Can't turn wont turn

[dave_r]

Page 59 gives the general rule for charging and stepping forward. A flank charge is a subset of charges and has specific rules not followed in normal frontal charges. Page 61 specifically says that bases contacted by a flank/rear charge are "IMMEDIATELY" (my emphasis just for Dave) turned 90 or 180..... It goes on to say that the charging BG is then moved forward to maintain contact even if it exceeds its normal move distance. The sequence is very clear: 1. Contact, 2. Turn, 3. Step Forward.

Dave, if the sequence is: contact, step forward, turn; then please explain what 'immediately' means on page 61.

Here is a dictionary definition of 'immediately':
adverb
1. at once; instantly.
synonyms: straightaway, at once, right away, instantly, now, directly, promptly, forthwith, this/that (very) minute, this/that instant, there and then, then and there, on the spot, here and now, without delay, without further ado, posthaste;

I very much doubt that the authors have another definition for the word.

Because the step forward is part of the charge then bases aren't turned until the charge is complete. This is known because it uses past tense to describe the charge when talking about turning bases to face.

If you quote rules rather than your incorrect assertion this would be clearly identifiable.

[pyruse]

Because the step forward is part of the charge then bases aren't turned until the charge is complete. This is known because it uses past tense to describe the charge when talking about turning bases to face.

If you quote rules rather than your incorrect assertion this would be clearly identifiable.

The rule on page 61 says bases turn immediately they are contacted. It doesn't say anything about completing the rest of the charge move first, or doing step forwards.
As soon as a base contacts the flank or rear of an enemy base, that base turns immediately - not after the rest of the charging bases move.

[dave_r]

Because the step forward is part of the charge then bases aren't turned until the charge is complete. This is known because it uses past tense to describe the charge when talking about turning bases to face.

If you quote rules rather than your incorrect assertion this would be clearly identifiable.

The rule on page 61 says bases turn immediately they are contacted. It doesn't say anything about completing the rest of the charge move first, or doing step forwards.
As soon as a base contacts the flank or rear of an enemy base, that base turns immediately - not after the rest of the charging bases move.

No it doesn't. If you quote the entire rule on page 61. Read it carefully and it becomes clear that turning to face happens after the charge - how could it not?

You can't turn to face prior to the charge completing?

You are talking nonsense.

[pyruse]

I have read it carefully. It says nothing about turning to face happening after the charge. It says it happens immediately the base is contacted.
Someone earlier in this thread complained about people reading what they wanted to see in the rule instead of what is actually there.... oh, it was you.

[dave_r]

I have read it carefully. It says nothing about turning to face happening after the charge. It says it happens immediately the base is contacted.
Someone earlier in this thread complained about people reading what they wanted to see in the rule instead of what is actually there.... oh, it was you.

Then clearly you are a half-wit.

Pg 59: "Move your baggle group forward making any wheels or formation changes allowed, until a 'legal' contact is made. If it is now possible to get more bases into contact with the same or different enemy battle groups you MUST step them forward to make further contact".

Hence at the point of making you contact you must then step forward.

Pg 61: "Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or by a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees"

So, let us examine the second statement above - i.e. the quote from page 61. "Bases contacted ... BY an enemy flank or rear charge". Since stepping forward is part of the charge then the use of the word BY indicates past tense - hence the charge has already completed. If the charge has completed, then the base has already stepped forward.

For further information type "grammatical tense" into your search engine of choice and you may well learn things that surprise you in regard to the English language.

[AlanCutner]

Come on people, calm down!!!!! Remember this is just a game. It gets more and more irritating to see the childish snipes being posted claiming to be considered argument.

[vexillia]

the use of the word BY indicates past tense

No it doesn't. "By" can be either a preposition or an adverb and in this case is used to indicated how something is done not when. The use of "contacted" and "immediately" in the sentence do however indicate a sequence in time. See http://bit.ly/1bNyoGn

For further information type "grammatical tense" into your search engine of choice and you may well learn things that surprise you in regard to the English language.

Said the pot to the kettle.

[zoltan]

Cue Martin's regular pop corn comment. This is much better watching than the Ashes.

[vexillia]

Cue Martin's regular pop corn comment.

Tee hee!

This is much better watching than the Ashes.

Certainly true if you're an England fan.

[bbotus]

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with dave, please speak up now and state what makes you think so. I'm thinking we have a minority of one on this issue.

[kevinj]

It's painful to admit but in this case I do. Based on the original example, in my opinion game mechanisms that are principally aesthetic should not be used to reduce their opponent's advantage. My interpretation of that example would be that the charge should complete, the contacted base turns initially 180 degrees and impact is fought. Afterwards, the end base is turned to 90 degrees from the rest of the BG, the base that made initial contact is aligned to it and the other forms up as an overlap. I think that gives the best outcome in this situation. If you want to get precious about the precise sequence of the movement, or the interpretation of "Immediately" then there are rule sets that are more conducive to that approach.

[gozerius]

The rules are broken. We should demand that the authors issue a retraction. Barring that they should be burned at the stake. Yes, the authors, using the rulebooks as fuel, of course.

[bbotus]

It's painful to admit but in this case I do. Based on the original example, in my opinion game mechanisms that are principally aesthetic should not be used to reduce their opponent's advantage. My interpretation of that example would be that the charge should complete, the contacted base turns initially 180 degrees and impact is fought. Afterwards, the end base is turned to 90 degrees from the rest of the BG, the base that made initial contact is aligned to it and the other forms up as an overlap. I think that gives the best outcome in this situation. If you want to get precious about the precise sequence of the movement, or the interpretation of "Immediately" then there are rule sets that are more conducive to that approach.

Thank-you for your opinion. Just a comment on your solution: Remember that bases don't have to turn to fight in impact. Any defending base contacted on any side edge or corner is eligible to fight. Turning them twice isn't called for in the rules that I can see.

[kevinj]

Thank-you for your opinion. Just a comment on your solution: Remember that bases don't have to turn to fight in impact. Any defending base contacted on any side edge or corner is eligible to fight. Turning them twice isn't called for in the rules that I can see.

This is true, often we don't bother turning bases in flank/rear charges until after the impact and do the conforming if the BG survives.

[pyruse]

I have read it carefully. It says nothing about turning to face happening after the charge. It says it happens immediately the base is contacted.
Someone earlier in this thread complained about people reading what they wanted to see in the rule instead of what is actually there.... oh, it was you.

Then clearly you are a half-wit.

I'm sure people who were dubious about your argument are now convinced by your clever use of insult.

Pg 59: "Move your baggle group forward making any wheels or formation changes allowed, until a 'legal' contact is made. If it is now possible to get more bases into contact with the same or different enemy battle groups you MUST step them forward to make further contact".

Hence at the point of making you contact you must then step forward.

Pg 61: "Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or by a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees"

So, let us examine the second statement above - i.e. the quote from page 61. "Bases contacted ... BY an enemy flank or rear charge". Since stepping forward is part of the charge then the use of the word BY indicates past tense - hence the charge has already completed. If the charge has completed, then the base has already stepped forward.

For further information type "grammatical tense" into your search engine of choice and you may well learn things that surprise you in regard to the English language.

If only there were not that inconvenient word 'immediately' on page 61! Then I would agree with you.
You are quite right, "by" does indicate the past tense in this case. I agree that stepping forward is part of the charge, too.
But so is the charged enemy turning to face if hit in the flank or rear, and the rules say that happens immediately they are contacted.
So the sequence as mandated by the rules is clearly:
1. Move chargers forward to make contact
2. If any of that contact is with flank or rear of enemy bases, those bases immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees
3. Do any stepping forward
4. If the stepping forward results in flank or rear contact, bases so contacted immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees

Anyway, this is my last word on the subject.I don't care how you play it. If you want to continue playing it wrongly that's up to you.
But maybe best not to read stuff into the rules that isn't there

[dave_r]

If only there were not that inconvenient word 'immediately' on page 61! Then I would agree with you.
You are quite right, "by" does indicate the past tense in this case. I agree that stepping forward is part of the charge, too.
But so is the charged enemy turning to face if hit in the flank or rear, and the rules say that happens immediately they are contacted.

However, they say when contacted by a charge, they immediately turn to face, which would indicate that you wait until the charge is complete (including the integral step forward) before turning bases.

So the sequence as mandated by the rules is clearly:
1. Move chargers forward to make contact
2. If any of that contact is with flank or rear of enemy bases, those bases immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees
3. Do any stepping forward
4. If the stepping forward results in flank or rear contact, bases so contacted immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees

Nope - that's wrong. The correct sequence is:

1. Move chargers forward to make contact
2. Do any stepping forward
3. If any of that contact is with flank or rear of enemy bases, those bases immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees (taking into account other conditions)

[grahambriggs]

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with dave, please speak up now and state what makes you think so. I'm thinking we have a minority of one on this issue.

Oh good Lord, is this still going? Still I see it's kind of descended into a bit of "is!", "isn't!!" with insults.

It seems to me that the step forward does occur before the turn. If you look at the dieagrams in Appendix 7, for the cavalry executing a rear charge, that makes it clear. In the first diagram the cavalry have charged, hit a base in the rear and stepped forwards, contacting the rear edge of another base. No enemy bases have yet turned. In the second diagram the two bases that got hit in the back are turned 180. So the diagram at least has the step forward occurring before the first base contacted turns.

[philqw78]

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with dave, please speak up now and state what makes you think so. I'm thinking we have a minority of one on this issue.

I'm with Dave. Why becuase it makes the game easier.
For people that are too lazy to write long expalantions like Grahams below

[grahambriggs]

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with dave, please speak up now and state what makes you think so. I'm thinking we have a minority of one on this issue.

I'm with Dave. Why becuase it makes the game easier.

I'm with Dave because:

- the person making the charge is moving their figures and does the step forward as part of that
- the two diagrams in Appendix 7 show step forward happening before turns
- if you do turns before step forward you then get into a complicated little iteration if the step forward requires other turns
- it's got less potential for conforming and pursuit cheese in my view
- it ends up with a more natural result in my view

[paullongmore]

On reflection
I think the turn should not artificially stop the step forward. My concern was that for a flank charge I would expect the charging unit to conform on to the flank.
However, as the step forward results in contacting an additional base on the rear the logical conform is on to the rear.
Therefore, I agree with Dave.

Paul Longmore