Slitherine

I had a lively discussion on this point during a game with Hinter Hope on Thursday where he indicated I could not expand.
The situation was that I had a single element column of foot with its left flank on my own table edge. He charged the front element with a two element frontage mounted unit which hit the front right hand corner of my front base. After an inconclusive impact he found that he could not conform due to other units in the area and so remained angled with one element in contact and the other at an angle beyond my right flank. I could obviously not expand on my left flank due to the table edge but believed I could match on the right by moving out and expanding into contact with his overlapping element. Hunter's rational was that due to the angle of his overlapping base I could not move into an edge to edge and corner contact with my existing front base. He argued my expansion would create an illegal formation and therefore could not be allowed. My argument was that this was irrelevant as I was matching his overlap and that he should not gain unfair advantage because of the angle of his charge and the fact that other units prevented him conforming. Indeed we had both done this sort of expansion in the past.
Hunter will not accept my rational and hopefully some kind soul can respond to bring the issue to a conclusion.
Thanks in advance.
John

I think my point is that feeding in bases to an existing combat appears to be allowed "if there is room" to do so per page 96. My take is that John conforms to me in his bound then can expand. I don't remember coming across this in any of my games so far. Few opponents are obliging enough to have pike and shot in colum in front of my determned horse
HH

There was room to expand but just not in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with my existing front element which you claimed was an illegal formation. There was however room for me to contact your overlapping element as can be proved by the fact that I was able to expand again into a three element frontage unit in my own next turn.
John

Please be aware that I am replying to what I THINK is being asked:

In all circumstances you play out the fight 'as if you could conform'. This is so people don't find a geometric ploy to force a situation where in an otherwise normal combat nobody is disadvantaged.

Therefore, I would rule that the troops would be able to expand if there was an ability to do so if the obstruction wasn't there.

Thank you for your views. I think you have the situation spot on. The one thing That made FOG superior to DBM is that it removed all the geometric issues and things like kinked elements etc.
Any way I am sure Hunter will not be persuaded by one response so more feedback would be great.
John

ravenflight wrote:Please be aware that I am replying to what I THINK is being asked:

In all circumstances you play out the fight 'as if you could conform'. This is so people don't find a geometric ploy to force a situation where in an otherwise normal combat nobody is disadvantaged.

Therefore, I would rule that the troops would be able to expand if there was an ability to do so if the obstruction wasn't there.

I second this view

I agree, the rules are not explicit on this, but we've always interpreted fighting as if conformed as allowing expansions if they would be possible if the charger had conformed.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ravenflight wrote:Please be aware that I am replying to what I THINK is being asked:

In all circumstances you play out the fight 'as if you could conform'. This is so people don't find a geometric ploy to force a situation where in an otherwise normal combat nobody is disadvantaged.

Therefore, I would rule that the troops would be able to expand if there was an ability to do so if the obstruction wasn't there.

I second this view

I so rule as well. Let it be chiseled into the code of Hammurabi.

Furthermore the authors have been clear that any gamey attempts through geometric ploys should be met with a punch in the nose. Now assuming you are nice that is excessive. But if this violation of the intent (and I believe rules) were to stand the game would be all about organizing weird attacks that negate the ability to conform or feed into existing overlap and would rapidly follow DBR into the dust bin.

There is also the (written) rule that "illegal" formations are allowed (temporarily) if they happen when a unit expanding from a narrower-than-normal formation and trying to get to being a proper legal formation can't make it one expansion.

That's in the "feeding more bases into ..." section, but perhaps not as articulately expressed...

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

ravenflight wrote:Please be aware that I am replying to what I THINK is being asked:

In all circumstances you play out the fight 'as if you could conform'. This is so people don't find a geometric ploy to force a situation where in an otherwise normal combat nobody is disadvantaged.

Therefore, I would rule that the troops would be able to expand if there was an ability to do so if the obstruction wasn't there.

I second this view

I so rule as well. Let it be chiseled into the code of Hammurabi.

Furthermore the authors have been clear that any gamey attempts through geometric ploys should be met with a punch in the nose. Now assuming you are nice that is excessive. But if this violation of the intent (and I believe rules) were to stand the game would be all about organizing weird attacks that negate the ability to conform or feed into existing overlap and would rapidly follow DBR into the dust bin.

Not a gamey attempt folks. John had a column of shot and pike parallel to the table edge and a couple of centimeters behind a formed pike and shot unit 3 elements wide and 2 deep. The only way the horse could impact them was to angle the charge to their front corner and they couldn't then conform in the melee phase as the 3x2 unit was in the way . The only way John could feed more bases in was to have some elements out of contact with the one impacted. Couldn't find the bit in the rules about fighting as if you could conform. Maybe this was a FOG AM thing?

The rules don't appear to be at all clear on this but as always I am happy to accept the wisdom of the illuminati and will play it that way.


HH

Try page 113. (Which is in the same bit of the rules as in AM)

spotteddog wrote:Not a gamey attempt folks. John had a column of shot and pike parallel to the table edge and a couple of centimeters behind a formed pike and shot unit 3 elements wide and 2 deep. The only way the horse could impact them was to angle the charge to their front corner and they couldn't then conform in the melee phase as the 3x2 unit was in the way . The only way John could feed more bases in was to have some elements out of contact with the one impacted. Couldn't find the bit in the rules about fighting as if you could conform. Maybe this was a FOG AM thing?

The rules don't appear to be at all clear on this but as always I am happy to accept the wisdom of the illuminati and will play it that way.


HH

Hi Hunter,

Please do not think that I was calling you or anyone else gamey. I absolutely abhore being called gamey or saying that my interpretations smell of cheese. Especially when I try as much as possible to comply with the rules (Q.V. my FoG:AM debate on rout moves... and I STILL think people are doing it wrong) so would never call another person gamey.

What I was saying is that the rules are written deliberately so that 'gamey play' will not gain an advantage. If you remember that game design philosophy, situations like the one here are easily worked out.

Hence my comments. If we did it the 'don't allow expanding' method, then rest assured people a lot less ethical than you would find techniques to exploit that.

nikgaukroger wrote:Try page 113. (Which is in the same bit of the rules as in AM)

Thanks Nik
Had a look and I'm not sure I'm convinced this covers the situation in the OP. BTW I seem to remember folks cunningly positioning elements so there wasnt room for folks to feed in more elements in AM so that they got an unmatchable overlap - although I havent seen that yet in R. Ach well never mind - at least we are all clear what is intended in the OP situation and that's what I was after so thanks again for your help.
HH

Well not until you attempted last Thursday!!
Only joking Hunter.
John

spotteddog wrote:BTW I seem to remember folks cunningly positioning elements so there wasnt room for folks to feed in more elements in AM so that they got an unmatchable overlap

There are situations where this would be true. For example, a person may put bases in a position where because of an impassible terrain feature (or one that they are loathe to go into) prevents an overlap. I don't think that's the same thing as angling and the like.

ravenflight wrote:

spotteddog wrote:BTW I seem to remember folks cunningly positioning elements so there wasnt room for folks to feed in more elements in AM so that they got an unmatchable overlap

There are situations where this would be true. For example, a person may put bases in a position where because of an impassible terrain feature (or one that they are loathe to go into) prevents an overlap. I don't think that's the same thing as angling and the like.

No - I meant positioning their own BGs so the opponent couldn't physically feed in more elements. More of an advantage in AM admittedly but does "as if they had conformed" apply in this situation would be the question illuminati?
HH

That's a different situation. If there is anything that would prevent an expansion, and that could not be shifted to make room, whether the opponent has conformed or not is irrelevant.

And the rules re non conforming units are I think exactly the same in FOGAM as they are in FOGR. As I said earlier we have both faced this situation many times in the past in games against each other and at Britcon etc. and t is for this reason I remain amazed as to why it has suddenly become an issue with you.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:And the rules re non conforming units are I think exactly the same in FOGAM as they are in FOGR. As I said earlier we have both faced this situation many times in the past in games against each other and at Britcon etc. and t is for this reason I remain amazed as to why it has suddenly become an issue with you.
John

I don't recall seeing anyone feed in during the melee phase at higgedly piggledly angles to the base impacted John. I honestly thought feeding in would have to wait till there was room to do. Obviously wrong as the illuminati have pointed out but still keen to know if you could have fed more bases in during the melee stage if there were troops in the way as if you had conformed.

seeker of wisdom

HH