Slitherine

shadowdragon wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:.... especially when the Lord has bad eyesight or at least "impressions"

Watch out, I heard he does a mean Shipman impression.

Which Shipman? The British cricketer (Alan), serial killer (Harold) or driver (Mark)...or perhaps one of the many famous American Shipmans?

Harold

Miniature gaming, by its non-grid nature, will always have the occasional geometry problem that requires combining the rules with common sense. If that is unacceptable, there are lots of games played on good old reliable, unequivocal, hex maps.
Overwriting rules to make a single geometry problem 100% defined simply creates absurd loopholes for other situations.
Trust the ref in tourneys, and don't play friendly games with unfriendly people.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:so there is no basis on which to make a "ruling".

Surely as the rules author, you don't need a basis on which to make a ruling. If a point in the rules is ambiguous (which you have just stated this is) then you can make a ruling on it.

Many people would disagree with this, even if I was the sole rules author.

You often see people asking on here for the views of one of the authors. That is because they want an official ruling on an issue. I hardly think anyone would object to the rules authors clearing up an ambiguous point.

rbodleyscott wrote:And if you really think that the three authors are going to have a committee meeting to discuss and issue a ruling on each unusual situation discussed on the board......

It's hardly an unusual situation. I would guess you get an angled charge at east once per game on average. And as we have seen its a situation that is played in two different ways. It would be easy to clear up and get everyone playing it the same way.

DrQuahog wrote:Overwriting rules to make a single geometry problem 100% defined simply creates absurd loopholes for other situations.

It's not overwriting any rules. It's clearing up an ambiguity. Currently it get played in two different ways. If an official ruling states which way to play it, how can that create "absurd loopholes" ? It's just getting everyone on the same page.

Polkovnik wrote:

DrQuahog wrote:Overwriting rules to make a single geometry problem 100% defined simply creates absurd loopholes for other situations.

It's not overwriting any rules. It's clearing up an ambiguity. Currently it get played in two different ways. If an official ruling states which way to play it, how can that create "absurd loopholes" ? It's just getting everyone on the same page.

I don't know about loopholes, but Phil has given one illustration above where a nice and clear "pivot and then slide by the minimum" results in a situation where conforming isn't possible but where a "pivot and/or slide" by the "minimum" presents no such problem. One might also note that "pivot then slide by the mininum" is an artifical construct that has no equivalent on the battlefiled, hence it is arbitrary. I agree with Phil in that the "pivot and/or slide" are in no particular order and that the "minimum" refers to the movement of the unit as a whole (for simplicity use the furthest distance moved by any part) so that the unit as a whole occupies as near as possible the original area occupied by that unit.

My general philosophy is that getting people on the same page isn't required in all case - even in wargaming; and that getting people on the same page for a specific circumstance results in unintended consequences that result in more rules, more clarifications, more.... I've seen this approach in other areas (e.g. government procurement) and it does not produce clarity but confusion and ultimately rigor mortis. Arguably this is what happened with DBM.

You can also check with the foreign service. They will tell you "ambiguity is your friend", but can you trust diplomats?

rbodleyscott wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:Which Shipman? The British cricketer (Alan), serial killer (Harold) or driver (Mark)...or perhaps one of the many famous American Shipmans?

Harold

That depends on if Mark crashed into many bridges

I found this entire discussion to be enligtening in many aspects of life beyond wargaming.
I have 3 quotes from the string which will form the backbone of not only my gaming life in the future but my general real-life approach to things.

Number 1
The desire to have absolute clarity in all circumstances can only be accomplished in a fairly rigidly defined game like chess, checkers, go, etc. Rules for these are "closed contracts" (i.e., they define outcomes for all possible circumstances). In a free form game, like table top miniature wargames, all rules will be in the form of an "open contract". The desire to turn an "open contract' into a "closed contract" can only have one result in the end which is an incomprehensive, often contractictory, mammoth set of rules. (For example, check out government procurement rules....no, don't do that. Life is too short.) As I wrote above, an official "ruling" should only be for those circumstances which result in a systematic bias to the results
Number 2
Don't play friendly games with unfriendly people.

and of course..... Queue Dramatic Music.........

Number 3
-
-
-
-
-
It is C

I feel Number 3 should perhaps be etched in stone on a plaque hung on the wall at every tournamnet held.
Gino
SMAC

Gino,

Just make sure you get Ricky to understand that it is C before August 28.

We have played that way all along. I was not even aware that California had issues with the rule until Ryan posted it.

I will make sure that everyone knows no matter what the circumstance that 'It is C" wel before Hubcon.
Thank You
Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote:I Number 1
The desire to have absolute clarity in all circumstances can only be accomplished in a fairly rigidly defined game like chess, checkers, go, etc. Rules for these are "closed contracts" (i.e., they define outcomes for all possible circumstances). In a free form game, like table top miniature wargames, all rules will be in the form of an "open contract". The desire to turn an "open contract' into a "closed contract" can only have one result in the end which is an incomprehensive, often contractictory, mammoth set of rules. (For example, check out government procurement rules....no, don't do that. Life is too short.) As I wrote above, an official "ruling" should only be for those circumstances which result in a systematic bias to the results

Thanks for the citation, Gino. It allowed me to spot a typo....."incomprehensive" should have been "incomprehensible". Still it's worth considering that something could be both "mammoth" and "incomprehensive" (i.e., shallow) at the same time (e.g., the record of debate for any legislative assembly, compiled episodes of most TV shows, etc.).


Definitely need a monument for "It is C". The only shame is that Richard added further comments. There's no need for that as "It is C" is about as clear and definitive as you can get. Now if I can make that my forces will always be in a situation where outcome "C" (whatever the situation) favours them they'll wipe the opposition.

By the way, I used to work closely with / for the military. Now I work in a more ambiguous area. I miss the clarity of the military. Unfortunately I can't go back since I now see that much of that clarity was wrong.

The good Doctor said it was C in his first reply, then said I was correct, then said he couldn't be arsed. Take from that any form of clarity you wish and, since Nik agreed with me, don't come to Britcon and expect the same answer..

People are being very strange on this.

"It is C" clearly clarifies the fundamental question posed by the the california crew.

Going back the beginning. The core of the question was can the shortest distance be: to a base (or position) other than the base initially contacted in impact. The answer is 100% clear from RBS yes it may. California was never asking for a measurement they were basing their argument on same base to base front edge contact from impact to end of conform.

From that point each of us can measure our own games and determine what is "minimum"/"shortest".

There is also no sequence requirement to meet the shortest.

So this is clearly resolved. Asking for a RBS to measure an inaccurate diagram that does not even have proportional bases is a bit odd.

What he did answer clearly was to clear up the two fundamental questions posed. Thank you.

It is C.

Good to have you back Richard!

Even better when you agree with me!

philqw78 wrote:The good Doctor said it was C in his first reply, then said I was correct, then said he couldn't be arsed. Take from that any form of clarity you wish

Those that need clarity will find it, and then probably misapply it leading to far more confusion than was originally present. Such is the way of wargamers.

and, since Nik agreed with me, don't come to Britcon and expect the same answer..

My initial view was that it was B as that appeared to be the shortest move, which is the criteria Richard used for declaring C - we just viewed the diagram differently. At Britcon we will deal with how the elements lie on the table

As Dan says it would be best for people not to read too much into a rough and ready diagram and assume tablets of stone have been created - although the bit that was really confusing California (apparently), has indeed been solved.

hazelbark wrote:People are being very strange on this.

Possibly because for the majority the "California issue" - can you conform to an overlap - wasn't an issue, so it all devolved into what was the shortest move.

nikgaukroger wrote:

and, since Nik agreed with me, don't come to Britcon and expect the same answer..

My initial view was that it was B as that appeared to be the shortest move, which is the criteria Richard used for declaring C - we just viewed the diagram differently.

Exactly so.

And there is no special order for pivoting and shifting - they can do the hokey-cokey for all it matters.

Likewise it doesn't matter which order bases are moved in, or even if you have to move two or more conforming bases (from the same or different BGs) simultaneously in order to achieve conformation.

The idea is to achieve the maximum amount of conformation. There is no advantage in any artificial restrictions that make conformation less likely to be possible.

rbodleyscott wrote:There is no advantage in any artificial restrictions that make conformation less likely to be possible.

Damn! ....er, darn (...the children could be reading these posts). There goes the value of all my artificial terrain. I guess it's trips to places like the bonsai store for little trees. Does anyone know if they bonsai them to typical wargaming scales?

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

and, since Nik agreed with me, don't come to Britcon and expect the same answer..

My initial view was that it was B as that appeared to be the shortest move, which is the criteria Richard used for declaring C - we just viewed the diagram differently.

Exactly so.

But it still doesn't clarify what you mean by shortest move. Do you measure front corners (which might both have a different shortest conform position) or centre of the base. Centre of the base seems to make more sense to me, if we are just talking about the shortest move to get the whole base into the conform position. And the advantage of doing it by the centre of the base is that no measurement is needed - you just conform to whatever enemy base the centre of your base is directly in front of.
This method is then very easy to adjudicate. You can see immediately from the diagram (even though the bases aren't quite in proportion) that the centre of the front right blue base is directly in front of the front right red base. So it conforms to diagram B.

There is no advantage in any artificial restrictions that make conformation less likely to be possible.

It remains the question which outcome is less likely to be possible. Imagine a corner of a base of a third BG just somewhere to the right of the chargers that hinders conforming to position B. Where is the supremacy of simultaneous pivoting/sliding then? There can always be constructed obstacles to either way of conforming.

I can remember a bunch of discussions about the "shortest move" and it was always said there can be only one "shortest move" ever. As obviously this issue is played in two different ways by many people, one group is clearly wrong. And still we don't know which. Personally I don't like solutions like "throw a dice" for issues that happen in nearly every game and which are unclear only due to ambiguous language. I had this enough in Games Workshop rules....

Just include it in the FAQ one way or another. Really doesn't matter which way, only that there remains only one way.

Mehrunes wrote:

There is no advantage in any artificial restrictions that make conformation less likely to be possible.

It remains the question which outcome is less likely to be possible. Imagine a corner of a base of a third BG just somewhere to the right of the chargers that hinders conforming to position B.

If there was something there they ciould not have charged into that position. Come up with a proper example.