Slitherine

Hi,

This came up in a tournament this past weekend and I wanted to see if it was handled correctly. MF Bow KN allied to Bow Enemy Knights








(Ok the diagram is horrible... I will look into posting real pics. )

The unit of knights charges straight up towards the bow , their Knights intercept and slide in at a 45 angle (basically facing 7-8 o'clock). One base of the charges contacts the knights and the other slides forward into contact with the middle base of the MF Bow. Due to the positioning the Knights cannot conform in the following manuever phase.

On the following turn, the bow player wanted to conform his knights. Is that possible? They would not fit facing straight down (opposite the direction the chargers were facing) becuase they were in a 3 deep formation. If they simply turned to face straight down they would only be in corner to corner contact with the base that had fought them in impact and the previous melee. You are not allowed to change formation to fit correct? Nor to wind up not in contact with the enemy?

We did not allow anyone to conform but fought the melee as if they had with appropriate overlaps.


Thanks,

Hard to see in this diagram.

But no you can't change formation to fit.
You can be forced to conform to an overlap in certain circumstances.

It may be in one turn you can't conform, but you can feed in. Then maybe in future turns you would conform.

But i can't tell anything about your specific situation.

It is hard to tell from the diagram, but it looks to me like the MF would slide over so that it's left file is in front edge to front edge contact with the knight left file then the MF's friendly knights would conform to the right file of the enemy knights.







It makes sense since it accurately reflects how many bases are in contact and the number of overlaps. Note: You didn't mention what overlaps you thought were appropriate, but, as you probably know, that even with the offset formations there would be only 2 overlaps: the MF overlapping the left of the enemy knights and the MF's friendly knights overlapping the right flank of the enemy knights. You can't have an internal overlap on offset files of an enemy BG.

This, of course, depends on an interpretation that both the MF and Knights as "the active player's battle groups already in close combat" are conforming together. If only the knights conform then the MF couldn't shift but I can't find an explicit statement one way or another. The latter reference in the rules about "friendly battle groups not in contact with the enemy must be shifted sideways sufficiently..." doesn't apply here.

Nevertheless the above configuration does reflect how many bases would be in contact (2) and the number of overlaps (also 2).

Thanks, I wasn't sure it was allowable to change the actual bases in contact... the middle base of the bowmen sliding over so they were an overlap and the left base of the bow slides into front to front with the Knights when it was only in corner to corner.

I understand with multiple chargers you can wind up fighting at impact and conforming into overlap only, but sliding the unit across the other to make it fit didn't occur to me.


In the end conforming wouldn't have changed the outcome at all... the attacking knights actually broke the counter-chargers and then conformed to the archers and vaporized them.

I don't think that's correct.

The MF can't slide over because they're in contact (second bullet point on p71).

In this situation, the staggered knights can't reform.
The MF /Knight units must try to conform. However due to the position, nothing is able to move without breaking the required contacts (reforms and conforms must maintain the same bases in contact).

Therefore the 3rd bullet point on p71 applies;

'Troops that cannot conform...do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation'.

The way that we interpret this is that 'the units fight as if they had conformed'.


In the subsequent melee phases;

The MF fights in single overlap* against the stepped forwards knight.
The interecpeting knights fight with 1 overlap on the knights.

*1st bullet point p86 (a BG can only be overlapped once on each side of its frontage)

Basically nothing moves to reform or conform until there is space for them to so, but they fight in melee as if they had conformed.

Luddite wrote:I don't think that's correct.

The MF can't slide over because they're in contact (second bullet point on p71).

In this situation, the staggered knights can't reform.
The MF /Knight units must try to conform. However due to the position, nothing is able to move without breaking the required contacts (reforms and conforms must maintain the same bases in contact).

Therefore the 3rd bullet point on p71 applies;

'Troops that cannot conform...do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation'.

The way that we interpret this is that 'the units fight as if they had conformed'.


In the subsequent melee phases;

The MF fights in single overlap* against the stepped forwards knight.
The interecpeting knights fight with 1 overlap on the knights.

*1st bullet point p86 (a BG can only be overlapped once on each side of its frontage)

Basically nothing moves to reform or conform until there is space for them to so, but they fight in melee as if they had conformed.

I don't doubt what you say is true, but you'll need to explain how the 2nd bullet on p71 applies. This is the bullet the says BG should try to form a normal formation with files lining up with bases in contact, right?

Sorry, which bullet point?

The conforming depends on the bow base fighting the knight base. If it is mostly in front of the knight that contacted it, then it isn't going to move to be an overlap. Conforming is about which base lines up. It is not about the BG lining up.

Luddite wrote:Sorry, which bullet point?

This one....

Luddite wrote:The MF can't slide over because they're in contact (second bullet point on p71).

If you don't know, I surely don't.

rogerg wrote:The conforming depends on the bow base fighting the knight base. If it is mostly in front of the knight that contacted it, then it isn't going to move to be an overlap. Conforming is about which base lines up. It is not about the BG lining up.

If the conforming is done by the BG sequentially then the MF don't move since they are already conformed (minimum move to line up bases). Then the knights can't conform since the MF block their conforming.

However, IF the conforming is done by both the MF and knights simultaneously then the MF would slide over as the "minimum move".

I see no explicit rule in conforming which says the specific bases in contact must remain in contact - only that the "sliding and pivoting" is the "minimum" necessary which will usually mean the bases in contact remain in contact.

The best that I can find to is the rule on page 40 - "movement is made by individual battle group, my multiple battle line or by commander's bases moving independently", which implies that the conforming is sequential.

I'm an "isolated international" FoG wargamer; and from my perspective the conforming rule is certainly one of the more obtuse sections in the book. It's surely clear to all of you folk at the centre of the wargaming universe but not so to isolated folk.

In such circumstances it's rare not to be able to line up:

- work out which enemy bases are touching ours.
- move our bases that are touching the enemy bases by the minimum possible to line them up neatly, either to fight directly or be in overlap.
- move the rest of the bases to make a proper formation.

If that means the bowmen are fighting frontally and the mounted are only an overlap, so be it.

grahambriggs wrote:In such circumstances it's rare not to be able to line up:

- work out which enemy bases are touching ours.
- move our bases that are touching the enemy bases by the minimum possible to line them up neatly, either to fight directly or be in overlap.
- move the rest of the bases to make a proper formation.

If that means the bowmen are fighting frontally and the mounted are only an overlap, so be it.

Aye, Graham, that much is clear but there is a difference between (a) moving both the bowmen and knights by the minimum possible so that each line up neatly (even if one ends up in overlap only) and (b) moving the bowmen so that it lines up neatly followed by trying to move the knights so they line up neatly knightly (or vice versa if that's less movement). From what I gather the common practice is (b) tyring to conform each BG one at a time.

There's already been many electrons killed over the conforming rule, so I won't waste anymore since no one seems to see (a) and (b) are different or that (b) is so obvious that it need not be said.

shadowdragon wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:In such circumstances it's rare not to be able to line up:

- work out which enemy bases are touching ours.
- move our bases that are touching the enemy bases by the minimum possible to line them up neatly, either to fight directly or be in overlap.
- move the rest of the bases to make a proper formation.

If that means the bowmen are fighting frontally and the mounted are only an overlap, so be it.

Aye, Graham, that much is clear but there is a difference between (a) moving both the bowmen and knights by the minimum possible so that each line up neatly (even if one ends up in overlap only) and (b) moving the bowmen so that it lines up neatly followed by trying to move the knights so they line up neatly knightly (or vice versa if that's less movement). From what I gather the common practice is (b) tyring to conform each BG one at a time.

There's already been many electrons killed over the conforming rule, so I won't waste anymore since no one seems to see (a) and (b) are different or that (b) is so obvious that it need not be said.

Interesting that anyone would read the rule as allowing you to do one BG then the other. It says "At the start of the manoeuvre phase, the active player‟s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact"

It doesn't say to move one then the other. But even if you do, it say you must move the BGs so that bases move by the minimum necessary. So if you have 4 bases touching the enemy you'll need to work out a legal conform that moves those bases by the minimum necessary in total. As long as you do that, it won't matter which moves first.

I haven't seen this issue in any games. What I do see is a common error that the two top ranked UK players have made when playing against me this year:

Lancers charge the front of foot at an angle.




and are four elements of a BG (each base is 4 characters wide). The lancers hit the two central bases at a slight angle, coming in from about 1 o'clock. The points at which the lancer base contact mine are marked

So the lancers have done their best to charge the left of my BG, and look like they should line up with my left hand two bases. But they are actually in contact with my two central bases. So they have to line up with them and be double overlapped.

grahambriggs wrote:Interesting that anyone would read the rule as allowing you to do one BG then the other. It says "At the start of the manoeuvre phase, the active player‟s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact"

It doesn't say to move one then the other. But even if you do, it say you must move the BGs so that bases move by the minimum necessary. So if you have 4 bases touching the enemy you'll need to work out a legal conform that moves those bases by the minimum necessary in total. As long as you do that, it won't matter which moves first.

I don't see it as a question of "allowing" as much as "restricting".

My initial take to the OP's situation was that both the MF and knights would shift/pivot the minimum necessary that would allow both the MF and knights to conform (i.e., the MF shift one base over which allows the knights to conform to the enemy BG. That is the minimum movement over both the MF and knight BG that allows both to conform.

However it seems from Luddite's post that's not the what's done in practice. Instead, the MF and knights are looked at separately / individually. So the MF BG is moved the minimum necessary so that they conform regardless of the knight BG's need to conform, which means the MF will basically be close the where they are at the end of the impact phase; and the MF will therefore have a file that blocks the knight's ability to conform. This interpretation is that each BG individually moves the minmum necessary to conform.

How do you see it? The minimum over both BG or the minimum for each BG separately.

grahambriggs wrote:I haven't seen this issue in any games. What I do see is a common error that the two top ranked UK players have made when playing against me this year:

Lancers charge the front of foot at an angle.




and are four elements of a BG (each base is 4 characters wide). The lancers hit the two central bases at a slight angle, coming in from about 1 o'clock. The points at which the lancer base contact mine are marked

So the lancers have done their best to charge the left of my BG, and look like they should line up with my left hand two bases. But they are actually in contact with my two central bases. So they have to line up with them and be double overlapped.

Interesting because I would align the lancers so that they line up with the 2 left hand bases which is the minimum movement for the lancers to conform to the foot. I don't have the rules here but I thought the rules said the lancer bases would align to valid contact or overlap position but there wasn't anything specific that they had to remain in base to base contact with the specific bases contacted. My reading was that the minumum movement took precedence over remaining in base to base contact.

As I wrote, it appears there are many unstated understandings about the conform rule which are hard for me to see in the RAW.

There are several handy examples of conforming in the rulebook. They clearly show how each base in contact pivots/shifts the minimum to line up with enemy. The diagrams demonstrate that the minimum adjustment may cause a base to line up against a base other than the base originally contacted. In all conforming cases all bases in contact must conform simultaneously. If this were not the case, there would be instances of bases mutually blocking conforming of the other. It's pretty clear when you use the diagrams as a reference, but for some reason, many people choose to ignore them and get all tangled up in the wording of the rules. A picture is worth a thousand words and the authors have provided us with several (with clarifying words to boot!).
One other thing to remember is that if the minimum adjustment to conform is blocked, the BG remains unconformed, but fights as if it had conformed. It does not conform to the enemy in a manner that would exceed the minimum adjustment required. (See page 87 for example)

shadowdragon wrote:However it seems from Luddite's post that's not the what's done in practice. Instead, the MF and knights are looked at separately / individually. So the MF BG is moved the minimum necessary so that they conform regardless of the knight BG's need to conform, which means the MF will basically be close the where they are at the end of the impact phase; and the MF will therefore have a file that blocks the knight's ability to conform. This interpretation is that each BG individually moves the minmum necessary to conform.

How do you see it? The minimum over both BG or the minimum for each BG separately.

The way I see it it is the minimum over all the bases in contact. If they are from more than one BG, then it's the minimum over all the BGs which have bases in contact.

shadowdragon wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:I haven't seen this issue in any games. What I do see is a common error that the two top ranked UK players have made when playing against me this year:

Lancers charge the front of foot at an angle.




and are four elements of a BG (each base is 4 characters wide). The lancers hit the two central bases at a slight angle, coming in from about 1 o'clock. The points at which the lancer base contact mine are marked

So the lancers have done their best to charge the left of my BG, and look like they should line up with my left hand two bases. But they are actually in contact with my two central bases. So they have to line up with them and be double overlapped.

Interesting because I would align the lancers so that they line up with the 2 left hand bases which is the minimum movement for the lancers to conform to the foot. I don't have the rules here but I thought the rules said the lancer bases would align to valid contact or overlap position but there wasn't anything specific that they had to remain in base to base contact with the specific bases contacted. My reading was that the minumum movement took precedence over remaining in base to base contact.

As I wrote, it appears there are many unstated understandings about the conform rule which are hard for me to see in the RAW.

No, it says something different to what you are readuing it to say: "the active player‟s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact"

The last three words are the important bit. Your conform to the enemy bases in contact, which in my example are the central two bases. You may well also end up contacting other enemy bases and IIRC the diagrams show this but you must line up with the central two bases.

The Bow player's KN could not pivot to conform becuase of the MF Bow's positioning without changing from 2x3.

Reading all the posts, I am confident it was ruled correctly.

Thanks for all the input!

grahambriggs wrote:No, it says something different to what you are readuing it to say: "the active player‟s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact"

The last three words are the important bit. Your conform to the enemy bases in contact, which in my example are the central two bases. You may well also end up contacting other enemy bases and IIRC the diagrams show this but you must line up with the central two bases.

Also worth noting that it is active player battlegroups (not bases) and enemy bases so you have to conform to the enemy bases in contact, but not necessarily using the bases that are initially in contact with them. It could be other bases of the battlegroup.

grahambriggs wrote:No, it says something different to what you are readuing it to say: "the active player‟s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact"

The last three words are the important bit. Your conform to the enemy bases in contact, which in my example are the central two bases. You may well also end up contacting other enemy bases and IIRC the diagrams show this but you must line up with the central two bases.

Thanks. Yes, the last three words are the important bit.