Page 1 of 2
Reforming cheese
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:51 am
by lawrenceg
I can't see anything to stop me doing a "reform" of ABCD to get from the top situation to the bottom situation shown below:
or to stop me teleporting any distance left or right with the whole BG for that matter. But no-one would try that on, would they?
Re: Reforming cheese
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:59 pm
by rbodleyscott
lawrenceg wrote:But no-one would try that on, would they?
Well they would get a (verbal) slap if I was umpiring.
However no doubt it is worth making sure that such things aren't attempted.
Suggested wording? (Whole pages of changes need not apply).
Re: Reforming cheese
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:18 pm
by lawrenceg
rbodleyscott wrote:
Suggested wording? (Whole pages of changes need not apply).
Add to 2nd bullet:
Its new flank edges must be as close as possible to the positions of the corresponding edges before reforming.
Re: Reforming cheese
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:20 pm
by rbodleyscott
lawrenceg wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:
Suggested wording? (Whole pages of changes need not apply).
Add to 2nd bullet:
Its new flank edges must be as close as possible to the positions of the corresponding edges before reforming.
Possible. Or would it be better to specifically state that bases in close combat cannot reform away from combat. (or somesuch)?
Re: Reforming cheese
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:37 pm
by lawrenceg
rbodleyscott wrote:lawrenceg wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:
Suggested wording? (Whole pages of changes need not apply).
Add to 2nd bullet:
Its new flank edges must be as close as possible to the positions of the corresponding edges before reforming.
Possible. Or would it be better to specifically state that bases in close combat cannot reform away from combat. (or somesuch)?
that probably would be better, if you assume it is not necessary to stop sideways teleporting if you are not in combat.
Re: Reforming cheese
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:09 pm
by rbodleyscott
lawrenceg wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:lawrenceg wrote:
Add to 2nd bullet:
Possible. Or would it be better to specifically state that bases in close combat cannot reform away from combat. (or somesuch)?
that probably would be better, if you assume it is not necessary to stop sideways teleporting if you are not in combat.
We probably ought to be talking about bases moving the "minimum necessary" to create a legal formation.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:51 pm
by terrys
The paragraph on conforming reads:
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:
I don't see that the above slide is 'minimum necessary'. The 'minimum necessary' to me is zero.
Note that it also says 'conform to the enemy
bases in contact. You can't contact additional enemy bases unless using the 'feeding more bases into an existing combat' rule.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:31 pm
by pbrandon
I think the point is that while it says that under "Conforming to Enemy in Close Combat", "Reforming" is a different rule where no such restriction applies.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:32 pm
by lawrenceg
terrys wrote:The paragraph on conforming reads:
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:
I don't see that the above slide is 'minimum necessary'. The 'minimum necessary' to me is zero.
Note that it also says 'conform to the enemy
bases in contact. You can't contact additional enemy bases unless using the 'feeding more bases into an existing combat' rule.
Yes, but this thread is about
reforming, not
conforming.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:57 pm
by terrys
Yes, but this thread is about reforming, not conforming.
Yes but Conforming is manditory, reforming is only manditory if making a voluntary move. (which ythis obviously isn't)
What is also manditory, is that the conforming battlegroup must also obey the 'Restricted Area' rules.
The only one of the 5 bullet points that it can actually obey is the 'remain in place' option!
If not Conforming, or feeding more troops into combat then it must 'remain in place'
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:43 pm
by lawrenceg
terrys wrote:Yes, but this thread is about reforming, not conforming.
Yes but Conforming is manditory, reforming is only manditory if making a voluntary move. (which ythis obviously isn't)
What is also manditory, is that the conforming battlegroup must also obey the 'Restricted Area' rules.
The only one of the 5 bullet points that it can actually obey is the 'remain in place' option!
If not Conforming, or feeding more troops into combat then it must 'remain in place'
Reforming remains an option even if you are not making a voluntary move. Reforming and conforming are not mutually exclusive . You rightly point out that the Restricted Area would prevent the cheese I originally suggested. If there were no enemy present, though, it would have been legal to reform in that way.
Interesting point that the Restricted Area rules prohibit any sideways shift when conforming, unless you happen to end up overlapping another enemy BG.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:18 pm
by rbodleyscott
lawrenceg wrote:Interesting point that the Restricted Area rules prohibit any sideways shift when conforming, unless you happen to end up overlapping another enemy BG.
Gah!
This is an unforeseen side effect of moving conforming (and expanding in melee) to the Manouevre phase.
It is not, of course, what is intended.
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:03 am
by terrys
If there were no enemy present, though, it would have been legal to reform in that way.
If you take away the enemy , I can see that because there is no restriction other than ending in a legal formation which retains the position of the furthest forwards base.
Outside of a competition this would be laughed out of the game, unfortunately we all know what competition gamers are like.
We probably need 2 things added:
1) Bases in front edge contact cannot reform
2) Bases move the minimum distance to make a legal formation when reforming
It's the usual problem of - How much extra do we put in the rules to satisfy competition gamers, but with the risk that the added complexity/length will put off potential new recruits to the hobby/rules.
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:48 am
by nicofig
Yes it's true but I think it's necessary to add this clarifications.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:06 pm
by rbodleyscott
Re the restricted area issue, how about this as a minimal change that does the required job: (Note that "normal movement" is also referred to in the full turn sequence.)
RESTRICTED AREA
For normal movement only, a battle group within 2 MU directly in front of an enemy battle group is considered to be pinned. It can only perform a limited number of actions:
o Advance directly towards that enemy battle group.
o Wheel towards that enemy battle group until its front is parallel to the enemy front, or wheel as far as it can towards such a position; advancing thereafter if it wishes to do so.
o Remain in place. (It can expand or turn, but not contract).
o Make a move that ends further away from that enemy battle group. (i.e. At the end of the move, the nearest point of the battle group is further away from the enemy battle group than its nearest point was at the start of the move.)
o Conform to an overlap position against another enemy battle group.
In each of the above cases, the battle group must end its move at least partly in front of the enemy battle group, or the move is not permitted.
If pinned by more than one enemy battle group it can choose which of these it responds to, and any restrictions apply relative to that battle group only.
Non-skirmishers ignore the restricted area of enemy skirmishers.
Battle wagons, artillery and troops in Orb formation exert no restricted area.
The restricted area only applies in the manoeuvre phase. It does not affect moves (such as charges) that take place in other phases.
And for the reforming cheese, how about this:
REFORMING
If, as a consequence of previous events, (other than forming orb or depicting adverse cohesion states), a battle group is no longer in normal formation, it can reform in either side’s manoeuvre phase.
A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move. (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee).
It reforms into normal formation facing the direction previously faced by any of its bases (player's choice) and level with the furthest forward base in that direction. The final position and formation of the reformed battlegroup must be as close as possible to its position and formation prior to reforming. Bases in contact with the front edge of enemy bases must remain in contact with the same enemy bases.
A battle group completing a previous partial interpenetration reforms at the end of its move. Otherwise, reforming occurs at the start of the manoeuvre phase and does not affect any of the other manoeuvre phase rules.
A battle group currently fighting in two or more directions against enemy battle groups in close combat cannot reform.
A battle group that has some of its bases facing enemy currently in contact with its flank or rear (and no enemy in contact to its front) is not forced to reform. If it does so, however, it must reform to face the enemy in contact.
Note that the statement
Bases in contact with the front of enemy bases must remain in contact with the same enemy bases.
is intended to prevent the cheese Lawrence originally pointed out. (Arguably the position thing doesn't because the final position he shows probably
is the nearest possible reformed position to the starting position).
The underlined words allow bases that are only in incidental contact (e.g. side to side or corner to corner) to be moved as part of the reform.
They also allow bases in frontal contact with enemy flank/rear to be moved, but
a) a battle group in such a position is unlikely to be in need of reforming.
b) The requirement for the final position of the BG to be as near as possible to its prior position should hopefully prevent any shenanigans.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:24 am
by rbodleyscott
/bump
Lawrence, what are your thoughts on the proposals?
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:31 am
by lawrenceg
rbodleyscott wrote:/bump
Lawrence, what are your thoughts on the proposals?
Yes, I think they ought to do the trick.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:37 am
by rbodleyscott
lawrenceg wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:/bump
Lawrence, what are your thoughts on the proposals?
Yes, I think they ought to do the trick.
Whoopeeee!
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:49 pm
by shall
You may be able to sovle this by using the phrase "by moving the mimimum number of bases" in these cases.
In the case of the refrom you can get back to legal formation by moving 2 bases only. So the LG example posted wouldthen not be legal, The same phrase would I suspect solve conforming issues as well.
Thoguhts?
Si
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:10 pm
by lawrenceg
shall wrote:You may be able to sovle this by using the phrase "by moving the mimimum number of bases" in these cases.
In the case of the refrom you can get back to legal formation by moving 2 bases only. So the LG example posted wouldthen not be legal, The same phrase would I suspect solve conforming issues as well.
Thoguhts?
Si
That wouldn't do it on its own. Consider a BG with one file stepped forward half a base. This is the furthest forward base so all other bases need to move in order to make a normal formation. Without other constraints these bases could still switch flanks as per the example I gave.