Slitherine

gozerius wrote:You want me to accept that the unit shifts 100 meters to the side because the last guy on the base bumped into the first guy in line of the enemy base, rather than following the example of play which shows that the base lines up with the enemy by the shortest move. This may result in the conforming base still in contact with the original base, but only at the corner, because the impetus of the charge has brought the rest of the unit into contact with the base directly in front of it. You are ignoring the illustrated example so that you can interpret the meaning of the term "bases in contact" to only apply to those bases directly in contact with the charging bases

Since conforming is by base then yes - that is the only interpretation you can take. Which makes this sentence nonsensical

rather than applying to all the bases in the contacted line.

The examples clearly show that the intent of the rule is that the bases shift by the shortest move to line up with the enemy bases of the contacted BGs. Otherwise the "simple conform" illustrated would have the bases lining up with one base in front edge contact with the originally contacted base, and one in overlap, since neither base touched the second enemy base.

The intent of the rule is that you line up with the base you contact. That's why it states: "conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base". You can't simply say that the rule means something else than that which is written?

I understand that lining up with only those bases originally contacted has certain advantages to the charger, since a slight wheel can be made to bring only a corner into contact with an enemy front, thereby avoiding contacting that which is directly in front of the charger. But it is illogical and bad form to insist that a rules interpretation which contradicts the examples of play is valid. Barring an official errata retracting the information in the illustration.

If you try to avoid contacting the base to your front there are strict rules around this and the base not contacted can always intercept if it is part of another unit - which it logically would be as you would be attempting to avoid a different troop type than the one you are hitting.

So your point is that the diagram is correct barring an official errata? So what about the rules - you tell me the diagram is correct, but I state the rules are correct. You can't ignore the rules just because they don't agree with how you would like the game to be played.

dave_r wrote:The intent of the rule is that you line up with the base you contact. That's why it states: "conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base". You can't simply say that the rule means something else than that which is written?

Just going by what you've written there Dave, I don't see that it does clearly state that you line up bases contacted. It just says front edge contact with an enemy base. It doesn't say the base that has been contacted.

I really don't care which way the rule is interpreted, but I don't see it as cut and dried as you're saying just based on that line.

I don't have V2 so I can't read the section to get my own mind made up.

Gozerius makes an excellent point - the diagram is clear if you rely upon it in isolation. Unfortunately for many of us, a strict interpretation of the rules as written can lead to some bizarre situations which had we still had active author involvement could be easily resolved.

But most / all of the authors have moved on so we need to reach our own conclusions. As long as you play it consistently within your own group it isn't really a problem.

FWIW I agree with Dave R and Graham Briggs. There are too many other examples within the rules where the diagrams are just plain wrong. And I think this another one.

So play it as you prefer. It only becomes a problem if you change groups or play in competitions.

The BHGS is close to publishing some clarifications as instigated by Rob Taylor which should provide some clarity and consistency for UK players and hopefully also be adopted elsewhere too. I am reliably informed that they should be out there by the end of January.

Watch this space.

FWIW I agree with Gozerius.

I assume it's worth shit though

philqw78 wrote:FWIW I agree with Gozerius.

I assume it's worth shit though

Phil is correct.

Just to add shit to the mix, if you had two BG's PERFECTLY parallel to one another but offset by 5mm from perfect line up, how would they line up?

How is the above different from a BG that charges so that the corner contacts 5mm in to the base edge?

I think you would line up the bG's so that they are in front contact then slide to conform by the shortest move.

gozerius wrote:Dave,
As usual, my argument is that the diagrams are integral to the understanding of the rules. To say "the rule says this but the diagram shows that, therefore ignore the diagram" is to me like saying the rules interpret themselves. So why include diagrams in the first place? Just to confuse the unwary? I don't think so. Conforming by the shortest route necessary brings all bases into contact with the least lateral shifting, whereas exclusively conforming only those bases initially in contact with each other causes all sorts of unnecessary shifting, especially when bases strike at an angle and only contact with a corner. You are playing with boxes rather than units of men. But the boxes represent units of men and should perform as such. A unit of men presses forward into the men directly in front of them. It doesn't sidestep to fight somebody else just because Bjorn got his shield tangled in the spear of the last guy of the yellow jersey band.

I'm a bit late to the party here but I do agree that the diagrams are part of the rules. Generally, they illustrate what the rules mean and looking at a diagram is usually easier than navigating a forest of words. Usually, of course, they sit very well with the words in the rules. Sometimes they add to the words without conflicting.

Unfortunately, this is an example where a digram seems to somewhat conflict with the words in the rules - I for one can't come up with something that fits both the words and the diagrams 100%. Fortunately, it's usually the case that having conformed you can subsequently feed a file in and things work out, so it's rare that this is a big issue in games.

grahambriggs wrote:it's usually the case that having conformed you can subsequently feed a file in and things work out, so it's rare that this is a big issue in games.

But after conforming you can feed in a file that doesn't actually feed in (ending up 7 bases or more away from the actual melee)
(see moan in previous thread)

But, apparently, some 'great' and 'good' people allegedly sponsored by the BHGS, are going to put all this right
Though this may be subject to credibility failure, dependant upon the authors named when the document is released. Dave??

QED
http://www.bhgs.org.uk/news/bhgs-umpire ... -published
And skimped on the explanation for this thread
But if this is the way it is to be played, this is the way it is to be played

Thanks for the work guys, even though I don't agree with some of it

philqw78 wrote:QED
http://www.bhgs.org.uk/news/bhgs-umpire ... -published
And skimped on the explanation for this thread
But if this is the way it is to be played, this is the way it is to be played

Thanks for the work guys, even though I don't agree with some of it

This sounds like a crock to me.

Take a look at the diagram on the bottom of page 4.

If the unit coming down the page was the active player, and they had done a 0.0001mm wheel to the left, they would conform the other way?

So, 0.0001mm is enough to move a whole league one direction or another.

Thanks for the work guys, even though I don't agree with some of it

Thanks Phil - there is a lot of your input in there from previous discussions which you should recognise. And TBH I think we all compromised to a greater or lesser extent. The sole aim is to provide clarity and consistency to help players with ambiguous situations - there are no major game changers in there.

ravenflight wrote: Take a look at the diagram on the bottom of page 4.

If the unit coming down the page was the active player, and they had done a 0.0001mm wheel to the left, they would conform the other way?

So, 0.0001mm is enough to move a whole league one direction or another.

The have used the same diagram that started this thread

philqw78 wrote:

ravenflight wrote: Take a look at the diagram on the bottom of page 4.

If the unit coming down the page was the active player, and they had done a 0.0001mm wheel to the left, they would conform the other way?

So, 0.0001mm is enough to move a whole league one direction or another.

The have used the same diagram that started this thread

It seemed like quite a good example

ravenflight wrote:This sounds like a crock to me.

Take a look at the diagram on the bottom of page 4.

If the unit coming down the page was the active player, and they had done a 0.0001mm wheel to the left, they would conform the other way?

So, 0.0001mm is enough to move a whole league one direction or another.

Ah! Got you. The tiny one, that doesn't look nearly as important, but has a far greater bearing on this thread.

You are correct and that is the bit they have skimped over.

philqw78 wrote:

ravenflight wrote:This sounds like a crock to me.

Take a look at the diagram on the bottom of page 4.

If the unit coming down the page was the active player, and they had done a 0.0001mm wheel to the left, they would conform the other way?

So, 0.0001mm is enough to move a whole league one direction or another.

Ah! Got you. The tiny one, that doesn't look nearly as important, but has a far greater bearing on this thread.

You are correct and that is the bit they have skimped over.

It would not be legal to wheel as this would result in less dice being thrown at impact.

dave_r wrote:It would not be legal to wheel as this would result in less dice being thrown at impact.

No it wouldn't

What we are saying is if each charging base touched first with its front right corner that corner would still hit in almost exactly the same place but the base would conform to somewhere completely different

philqw78 wrote:

dave_r wrote:It would not be legal to wheel as this would result in less dice being thrown at impact.

No it wouldn't

What we are saying is if each charging base touched first with its front right corner that corner would still hit in almost exactly the same place but the base would conform to somewhere completely different

No, if it wheeled both charging bases would hit the same base?

If you wheel far enough to contact both bases then yes, it being an entirely different scenario, something entirely different happens.

Hitting the end of a BG brings the overlap position at the end of the BG into play, which in the case of the small diagram at the bottom of BHGS P4 means valid places to conform to are the two enemy bases you've hit, and the overlap positon of the BG. So you have to work out which is the smallest move - the one shown. A tiny wheel won't stop this being the shortest. conform move.

It's the overlap position at the end of the BG that does this. If, on the other hand, there were no such overlap position (say you're charging into the middle of a wider BG) it changes the situation significantly. Then, you must do the conform to the enemy bases in contact only, and hitting the enemy flush with your front edge can have a different result to a slight wheel.

dave_r wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

dave_r wrote:It would not be legal to wheel as this would result in less dice being thrown at impact.

No it wouldn't

What we are saying is if each charging base touched first with its front right corner that corner would still hit in almost exactly the same place but the base would conform to somewhere completely different

No, if it wheeled both charging bases would hit the same base?

If you wheel far enough to contact both bases then yes, it being an entirely different scenario, something entirely different happens.

Are you on drugs Dave? I'm talking about a microscopic wheel. So Microscopic that you would need an electron microscope to see the gap between the right hand edges... but it would be there.

My point being that one of the design tenants of FoG has been avoidance of gamey crap and the lack of advantage in geometric ploys.

I am NOT talking about the diagram with the archers knights and elephants, I'm talking about the one that is 'at the bottom of page 4'.

They (presumably started parallel to one another... what if the active player WANTED to conform the other way because he's a gamey shit. All he has to do is the most minor of wheels... so minor you can't see it... but it's still there... 'and now I conform the other direction'.

ravenflight wrote: Are you on drugs Dave? I'm talking about a microscopic wheel. So Microscopic that you would need an electron microscope to see the gap between the right hand edges... but it would be there.

My point being that one of the design tenants of FoG has been avoidance of gamey crap and the lack of advantage in geometric ploys.

I am NOT talking about the diagram with the archers knights and elephants, I'm talking about the one that is 'at the bottom of page 4'.

They (presumably started parallel to one another... what if the active player WANTED to conform the other way because he's a gamey shit. All he has to do is the most minor of wheels... so minor you can't see it... but it's still there... 'and now I conform the other direction'.

With a microscopic wheel you'll only contact one base which makes it illegal.