Slitherine

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:21 am**

Hello,

Marco and I met a problem last night concerning the conforming to an ennemy :
During the impact phase a BG contacted the corner or an ennemy and as a result of the stepping forward 2 other files contacted another BG much backward of the first one.

During the mouvement phase, conforming to one of the 2 BG contacted would have meant losing contact with the other one.
Conforming to both would have meant losing cohesion(contact between files)) of the attacking BG.

We decided that the conforming was not possible... Was it OK ?

During the next turn, as all BG stood firm, the 2 attacked BG then had to conform... One of them was in overlap of a friendly BG. Did it have to lose his position of overlap to conform ?
We decided that yes and hope we did right ?

It looked a bit odd though !

Jerome

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:53 am**

Yes indeed if you cannot fonrom [hysically then you do not conform but keep fighting as is. Quite often the other side thn conforms to you next go to tidy things up.

Its not that common but its fine

Si

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:04 am**

This is an interesting post. My initial thoughts were one thing then I read the rules and now I am not sure.

I had always played that if a BG hits two enemy BG's at an angle (either your BG moves at an angle or the enemy BG's are at an angle to each other) then when it came to conforming nothing happened because it would take you out of contact with one of the enemy.

Reading the rules on conforming I am now not sure I have been playing this right.

The key rule seems to be

• If a battle group is in contact with more than one enemy battle group then it must line up with the one which it currently contacts with the highest number of its own bases. If equal, then the active player decides which

This doesn't preclude bases breaking contact with the enemy that the lower number of bases are in contact with.

Hmm

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:23 pm**

hammy wrote:This is an interesting post. My initial thoughts were one thing then I read the rules and now I am not sure.

I had always played that if a BG hits two enemy BG's at an angle (either your BG moves at an angle or the enemy BG's are at an angle to each other) then when it came to conforming nothing happened because it would take you out of contact with one of the enemy.

Reading the rules on conforming I am now not sure I have been playing this right.

The key rule seems to be

• If a battle group is in contact with more than one enemy battle group then it must line up with the one which it currently contacts with the highest number of its own bases. If equal, then the active player decides which
This doesn't preclude bases breaking contact with the enemy that the lower number of bases are in contact with.

Hmm

I was sure that there was a rule saying you couldn't break contact, but I can't find it now. Looks like Hammy is right, you break contact if necessary.

Can of worms having been opened.....

If you have equal bases in contact with two groups, and you can conform to one, but not the other, are you forced to conform to the one that you can, with the consequence of breaking contact with the other? Or can you choose to conform to the other with the consequence of not conforming at all? Seems like the former to me as you must conform if physically possible.

What if the only BG you can conform to is one with less bases in contact? The opening para says you must conform if physically possible. The bullets say it must be the one which you contact with the most bases - if the BG is in contact with more than one enemy BG (not "if the BG could conform to more than one..."). This leads to a possible contradiction. Which takes precedence - physically possible or most bases in contact?

If you conform to one BG and break contact with the other, does that make it a "Melee that cannot line up" ? so you count as "as if in contact" with the one you are not in actual contact with?

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:53 pm**

hammy wrote:This is an interesting post. My initial thoughts were one thing then I read the rules and now I am not sure.

I had always played that if a BG hits two enemy BG's at an angle (either your BG moves at an angle or the enemy BG's are at an angle to each other) then when it came to conforming nothing happened because it would take you out of contact with one of the enemy.

Reading the rules on conforming I am now not sure I have been playing this right.

The key rule seems to be

• If a battle group is in contact with more than one enemy battle group then it must line up with the one which it currently contacts with the highest number of its own bases. If equal, then the active player decides which

This doesn't preclude bases breaking contact with the enemy that the lower number of bases are in contact with.

Hmm

I think the rule was intended not to allow/force the BG to break off from one of the enemy BGs, but to allow it to conform to one while remaining in partial base contact with another.

With the can of worms now being open, it would probably best if they simply did not conform - it would not be hard to alter the wording accordingly.

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:58 pm**

With the can of worms now being open, it would probably best if they simply did not conform - it would not be hard to alter the wording accordingly.

Agreed! Definitely the easiest option.

Pete

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:17 pm**

petedalby wrote:
With the can of worms now being open, it would probably best if they simply did not conform - it would not be hard to alter the wording accordingly.
Agreed! Definitely the easiest option.

Pete

That is the way I have always played. I was going to quote the relevant section in reply only to find that it wasn't there

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:34 am**

We propose deleting:

• If a battle group is in contact with more than one enemy battle group then it must line up with the one which it currently contacts with the highest number of its own bases. If equal, then the active player decides which.

which leaves

CONFORMING TO ENEMY IN CLOSE COMBAT
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:
• Conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position (see below). If fighting against the flank of bases which were unable to turn to face, it means lining up in front edge contact with the enemy flank edge, with at least one base in front corner contact with an enemy front corner.
• All of the bases in a battle group must end the conform move facing in the same direction and in at least partial base edge or corner contact with another of its bases.
• If bases are in contact with the flank of enemy bases as a result of a charge that did not qualify as a flank or rear charge, the battle group must pivot to conform with the front edge of the enemy battle group, sliding the minimum necessary to contact the front edge of at least one enemy base, or to an overlap position if this is not possible. This may sometimes look odd, but is a game mechanism to provide on-table clarification that the enemy battle group is not fighting enemy in 2 directions in the melee phase. This still applies even if conforming is not possible.
• Friendly battle groups not in contact with enemy must be shifted sideways sufficiently to make room for the above, provided that this is not blocked by enemy or impassable terrain and no bases would cross the table edge.
• Troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation. They may however be able to conform at a later stage.
• A battle group that has some bases facing at 90 or 180 degrees to the rest (due to enemy contacting its former flank or rear) does not conform to enemy.
• Battle wagons, artillery, troops in Orb formation and troops defending field fortifications or a riverbank, or in a river, do not conform to enemy.

OK?

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:03 am**

Looks OK to me.

Checking my interpretation:

1. There is an implied "all" at the point indicated

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 all the enemy bases in contact:

so unless you can conform to all, you don't conform.

2. You can adopt a non-normal formation if necessary to conform. Hence it is possible to conform to several offset battle groups at the same time, provided all are parallel.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:32 am**

lawrenceg wrote:Looks OK to me.

Checking my interpretation:

1. There is an implied "all" at the point indicated

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 all the enemy bases in contact:
so unless you can conform to all, you don't conform.

2. You can adopt a non-normal formation if necessary to conform. Hence it is possible to conform to several offset battle groups at the same time, provided all are parallel.

That sounds right to me.

There remains the issue of whether the present wording allows/enforces conforming into contact with bases not yet in contact:

Code: Select all

AAA  x
    x
  x

Assuming that the middle x is in contact with the corner of the end A, our intention is that conforming by X should result in

Code: Select all

AAA
 xxx

and not

Code: Select all

AAA
  xx
 x

as Simon Clarke thought.

If this needs to be clarified, can you think of any wording that would do so?

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:38 am**

rbodleyscott wrote: There remains the issue of whether the present wording allows/enforces conforming into contact with bases not yet in contact:
Code: Select all
AAA  x
    x
  x
Assuming that the middle x is in contact with the corner of the end A, our intention is that conforming by X should result in
Code: Select all
AAA
 xxx
and not
Code: Select all
AAA
  xx
 x
as Simon Clarke thought.

If this needs to be clarified, can you think of any wording that would do so?

The proposed wording only allows bases not in contact to move into contact if this is the minimum move to allow the bases that are in contact to conform. In most cases this will preclude new contacts, giving the result suggested by Simon Clarke.

So you need to clarify it. Exact wording will require some thought.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:39 am**

I suggest the required wording would be something like the following:

CONFORMING TO ENEMY IN CLOSE COMBAT

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) conform to those enemy battle groups. Conforming is a move by any or all of a battle group’s bases which may bring more bases into combat and makes it easier to work out which enemy bases they are fighting. The procedure for conforming is given below and is quite detailed in order to cope with complex situations that sometimes arise. In many cases the net effect is that the conforming battle group either moves as a rigid block, or "crystallises" onto the front of enemy it is fighting.

A battle group does not conform if:

• It has some bases facing at 90 or 180 degrees to the rest (due to enemy contacting its former flank or rear or because it is in Orb formation).
• It is battle wagons, or artillery.
• Any of its bases are defending field fortifications or a riverbank, or in a river.
• It would end without all its bases facing the same direction.

If the battle group must conform:

•Bases already in contact with enemy bases must pivot and/or slide by the minimum necessary to end in conformed position as defined below:
a. A conformed position normally means lined up in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base.
b. For a base which, as a result of a flank charge, is fighting against the flank of a base which was unable to turn to face, it means lining up in front edge contact with the enemy flank edge, in front corner contact with an enemy front corner.
c. For a base which, as a result of a rear charge, is fighting against the rear of bases which were unable to turn to face, it means lining up in full front edge to rear edge contact with an enemy base.
d. In any case, an overlap position (as defined in the glossary) is also a conformed position.

•Front rank bases not in contact with enemy must pivot and/or slide by the minimum necessary to end in mutual side edge and front corner contact with another front rank base that is in a conformed position or has already pivoted/shifted, without changing the left-to-right order of front rank bases. If this is not possible then they are treated as "other bases" in the next bullet.

•Other bases move to ensure that the battle group is contiguous with all bases facing the same direction. If possible, bases must end in mutual edge and corner contact with each other. Non-front-rank bases cannot end in the front rank. Bases must pivot and/or slide by the minimum necessary to meet these requirements.

• Friendly battle groups not in contact with enemy must be shifted sideways sufficiently to make room for the above, provided that this is not blocked by enemy or impassable terrain and no bases would cross the table edge.

• Friendly battle groups that are in contact with enemy must make their conform moves first, if necessary to allow other battle groups to conform.

Battle groups that cannot obey the above requirements do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation. They may however be able to conform at a later stage.

Note that if bases are in contact with the flank of enemy bases as a result of a charge that did not qualify as a flank or rear charge, the battle group must conform to the enemy front, or to an overlap position if this is not possible, and bases may end up moving backwards to do so. This may sometimes look odd, but is a game mechanism to provide on-table clarification that the enemy battle group is not fighting enemy in 2 directions in the melee phase. This still applies even if conforming is not possible.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:45 pm**

Thanks Lawrence for all that hard work.

What we would really like is a "least possible change to current wording" version.

For example, how about something like:

• All of the bases in a battle group must end the conform move facing in the same direction and (unless already stepped forward) in full base edge contact with another of its bases, even if this results in additional enemy bases being contacted.

This raises the question of what happens if this results in them contacting another enemy BG!

My view on this would be that this is OK (provided it is a legal conform on the new enemy BG) and would result in a melee with no impact. If it isn't a legal conform move on the new enemy then it renders the whole conform move impossible and the combat would proceed without conforming.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:50 pm**

Crap, sorry Lawrence, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. I cannot get used to my Moderator superpowers. We are not looking to reword whole sections of the rules at this stage in the process - hence the desire for a minimalist correction.

Here was my reply:

Lawrence wrote:You seem to keep changing your mind about whether you'd like the BG to end in full edge contact or only partial or corner-to-corner. I'd vote for the latter as that is frequently the situation after stepping forward.

We have not changed our (hive) mind at all on this issue, we just haven't (it seems) made our intentions clear.

The only reason for "partial" in the original wording was to cover stepped forward bases. Unfortunately, that led to Simon Clarke's (literally correct though unintended) interpretation. Therefore, making (already) stepped forward bases a specific exception would seem to be the way to go.

Lawrence wrote:I'd also vote for an explicit "no need to maintain contiguity" (which is implicit in your wording, but against most explicit references to the possibility).

We certainly don't intend to allow "no need to maintain contiguity". We need a wording that precludes such an interpretation.

----------------------

You pointed out that my proposed wording would still allow multi-rank BGs to be stepped back when conforming.

Here is another try:

Replace:

• All of the bases in a battle group must end the conform move facing in the same direction and in at least partial base edge or corner contact with another of its bases.

with

• Bases that were already stepped forward can remain so, but apart from that a battle group must end its conform move in a legal formation (see The Basics section). This may result in additional enemy bases being contacted.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:21 pm**

rbodleyscott wrote: Here is another try:

Replace:

• All of the bases in a battle group must end the conform move facing in the same direction and in at least partial base edge or corner contact with another of its bases.
with

• Bases that were already stepped forward can remain so, but apart from that a battle group must end its conform move in a legal formation (see The Basics section). This may result in additional enemy bases being contacted.

That looks OK. Some non stepped forward bases might get left out of the fight. Not sure if this was addressed in discussion on "feeding extra bases into melee".

You could try:

• The battle group must end its conform move in a legal formation (see The Basics section), except bases that were already stepped forward can remain so, and other bases may also step forward to contact enemy. .

You probably ought to insert a bullet:

• The battle group does not conform if it would lose contact with any enemy battle group.

as that was the issue that kicked this whole thread off.

I reckon the overall conform process comes down to:

1. non stepped forward bases in contact pivot and shift the minimum to conform.
2. other bases reform on these.
3. files not in frontal contact step forward any distance to contact enemy battlegroups that were in contact at the start of the conform, provided contiguity is maintained.

but it might be too much of a change to word it along those lines.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:04 am**

lawrenceg wrote:Some non stepped forward bases might get left out of the fight. Not sure if this was addressed in discussion on "feeding extra bases into melee".

I cannot immediately visualise a situation in which this might occur. Can you give an example please? THe original example is supposed to be cured by my proposed wording.

You probably ought to insert a bullet:

• The battle group does not conform if it would lose contact with any enemy battle group.
as that was the issue that kicked this whole thread off.

It was indeed, but we planned to cure that problem by removing the paragraph which said

• If a battle group is in contact with more than one enemy battle group then it must line up with the one which it currently contacts with the highest number of its own bases. If equal, then the active player decides which.

Does that not remove any issue about losing contact?

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:07 am**

rbodleyscott wrote:
lawrenceg wrote:Some non stepped forward bases might get left out of the fight. Not sure if this was addressed in discussion on "feeding extra bases into melee".
I cannot immediately visualise a situation in which this might occur. Can you give an example please? THe original example is supposed to be cured by my proposed wording.

Code: Select all

XXXXXXYYYYYY
XXXXXX

   123456

Suppose 123456 is angled facing diagonally right.
It charges.
1 hits X
2 steps forward and hits X
3 steps forward and hits Y
4-6 would need to step forward more than 2 MU so do not step forward.

After conforming, the legal formation would be 1, 2 in contact with X; 3,4,5,6 lined up with 1,2 not in contact with Y.
3 was originally stepped forward, so remains stepped forward in contact with Y.
4,5,6 were not stepped forward, so must remain lined up with 1,2.
4,5,6 cannot be fed into the melee against Y as this is not an expansion (was this addressed?).

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:12 am**

rbodleyscott wrote: It was indeed, but we planned to cure that problem by removing the paragraph which said

• If a battle group is in contact with more than one enemy battle group then it must line up with the one which it currently contacts with the highest number of its own bases. If equal, then the active player decides which.
Does that not remove any issue about losing contact?

Oh yes, so it does (and I even acknowledged that earlier in the thread

).

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:36 am**

lawrenceg wrote:3 was originally stepped forward, so remains stepped forward in contact with Y.
4,5,6 were not stepped forward, so must remain lined up with 1,2.
4,5,6 cannot be fed into the melee against Y as this is not an expansion (was this addressed?).

Fair enough. We should allow them to step forward to conform as you suggested before.

The whole thing can perhaps be more explicitly expressed as follows:

• The battle group must end its conform move in a normal formation (see The Basics section), except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with enemy. This may result in additional enemy bases being contacted.

(This of course replaces: "• All of the bases in a battle group must end the conform move facing in the same direction and in at least partial base edge or corner contact with another of its bases.")

I am not sure whether it is feasible (or desirable) to try to prevent conforming resulting in fresh enemy battle groups being contacted. If that is the natural result of the BG conforming to the initially contacted BG, it seems reasonable to allow it.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:12 pm**

Sorry Lawrence, I accidentally edited your post again, instead of quoting it. Fortunately I only deleted the part that agreed with me.

Lawrence wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote: The whole thing can perhaps be more explicitly expressed as follows:

• The battle group must end its conform move in a normal formation (see The Basics section), except that each file steps forward to line up with the furthest forward file already in contact with enemy at that end of the battle group. This may result in additional enemy bases being contacted.
or alternatively:

• The battle group must end its conform move in a normal formation (see The Basics section), except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with enemy. This may result in additional enemy bases being contacted.

I think both of these would need clarification, although I know what you are trying to achieve. What if neither end is stepped forward, only the middle? What if two are equidistant? Wanting bases to step forward (not into contact) to line up with other bases is intuitive, but hard to describe concisely. I think you are trying to achieve something like:

Each file which can step forward into front edge contact with enemy does so. Then each remaining block of bases steps forward to line up with the file next to it that is furthest forward.
but would you need to define/clarify what a block of bases is?

I think that you are straying into hole digging here. What exactly is wrong with my second version?

It covers the situation of the middle being stepped forward.

The equidistant situation obviously leaves the player conforming free to choose. Those that don't find that obvious can summon the umpire.

Your proposed version goes further than I would intend. I can't see any reason why files should be allowed to step forward into contact if this goes beyond the files already in contact. (Note that the stepping forward rule applies to the final conformed poisition so you can step forward after the files already in contact have conformed).

Slitherine

Conforming to enemy

Conforming to enemy