Can't turn wont turn

[titanu]

A BG of Auxillia hit a unit of knights in the flank. I managed to angle the charge so I could push forward into another base. See diagram:



But the initial base hit in the flank (rear corner) cannot turn as there is no room. So should the base hit in the rear turn instead as at least one base must turn? But if so it turns 180 degrees when it was a flank attack.
What do the team think?

[bbotus]

Well, the rule on page 61 says a base hit in the flank is 'immediately' turned 90 to face the chargers and shifted back. The chargers then move forward to maintain contact even if normal move is exceeded. So I'd do that before the step forward action of the charge. Of course, you'll argue that you should get the 2nd base in contact for the impact but then you did a flank not a rear charge. So 2 dice each in impact seems reasonable to me for this situation. You are still dropping the knights 1 level, getting a ++ for the impact and causing the knights to fight in 2 directions, and then 4 dice in melee.

[grahambriggs]

You have hit the rear, not the flank. So the end base of knight will turn 180 degrees. I seem to recall that the base next to it will not, as it's already fighting to the front, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

[titanu]

You have hit the rear, not the flank. So the end base of knight will turn 180 degrees. I seem to recall that the base next to it will not, as it's already fighting to the front, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

No it a flank attack as the FIRST thing hit was a rear corner to be a rear attack it must be the rear edge.

[grahambriggs]

You have hit the rear, not the flank. So the end base of knight will turn 180 degrees. I seem to recall that the base next to it will not, as it's already fighting to the front, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

No it a flank attack as the FIRST thing hit was a rear corner to be a rear attack it must be the rear edge.

Oh yes good point (having checked the rules). But the rules say that vs a flank attack the bases turn 90 or 180 degrees to face. Since they can't do the former the end base at least will turn 180 surely?

[bbotus]

But the rules say that vs a flank attack the bases turn 90 or 180 degrees to face. Since they can't do the former the end base at least will turn 180 surely?

"....are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers, ...." I think that means turning 180 to face a rear charge and 90 to face a flank charge. I'd still make the 90 degree turn before the step forward.

[grahambriggs]

But the rules say that vs a flank attack the bases turn 90 or 180 degrees to face. Since they can't do the former the end base at least will turn 180 surely?

"....are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers, ...." I think that means turning 180 to face a rear charge and 90 to face a flank charge. I'd still make the 90 degree turn before the step forward.

I think you have read something in that is not there. It just says they turn 90 or 180 to face. Not the former for flank charges and the latter for rear charges. And in the diagram, the knight base cannot turn 90, as it will then be on top of the enemy base so does not fit.

[gozerius]

It sounds perfectly logical to turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge and 180 to face a rear charge. To claim that a base can turn in a direction not facing the charge is illogical. Sometimes I think that the authors are counting on us to use our common sense, as opposed to deliberately omitting wording to allow more "freedom" in interpretation.

[bbotus]

Totally agree with gozerius. Besides, if it turned 180 to face a flank charge, after the conform in the maneouver phase, the attacker would be on the flank and the defender would be unable to fight in the melee phase.

I still say the word 'immediate' is important here. The turn to face happens before the step forward and it works with no problems.

[grahambriggs]

In this case the charge is coming in at about 45 degrees to the rear. How is the knight base to turn 90 degrees? it is 30mm deep and 40mm wide. If it turns on the spot that extra 10mm will overlap the enemy base in contact. If you turn it and move it back to achieve contiguity with the knight base next to it, then the step forward won't work - indeed a different infantry base would be the one to make contact.

It won't particulary matter whether you turn 90 or 180 in the combat, but will affect the rout direction. so play it however seems best to you and you opponent. But if you want to know what the rules say, rather than what you assume they mean because of the words the authors left out, they say turn 90 or 180.

[kevinj]

Sometimes I think that the authors are counting on us to use our common sense

You'd think they'd have learnt the error in that appproach by now...

[bbotus]

But if you want to know what the rules say, rather than what you assume they mean because of the words the authors left out, they say turn 90 or 180.

True, it specifically says that.

Now, as a person across the pond, I am going to go out on a limb and will attempt to discuss English grammar. God help me.

If we look at the broader context of the sentence in question (page 61), it uses 'flank or rear' and '90 or 180' in parallel context and it says that you turn 90 or 180 to face. It doesn't say it's your choice. 'To face' completes the linking of turning 90 against a flank attack and 180 against a rear attack. And, no matter the angle, after a flank charge conforms, it will be on the flank and not the rear. Therefore, you must turn 90 to face or you will not be facing after the conform.

Rules consistently have problems when weird situations/angles come up. We are allowed to pre-measure in this game, so turn the flank base since we know it will be contacted and then make the charge move. KISS: Flank charge, base turns 90; rear charge, base turns 180. Shuffle the bases a bit if you have to, but there is room as long as the charge angle is 45 degrees or less.

[dave_r]

But if you want to know what the rules say, rather than what you assume they mean because of the words the authors left out, they say turn 90 or 180.

True, it specifically says that.

Now, as a person across the pond, I am going to go out on a limb and will attempt to discuss English grammar. God help me.

If we look at the broader context of the sentence in question (page 61), it uses 'flank or rear' and '90 or 180' in parallel context and it says that you turn 90 or 180 to face. It doesn't say it's your choice. 'To face' completes the linking of turning 90 against a flank attack and 180 against a rear attack. And, no matter the angle, after a flank charge conforms, it will be on the flank and not the rear. Therefore, you must turn 90 to face or you will not be facing after the conform.

Rules consistently have problems when weird situations/angles come up. We are allowed to pre-measure in this game, so turn the flank base since we know it will be contacted and then make the charge move. KISS: Flank charge, base turns 90; rear charge, base turns 180. Shuffle the bases a bit if you have to, but there is room as long as the charge angle is 45 degrees or less.

Except in this case one base has been hit in the flank and one base in the rear. So are you suggesting that one base turns 90 and one base turns 180?

The authors didn't specify this as awkward geometric problems like this occur, so it makes it much more simple to allow the base to turn 90 or 180 as the situation allows / dictates.

[grahambriggs]

But if you want to know what the rules say, rather than what you assume they mean because of the words the authors left out, they say turn 90 or 180.

True, it specifically says that.

Now, as a person across the pond, I am going to go out on a limb and will attempt to discuss English grammar. God help me.

If we look at the broader context of the sentence in question (page 61), it uses 'flank or rear' and '90 or 180' in parallel context and it says that you turn 90 or 180 to face. It doesn't say it's your choice. 'To face' completes the linking of turning 90 against a flank attack and 180 against a rear attack. And, no matter the angle, after a flank charge conforms, it will be on the flank and not the rear. Therefore, you must turn 90 to face or you will not be facing after the conform.

Rules consistently have problems when weird situations/angles come up. We are allowed to pre-measure in this game, so turn the flank base since we know it will be contacted and then make the charge move. KISS: Flank charge, base turns 90; rear charge, base turns 180. Shuffle the bases a bit if you have to, but there is room as long as the charge angle is 45 degrees or less.

Had they meant to be specific, they could easily have said "flank or rear turns 90 or 180 to face respectively". But they didn't. It doesn't say there isn't a choice involved. After a flank charge conforms it will be line up face to face with the enemy base fighting it, so doesn't have to be on the 'flank' - it depends whether the base turns 90 or 180.

But my main point is if you turn the flank base 90 immediately on contact, you either have to move the auxilia group out of the way to fit the knight base in (no mechanism in the rules) or move the knight base backwards to keep in contact with the rest of the BG. Which in this case would prevent the step forward from hitting the second knight base, and in other cases still wouldn't fit.

The rule as written covers all eventualities. You turn the base 90 or 180 and it has to face the charge. Why start "interpreting" the rules to make a change that is largely cosmetic?

[gozerius]

Graham, You are keen to not put words in, but you are more than happy to drop words out of the rule you are discussing. The rule for turning a base to face a charging enemy specify that a base is immediately turned and shuffled back to remain in contact with its fellows, the charging BG then moves forward to remain in contact, even if this would exceed its normal move distance. The sequence of action being charger contacts target base, contacted base immediately turns, sliding back to remain in contact with its fellows if necessary, charger moves to remain in contact with charged base, then any stepping forward. The rule does not specify that the base that makes the initial contact be the one that maintains contact after the turn. The rule says "turns to face the chargers" which in my understanding includes the possibility that bases other than that making the initial contact can come in contact with the turned base. As to the author's decision to word the rule without specific instructions as to the direction a base must turn to face a flank, as opposed to a rear charge, my previous comment stands. When a base turns to face a flank charge it must face that flank, to face a rear charge, the rear. Else it will be out of position to fight in the melee phase. You do not have the freedom to alter a flank charge into a conform on the rear of the charged BG.

[bbotus]

Except in this case one base has been hit in the flank and one base in the rear. So are you suggesting that one base turns 90 and one base turns 180?

The step forward hits the base in the rear but it is treated as a flank charge, so 'no' the base would not turn 180. It is similar to the 1st bullet on page 62 where you don't have a valid flank charge but contact the enemy in the flank. In that case, it fights as a normal frontal charge and conforms to the front.

Graham, to add to what gozerius said. Page 59 says the step forward happens after initial contact. Page 61 says the turn to face happens 'immediately after contact'. Page 61 goes on to say that after the turned base(s) is(are) shifted back, the flank charging BG continues its move forward even if exceeding its normal move distance. So the order of events is contact, turn to face, step forward.

[dave_r]

Except in this case one base has been hit in the flank and one base in the rear. So are you suggesting that one base turns 90 and one base turns 180?

The step forward hits the base in the rear but it is treated as a flank charge, so 'no' the base would not turn 180. It is similar to the 1st bullet on page 62 where you don't have a valid flank charge but contact the enemy in the flank. In that case, it fights as a normal frontal charge and conforms to the front.

Graham, to add to what gozerius said. Page 59 says the step forward happens after initial contact. Page 61 says the turn to face happens 'immediately after contact'. Page 61 goes on to say that after the turned base(s) is(are) shifted back, the flank charging BG continues its move forward even if exceeding its normal move distance. So the order of events is contact, turn to face, step forward.

Yes, but nowhere in the rules does it state you have to turn 90 rather than 180 degrees.

[gozerius]

You face a flank charge by turning 90 degrees. A rear charge by turning 180. It's academic. You are not facing a flank charge if you turn 180. You are facing the rear. You guys are engaged in a poor case of legalisms, suspending good judgment for the sake of argument. The rules are clear, the application straightforward. But because the rule does not explicitly state that a base turn 90 to face a flank charge and 180 to face a rear charge, you will continue to argue that it could be either. And you wonder why the sport is dying.

[AlanCutner]

And you wonder why the sport is dying.

Not convinced wargaming is dying. FoG may be going nowhere. Warhammer and other games still do fairly well.

[dave_r]

You face a flank charge by turning 90 degrees. A rear charge by turning 180. It's academic. You are not facing a flank charge if you turn 180. You are facing the rear. You guys are engaged in a poor case of legalisms, suspending good judgment for the sake of argument. The rules are clear, the application straightforward. But because the rule does not explicitly state that a base turn 90 to face a flank charge and 180 to face a rear charge, you will continue to argue that it could be either. And you wonder why the sport is dying.

The problem with your entire argument is that it makes the game easier in this instance to turn 180 degrees. That way everybody fights, nobody get's displaced and you don't end up in awkward situations.

I would suggest it is yourself who is attempting to manipulate the rules into getting the outcome _you_ want. The rules have been quoted and nowhere does it state that you turn 90 degrees for a flank charge and 180 degrees for a rear charge - you've just made it up. Arguing your case is fine - but don't get all high and mighty when you are the one who is making assumptions that aren't there.

If you look at tournament numbers, I think you'll find numbers are on the increase. There aren't hundreds of people playing one ruleset, but I think we've got to accept that DBM was a bit of a one-off in the regard.