Slitherine

Hi, I'm pretty sure that this has been asked before - but I can't remember the answer (if it was answered at all! )

OK , during impact a BG contacts another at 45 degrees (only 1 base in corner). The others stepping forward can't make it into contact (so don't)

During the movement phase the contacting group attempts to conform. It can pivot. The other bases are pivioted to align, to maintain partial edge contact. This leads to a lined up BG but stepping back. In the movement in combat phase it mentions expanding troops into contact , but not by any forward movement - after all its not an expansion, they are all in line - just echelon'd back?

Am I missing a trick

Simon

list_lurker wrote:Hi, I'm pretty sure that this has been asked before - but I can't remember the answer (if it was answered at all! )

OK , during impact a BG contacts another at 45 degrees (only 1 base in corner). The others stepping forward can't make it into contact (so don't)

During the movement phase the contacting group attempts to conform. It can pivot. The other bases are pivioted to align, to maintain partial edge contact. This leads to a lined up BG but stepping back. In the movement in combat phase it mentions expanding troops into contact , but not by any forward movement - after all its not an expansion, they are all in line - just echelon'd back?

Am I missing a trick

Simon

I don't have the rules with me so may be missing some nuances of pedantry, however, the intention is that the whole BG pivots to conform. (Even if some bases move backwards, however strange that may seem). There is no reason for the BG to end up echeloned in the above circumstances.

There are two sections in the rules you need to look at. The first is the "Conforming to Enemy in Close Combat" which you referred to in your post. The second is the "Reforming" section just above on the same page (34). I suppose it could be clearer by reordering this so that "Reforming" is after "Conforming...".

The relevant bullet point is:
"It reforms back into normal formation facing the direction previously faced by any of its bases (player’s choice), with the same frontage as currently in that direction. Its front edge is placed level with the furthest forward base in that direction."

Interestingly this is a volentary action and does not have to be done, so if for whatever reason you do not want to reform, so to prevent more elements getting into contact then you can leave the BG in its weird formation.

Ah yes - reforming, I remember now...

The relevant bullet point is:
"It reforms back into normal formation facing the direction previously faced by any of its bases (player’s choice), with the same frontage as currently in that direction. Its front edge is placed level with the furthest forward base in that direction."

To be fair, its not intuative that this means that you can move more bases into contact. It also implies that bases in a BG are facing different directions. As I recall, the reforming bit is primarily about flank contacts allowing the whole BG to turn ( and expand in sequent turns - in the movement in contact section)

The cheesy MOFO in me can see a situation where one might try to tie up an expensive BG with a cheaper one by trying to clip a corner (to minimise overlaps) choose not to reform and fight 1 base to 2 (in the case of mounted) and try to dice it out.

That aside the whole thing looks strange on the table top where 1 BG aligns echeloned back while and the other stands in line, with minimal contact.

I am a bit confused here. I think that where you might be going wrong is with stepping forwards.

You only step forwards with a charging BG if you would make contact with enemy so if you charge a corner of an enemy BG you hit with one base and stay in a nice neat rectangle. Then in the movement phase you MUST conform if that is possible.

Even if you don't conform you still end up fighting with a 2 base frontage for each BG as there are still overlaps in nonconformed melees.

Or at least that is the waY I understand the game.

Hammy

You don't conform by just pivoting each base, you conform by pivoting the whole BG (this will be clearer when you get to see the diagrams). If you cannot conform thus, you don't conform at all - but you still fight as if you had. There is no question of any bases being echeloned back from the line of contact after conforming, therefore the issue of Reforming is irrelevant.

You don't conform by just pivoting each base, you conform by pivoting the whole BG (this will be clearer when you get to see the diagrams).

I think it could be a little clearer - the first paragraph says "must pivot/or slide bases by the minimum neccesaary to conform to enemy bases in contact" Its not clear that those base should move forward to contact unegaged enemy bases

you don't conform at all - but you still fight as if you had.

So, all bases fight as if it had conformed?

rbodleyscott wrote:You don't conform by just pivoting each base, you conform by pivoting the whole BG (this will be clearer when you get to see the diagrams). If you cannot conform thus, you don't conform at all - but you still fight as if you had. There is no question of any bases being echeloned back from the line of contact after conforming, therefore the issue of Reforming is irrelevant.

This can lead to excessive moves.

Example 1
HF Sp 10 bases 2 deep moves and contacts at almost right angles to the enemy - when it pivots its move distance is over 11 MU - i.e. it would take it 4 turns to make the same move without contacting the enemy.

Example 2
Knights 6 bases 1 deep - wheel is over 13 MU (still 4 turns to make the same wheel)

In 25mm these become nearly 17 MU (6 turns) and over 20 MU (also 6 turns)

Even worse is the ability to block the conformation in your turn but remove it so the enemy is forced to pivot - removing their rear support and leaving them with a hanging flank that will take them many turns to cover.