remain in corner contact.
A partial interpenetration occurs, but the two parts of the seperated BG must remain in contact with the BG being interpenetrated.
Bases stepping forward cannot step forward past the point which would cause a file to lose contact with the rest of the BG
A base turning in response to being contacted by a flank charge or an enemy turning to contact a side edge during the maneuver phase must be shifted back, if necessary, to maintain contact with the rest of its BG.
A base being removed must be replaced, and the other front rank bases must shuffle over to fill gaps if there are no non front rank bases remaining.

None of these instances would suggest that feeding bases into melee, a voluntary action, would allow a BG to seperate. Furthermore, there is no explicit exemption in "the feeding bases in" rules that permit a BG to seperate.

But as previously noted - none of these are relevant as they don't allow the BG to break contact. There is nothing in the section regarding feeding bases into melee which mentions this. Page 22 is largely irrelevant as it states exceptions are covered by the rules - which they are on page 23.

Unless you can come up with something more tangible within the rules, then there is nothing to say you can't make a gap.

You have no idea how glad I am that you live in the UK and there is almost no chance I will ever have to play you. Gozerius has proven his point with facts in this discussion but you continue to argue black is white. Pedantic players such as yourself are what make competitions a bore.

Geoff

geoff wrote:You have no idea how glad I am that you live in the UK and there is almost no chance I will ever have to play you. Gozerius has proven his point with facts in this discussion but you continue to argue black is white. Pedantic players such as yourself are what make competitions a bore. Geoff

Excuse me again but slaging off Ruddock is our job not that of the convicts we exported 200 years ago!!

titanu wrote:

geoff wrote:You have no idea how glad I am that you live in the UK and there is almost no chance I will ever have to play you. Gozerius has proven his point with facts in this discussion but you continue to argue black is white. Pedantic players such as yourself are what make competitions a bore. Geoff

Excuse me again but slaging off Ruddock is our job not that of the convicts we exported 200 years ago!!

When you resort to insults you have already lost the argument. Usual post from Geoff in that the dummy comes out of the pram when something happens he doesn't like.

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:Also, Shipman's ruling is neither here nor there. It's just another opinion.

What you said exempting the above. Shipmans ruling does count as he is the most prolific mass murderer in recent UK history. He is also a writer of wargames rules a.k.a. Terry Shaw. Although the way Dave has quoted it is probably completely at odds with what was meant. And I allege he ruled differently.

For proof of this see.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/ship3.jpg
Exactly the same person
http://www.bhgs.co.uk/gallery/IWF2001/P ... layers.htm
The bottom right photo on the BHGS site.

Thanks for the photographic evidence.

I retract my statement. The ruling isn't irrelevant but very relevant. Based on my v2 beta experience, I conclude that if an author has ruled that gaps are allowed, then clearly gaps are NOT allowed. This is based on the general rule that an author's opinion is contrary to the truth of the RAW. There are occasional (very, very rare) exceptions to this general rule but there are NO EXEMPTIONS.

I really have to say, I am very pleased to live in the UK and play Mr Ruddock and Mr Amey regularly at competitions. They are on my list of opponents that I know I will get an absolutely fair game from and there will be no possibility of any acrimonious dispute.

I also enjoy their contributions on here, where the tone is a little diffent from the live experience

shadowdragon wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:Also, Shipman's ruling is neither here nor there. It's just another opinion.

What you said exempting the above. Shipmans ruling does count as he is the most prolific mass murderer in recent UK history. He is also a writer of wargames rules a.k.a. Terry Shaw. Although the way Dave has quoted it is probably completely at odds with what was meant. And I allege he ruled differently.

For proof of this see.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/ship3.jpg
Exactly the same person
http://www.bhgs.co.uk/gallery/IWF2001/P ... layers.htm
The bottom right photo on the BHGS site.

Thanks for the photographic evidence.

I retract my statement. The ruling isn't irrelevant but very relevant. Based on my v2 beta experience, I conclude that if an author has ruled that gaps are allowed, then clearly gaps are NOT allowed. This is based on the general rule that an author's opinion is contrary to the truth of the RAW. There are occasional (very, very rare) exceptions to this general rule but there are NO EXEMPTIONS.

I must admit that this was my first stance. However, after reading the rules, i must admit I changed my view and thought it was OK, despite it being from an author.

Can somebody write into v2 that under no circumstances should an author be allowed to umpire a competition?

dave_r wrote: Can somebody write into v2 that under no circumstances should an author be allowed to umpire a competition?

No.

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote: Can somebody write into v2 that under no circumstances should an author be allowed to umpire a competition?

No.

How about "Under no circumstances should one of the original three authors be allowed to umpire a competition"?

dave_r wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote: Can somebody write into v2 that under no circumstances should an author be allowed to umpire a competition?

No.

How about "Under no circumstances should one of the original three authors be allowed to umpire a competition"?

Nik is right in so far as his response pertains to authors. Is such a statement far too clear to have been written by an author? You asked "can somebody write..." (i.e., is someone able to write...); and the answer, by the admission of an author, is "no".

gozerius wrote:Graham,

The general rule on page 22 states

"Bases cannot be separated, except where this is specifically allowed by the rules."

The only exception mentioned in the rules that allows a BG to split is when partially interpenetrating friendly troops.

Aha! I see it. Lurking at the top of the page. My apologies, I thought by 'general principle' that you had extrapolated some broad implication. But it is there. I agree; specifically allowed would require the feeding in rules to say "and may seperate bases to do so".

So I've changed my mind and don't think the knights can feed in.

Interesting. What happens if the Knights lose a base? The base loss rules don't specifically let you lose contact. The base lost would be either that in contact with the LH or that in contact with the cavalry.

The rule is "Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions. All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions (except overlaps) must be filled if the battle group has any bases available to do so. Non-front rank bases must be used if any are available, and can be from any part of the battle group. If not, front rank bases that are not in close combat or are only in close combat as an overlap must be used. If there are no such bases available, and there is a gap in the front rank, front rank bases in close combat must be shifted sideways to fill the gap. The player owning the battle group chooses which direction to shift, but if possible, it must leave at least one base in contact with each opposing enemy battle group (except those fighting only as an overlap)."

I don't think any of this leaves you without a gap. So perhaps this is in conflict with the BG definition section?

rogerg wrote:I really have to say, I am very pleased to live in the UK and play Mr Ruddock and Mr Amey regularly at competitions. They are on my list of opponents that I know I will get an absolutely fair game from and there will be no possibility of any acrimonious dispute.

I also enjoy their contributions on here, where the tone is a little diffent from the live experience

I don't live in the UK. But I will agree the "live" DR is actually quite pleasant (a tad short) in person. but on the internet... Well he must replace his keyboard daily form the pounding it must take.