If a BG is hit in the flank, and it is not fighting any other BG, how does it conform ? The rules say the formation should be the same as before reforming, but does this mean the same as if you turned 90 degrees.
As an example, let's say a BG of infantry 4 bases wide and 2 deep is hit in the flank. It the manouvre phase it conforms and turns to face the attacker. Is it now in a column 1 base wide and 8 deep (as if it had turned 90 degrees) or does it become 4 bases wide and 2 deep again. The former seems to make more sense but the rules don't seem clear on this.
Reforming when contacted in the flank
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
lawrenceg
- Colonel - Ju 88A
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
- Location: Former British Empire
When it says "The final position... must be as close as possible to the initial position..." it means the footprint must be as close as possible to the original and the bases must move as litlle as possible.
So in your case, the 1 base wide column is correct.
The wording here was discussed at length during beta testing, but I agree it is not entirely clear. That late in the testing everybody knew what they meant because all the testers had been playing for quite some time. The main concern was to stop people when reforming taking, say, all the bases from the left of a line and putting them on the right.
So in your case, the 1 base wide column is correct.
The wording here was discussed at length during beta testing, but I agree it is not entirely clear. That late in the testing everybody knew what they meant because all the testers had been playing for quite some time. The main concern was to stop people when reforming taking, say, all the bases from the left of a line and putting them on the right.
Lawrence Greaves
OK, the rules say the position and formation must be as close as possible after reforming to the position and formation before, but then it doesn't explain what this means. In a generally tightly written set of rules this is one of the loosest, most ambiguous sections in the book.
If a 4 x 2 formation is hit in the flank and ends up in a 1 x 8 formation, how is the formation after reforming close to the formation before. It's actually about as different as can be !
Is the intention that a BG hit in the flank reforms as if it turned 90 degrees ? If so, why not explicitly state that ?
How would, for example, a BG of 6 knights with 5 in the front rank and one behind end up after reforming to face a flank attack ? Would it make a difference if it has 4 bases in the front rank and 2 in the rear ? Would it make a difference where the rear rank bases were ?
If the position of each base is supposed to be as close as possible to the position before, does the movement of each base have to be measured and the minimum possible total distance (of all moving bases) found ?
I think this could do with clarification in the FAQ.
If a 4 x 2 formation is hit in the flank and ends up in a 1 x 8 formation, how is the formation after reforming close to the formation before. It's actually about as different as can be !
Is the intention that a BG hit in the flank reforms as if it turned 90 degrees ? If so, why not explicitly state that ?
How would, for example, a BG of 6 knights with 5 in the front rank and one behind end up after reforming to face a flank attack ? Would it make a difference if it has 4 bases in the front rank and 2 in the rear ? Would it make a difference where the rear rank bases were ?
If the position of each base is supposed to be as close as possible to the position before, does the movement of each base have to be measured and the minimum possible total distance (of all moving bases) found ?
I think this could do with clarification in the FAQ.
I think the problem is caused by the rule refering to the 'position and formation of the battle group prior to reforming'
If the word 'formation' had been left out, and 'battle group' was replaced by 'bases', then it would be much clearer.
I've never come across anyone who has a problem with this though - I think most people understand what it's supposed to mean.
Basically, you have to reform, in contact with, and facing the enemy, in the formation that you would be in if the BG made a normal 90deg turn.
I agree that rule-mongers could try to use the wording to construct all sorts of strange situations out of it.
If the concensus is that we need a FAQ, then we'll have to add one.
If the word 'formation' had been left out, and 'battle group' was replaced by 'bases', then it would be much clearer.
I've never come across anyone who has a problem with this though - I think most people understand what it's supposed to mean.
Basically, you have to reform, in contact with, and facing the enemy, in the formation that you would be in if the BG made a normal 90deg turn.
I agree that rule-mongers could try to use the wording to construct all sorts of strange situations out of it.
If the concensus is that we need a FAQ, then we'll have to add one.