Can't turn wont turn

[dave_r]

.

An easy way out.

Did you read gozerius' reference (Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2) showing that troops hit in the flank don't turn 180 before you replied? That should pretty much close this thread.

Haven't had a chance to look at the rules yet.

Right, had a look at the diagram on page 175. I strongly suspect that the diagram is wrong - if we are to believe the diagram then both of the bases contact by the charge would turn 90 degrees. Which would end up with two knight bases facing to the left (with the pictures shown so far) and the two remaining bases degrees and the charging BG being unable to conform. However, because the one base is in contact with enemy it wouldn't turn.

Given that the text of the diagram on page 175 contradicts the rules on page 61 which state:

"Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers, using the normal rules for turning..."

Then the precedence is that the rules are correct and the diagrams are wrong (there are other instances in the rulebook of this occurring)

Otherwise if both bases contacted hadn't been fighting enemy then both would have had to turn 90 degrees which isn't right.

[bbotus]

Otherwise if both bases contacted hadn't been fighting enemy then both would have had to turn 90 degrees which isn't right.

Why isn't it right? It is exactly as per the rule you quoted.

Would you response change if it were cav in a single line instead of knights since cav can fight in 2 ranks?

I see no contradiction between the rules and diagram in this case.

[dave_r]

Otherwise if both bases contacted hadn't been fighting enemy then both would have had to turn 90 degrees which isn't right.

Why isn't it right? It is exactly as per the rule you quoted.

Would you response change if it were cav in a single line instead of knights since cav can fight in 2 ranks?

No.

I see no contradiction between the rules and diagram in this case.

The contradiction is obvious
- on page 175 it states they can't turn 90 degrees therefore they don't turn
- On page 61 it states you turn either 90 degrees or 180 degrees

If you can't see a contradiction then you aren't reading the rules carefully enough.

[gozerius]

I knew that would be your reply. If the evidence contradicts what you want, you disregard the evidence.

[dave_r]

I knew that would be your reply. If the evidence contradicts what you want, you disregard the evidence.

So are you claiming the rules don't contradict each other?

[paullongmore]

Under his interpretation that on a flank charge you turn 90 and on a rear 180 there is actually not a contradiction as since it cant turn 90 it doesnt turn (i.e. it doesn't just turn 180 instead).

After initially thinking he was wrong in that it just stopped a step forward I have realised that its actually how I would instinctively play it. Without looking at the rules I would have just turned the base hit in the flank 90 degrees. (obviously this isn't in line with the diagram which says you don't turn)
The reason for me is that with a 90 degree turn for a flank charge you do conform to the flank on a flank charge whereas a 180 makes you conform to the rear which feels wrong and I can imagine feeling aggrieved if that set me up for being charged in the flank or rear.

Paul Longmore

[grahambriggs]

Graham, thanks on the diagram comment. Gozerius found the reference and zoltan summed it up nicely:

Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2

So this appears to confirm the following:

1. Troops hit in the flank only have the option of turning 90 degrees to face the enemy, not 180 degrees
2. If there is insufficient room for the troops to turn 90 degrees due to the position of enemy bases, they do not turn at all
3. If the troops do not turn at all, they still count as if they have been hit in the flank

In an example where troops were hit in both the front and in the flank by separate opponents, but were unable to turn 90 degrees to face the flank charge due to interposing enemy, it would appear that they do not suffer a - for fighting in two directions; because the do not face in two directions.

I still have a nagging question in the back of my mind. If the flank charging BG is the reason the defender can't turn a base, would the authors still not let the base turn? We'll probably never get that answer.

Was waiting to respond on this diagram until I had a chance to look at it properly. I'm not sure it helps much as the example is different. I don't think you can argue that if it contradicts with the rules you can ignore it. The diagrams are after all part of the rules. So I think you need to try and make the two work together.

"These two bases would turn 90 if there was room to do so. As there is no space, due to the enemy cavalry having charged the rear, they stay where they are." It would have been nice in this case to have a little more explanation but we don't have that.

So why would they turn 90 if there was room to do so? The flank charge rule says "bases contacted on a side or rear edge rear edge or rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers." Unfortunately, it doesn't really say what it means by "the chargers" I think it's safe to assume it doesn't mean the other two BGs who are charging the legion elsewhere. It could mean to face generally the BG that is charging it or it could mean to face the base that is touching it. It's a bit unclear but on balance I think most people would go with "face the one that's touching you" as that is 'up close and personal'.

So in the diagram we have the top right legionary base which is contacted on it's side edge. That can only face the touching base by a turn of 90. We also have the bottom right base of legion contacted on a rear corner. That one would face the base touching it if you turned it 90. And it would also do so if you turned it 180. So I think you have one base that wants to turn 90 and one that want to turn 90 or 180. But the rule says "bases....are...turned" which seems to me that they both turn the same way. Hence they want to turn 90, as if they turned 180 then one would not be facing the base that hit it.

In the original posting the situation is somewhat different. In that case, there's just the one base and if you turn it 180 it does face the base in contact.

Of course, if you read the rule as "flank charge turn 90, rear charge turn 180", you can say 'of course they turn 90, as it's a flank charge'. So the diagram doesn't add much as the key question is "why do they want to turn 90 in the diagram?" which isn't really answered!

Amusingly, the written rule seems to give them no option but to turn, but the diagram says they don't.

[pyruse]

Otherwise if both bases contacted hadn't been fighting enemy then both would have had to turn 90 degrees which isn't right.

Why isn't it right? It is exactly as per the rule you quoted.

Would you response change if it were cav in a single line instead of knights since cav can fight in 2 ranks?

No.

I see no contradiction between the rules and diagram in this case.

The contradiction is obvious
- on page 175 it states they can't turn 90 degrees therefore they don't turn
- On page 61 it states you turn either 90 degrees or 180 degrees

If you can't see a contradiction then you aren't reading the rules carefully enough.

There's no contradiction there.
You turn 90 degrees if hit from the flank, 180 degrees if hit from the rear. It's not a choice.
The fact that it is not a choice is made clear by the example on page 175; if hit from the flank and unable to turn 90 degrees you don't turn at all.
Likewise if hit from the rear and unable to turn 180 degrees you don't turn at all.

So - nice try, but no cigar.

[dave_r]

That's not what the rule on page 61 states though. Nowhere does it say that for a flank charge you turn 90 and a rear charge you turn 180.

That is only what people _want_ the rule to say.

How difficult is this to understand?

[grahambriggs]

That's not what the rule on page 61 states though. Nowhere does it say that for a flank charge you turn 90 and a rear charge you turn 180.

That is only what people _want_ the rule to say.

How difficult is this to understand?

I think this might be a "divided by a common language" issue, since it seems clear to some that it means one thing and clear to others that it means another.

[dave_r]

That's not what the rule on page 61 states though. Nowhere does it say that for a flank charge you turn 90 and a rear charge you turn 180.

That is only what people _want_ the rule to say.

How difficult is this to understand?

I think this might be a "divided by a common language" issue, since it seems clear to some that it means one thing and clear to others that it means another.

Possibly. Taking a different tack, the rule states the base is turned to face the charger.

Presumably that must mean being turned 180 then?

[grahambriggs]

Possibly. Taking a different tack, the rule states the base is turned to face the charger.

Presumably that must mean being turned 180 then?

it says bases contacted by a charge are turned "to face the chargers". Which raises the question 'what does that mean exactly?' Does it mean you have to face:

- all of the BG that charged? (usually impossible)
- as many bases as possible of the BG that charged?
- the base that actually contacted your base?

I suspect most likely the last (given the context) but it's far from clear. I think this is why in the apprendix diagram the bases would like to turn 90 - because that's the only way the top right legion base will face the cavalry that's hit it.

[dave_r]

Possibly. Taking a different tack, the rule states the base is turned to face the charger.

Presumably that must mean being turned 180 then?

it says bases contacted by a charge are turned "to face the chargers". Which raises the question 'what does that mean exactly?' Does it mean you have to face:

- all of the BG that charged? (usually impossible)
- as many bases as possible of the BG that charged?
- the base that actually contacted your base?

I suspect most likely the last (given the context) but it's far from clear. I think this is why in the apprendix diagram the bases would like to turn 90 - because that's the only way the top right legion base will face the cavalry that's hit it.

Which seems reasonable and would explain the diagram in the appendix is written how it is.

The big problem with turning 90 is that the charging BG must be shifted, for which there isn't really a mechanism and it would likely result in less bases in contact, which is very wrong as it would make a huge difference to the impact.

[pyruse]

That's not what the rule on page 61 states though. Nowhere does it say that for a flank charge you turn 90 and a rear charge you turn 180.

That is only what people _want_ the rule to say.

How difficult is this to understand?

It does say that. I agree it could be clearer.
It says a base hit in flank or rear turns 90 or 180 degrees.
If it had the word 'respectively' on the end it would be much clearer.
The example later on clarifies what is meant, so what is difficult to understand is why you are unwilling to accept that.

[dave_r]

That's not what the rule on page 61 states though. Nowhere does it say that for a flank charge you turn 90 and a rear charge you turn 180.

That is only what people _want_ the rule to say.

How difficult is this to understand?

It does say that. I agree it could be clearer.
It says a base hit in flank or rear turns 90 or 180 degrees.
If it had the word 'respectively' on the end it would be much clearer.
The example later on clarifies what is meant, so what is difficult to understand is why you are unwilling to accept that.

I've quoted the rule in a post above. It absolutely does not state you turn 90 degrees for a flank charge and 180 degrees for a rear charge

the example later on does not clarify this - it is a different situation and does not explain the reasoning as described in grahams post above.

[bbotus]

dave_r, I could better understand your argument if this were V1 where the flank and rear were not defined. Therefore, a charge on the corner could possibly conform to flank or rear. And I will grant you that if the authors had added the word "respectively" it would be absolutely clear. But this has changed in V2.

The authors frequently say they are trying to keep the rules simple and as brief as possible. They wrote the rules accordingly. You are certainly free to disagree but I think it is fair to say the authors approached this with the general assumption that if someone said they were charged in the flank, we would all imagine the troops turning roughly 90 to face the charge (not 180). That assumption explains their comment in the page 175 diagram.

[gozerius]

Graham, thanks on the diagram comment. Gozerius found the reference and zoltan summed it up nicely:

Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2

So this appears to confirm the following:

1. Troops hit in the flank only have the option of turning 90 degrees to face the enemy, not 180 degrees
2. If there is insufficient room for the troops to turn 90 degrees due to the position of enemy bases, they do not turn at all
3. If the troops do not turn at all, they still count as if they have been hit in the flank

In an example where troops were hit in both the front and in the flank by separate opponents, but were unable to turn 90 degrees to face the flank charge due to interposing enemy, it would appear that they do not suffer a - for fighting in two directions; because the do not face in two directions.

I still have a nagging question in the back of my mind. If the flank charging BG is the reason the defender can't turn a base, would the authors still not let the base turn? We'll probably never get that answer.

Was waiting to respond on this diagram until I had a chance to look at it properly. I'm not sure it helps much as the example is different. I don't think you can argue that if it contradicts with the rules you can ignore it. The diagrams are after all part of the rules. So I think you need to try and make the two work together.

"These two bases would turn 90 if there was room to do so. As there is no space, due to the enemy cavalry having charged the rear, they stay where they are." It would have been nice in this case to have a little more explanation but we don't have that.

So why would they turn 90 if there was room to do so? The flank charge rule says "bases contacted on a side or rear edge rear edge or rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers." Unfortunately, it doesn't really say what it means by "the chargers" I think it's safe to assume it doesn't mean the other two BGs who are charging the legion elsewhere. It could mean to face generally the BG that is charging it or it could mean to face the base that is touching it. It's a bit unclear but on balance I think most people would go with "face the one that's touching you" as that is 'up close and personal'.

So in the diagram we have the top right legionary base which is contacted on it's side edge. That can only face the touching base by a turn of 90. We also have the bottom right base of legion contacted on a rear corner. That one would face the base touching it if you turned it 90. And it would also do so if you turned it 180. So I think you have one base that wants to turn 90 and one that want to turn 90 or 180. But the rule says "bases....are...turned" which seems to me that they both turn the same way. Hence they want to turn 90, as if they turned 180 then one would not be facing the base that hit it.

In the original posting the situation is somewhat different. In that case, there's just the one base and if you turn it 180 it does face the base in contact.

Of course, if you read the rule as "flank charge turn 90, rear charge turn 180", you can say 'of course they turn 90, as it's a flank charge'. So the diagram doesn't add much as the key question is "why do they want to turn 90 in the diagram?" which isn't really answered!

Amusingly, the written rule seems to give them no option but to turn, but the diagram says they don't.

The diagram on page 175 is a follow on to the one on page 62. They show the difference between a flank charge and a rear charge. The diagram on 175 clarifies the disputed statement on page 61 by demonstrating that bases contacted by a rear charge turn 180, bases contacted on a rear corner in a flank charge do not turn 180, but do turn 90 if not blocked by enemy. Just as a FAQ brings clarity to the interpretation of a rule, so too, and with more authority, do examples of play, which illustrate the proper application of the written rules, and are provided to eliminate any misunderstanding.

[petedalby]

I've followed this one with interest.

The OP was an unusual situation which will only happen very occasionally. I'm not sure I know what the right answer is - in a game you just try and do what seems fair and reasonable. And if you can't agree, roll a dice or call an umpire.

But in 99% of flank charges, the contacted base will turn 90 degrees to face the charger. In 99% of rear charges, a contacted base will turn 180 degrees to face the charger.

[bbotus]

I've followed this one with interest.

The OP was an unusual situation which will only happen very occasionally. I'm not sure I know what the right answer is - in a game you just try and do what seems fair and reasonable. And if you can't agree, roll a dice or call an umpire.

But in 99% of flank charges, the contacted base will turn 90 degrees to face the charger. In 99% of rear charges, a contacted base will turn 180 degrees to face the charger.

Yes, and there is room to turn 90 in the OP. The angle has to get fairly severe before the charging BG interferes with the turn. Something around 45 or more on the rear corner.

[paullongmore]

Yes, and there is room to turn 90 in the OP. The angle has to get fairly severe before the charging BG interferes with the turn. Something around 45 or more on the rear corner.

I don't understand this comment I would have thought any angle past perpendicular i.e. any contact with a rear corner would theoretically stop anyone turning 90 unless they were 40mm deep bases , if you assume that the charger is immovable and you only attempt to turn when contacted. I think most of us tend to turn them 90 without thinking about this.