Conforming on an angled charge

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Mehrunes
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:21 pm

Post by Mehrunes » Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:03 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Mehrunes wrote:So you are checking what is the least distance between two random points (you are referring to the left front corners and ignoring the right corners completely I assume?) other than checking which pivot and/or slide would be the minimum?
The pivot is always the same and the slide is obviously shorter to the left.
And, if I understand you correctly, I am ignoring the right front corner of the charger. This is because every other corner moves further to align to your preferrred position 'C', whereas to align to my preferred position, 'B', every other corner moves less.
As only the front corners are of interest when conforming you refer to one and ignore the other.
Why not the other way round?

It's no argument for me that there may be situations where you cannot conform.
I can also draw you a diagram where conforming to position B won't be possible. Of what matter is that?

So as I understand the problem, it's about whether you do the pivot and slide thing at the same time (which would result in moving right when referring to the left front corner only and moving left when referring to the right front corner only and thus not determinable) or sequential (which would make the result perfectly clear). Each approach would result in another end position. Unfortunately I cannot see how the rules state if you do it simultaneously or sequentially and so I prefer the approach which will provide the clearest outcome.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:54 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
dave_r wrote: If you continue to ignore that then there is little point in continuing.
Dave, what you are quoting is about overlapping. An enemy base must be fighting frontally to allow an overlap. It does have an effect on conforming, but not in this situation, as you could not conform with no frontal contact, into overlap.

Once again Phil is correct - Dave, you are mis-applying the rules in this situation I'm afraid.
He is obviously correct because as far as I can tell he has just agreed with what I said!

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius » Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:11 am

nothing like a question on conforming to cause 100 posts in response :shock:

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:00 am

Mehrunes wrote:As only the front corners are of interest when conforming you refer to one and ignore the other. Why not the other way round?
Why are only the front corners of interest?
Mehrunes wrote:It's no argument for me that there may be situations where you cannot conform.
I can also draw you a diagram where conforming to position B won't be possible. Of what matter is that?
because your insistance on pivotting then sliding makes conform impossible when it is clearly possible
Mehrunes wrote:So as I understand the problem, it's about whether you do the pivot and slide thing at the same time (which would result in moving right when referring to the left front corner only and moving left when referring to the right front corner only and thus not determinable) or sequential (which would make the result perfectly clear). Each approach would result in another end position. Unfortunately I cannot see how the rules state if you do it simultaneously or sequentially and so I prefer the approach which will provide the clearest outcome.
They say pivot and slide, not pivot then slide or slide then pivot. And means together to me, not later. And still you refer to only front corners. Why?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

Mehrunes
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:21 pm

Post by Mehrunes » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:09 am

Because you only conform with front corners to the enemy. Even if considering all corners you only satisfy three corners out of four whereas sequential conforming satisfy all corners.
because your insistance on pivotting then sliding makes conform impossible when it is clearly possible
Again, I can reverse that argument easily. There may be situations where simultaneous conforming makes conform impossible when it is clearly possible otherwise. So that is no argument. But then I cannot understand why not being able to conform is anything bad. There are rules for non-conformed melees, so what?

I see no point in arguing further because both our interpretations are valid according to the written rules. It need to be clarified by an author what was intended.
Until then I prefer sequential because it leads always to clear results (no need to measure odd distances between angled corners => after pivoting you will see at the instant which slide is shortest).
They say pivot and slide, not pivot then slide or slide then pivot. And means together to me, not later.
If you "lock and load", do you do it together or one after another? The term "and" clearly permits a sequential order of events.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:22 am

Mehrunes wrote:If you "lock and load", do you do it together or one after another? The term "and" clearly permits a sequential order of events.
Its Load then Ready. Lock and Load is an American thing, the writers are clearly English so I win. :wink:
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

BlackPrince
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:34 pm

Post by BlackPrince » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:25 am

and so it goes on again!

expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by expendablecinc » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:27 am

philqw78 wrote:
Mehrunes wrote:So you are checking what is the least distance between two random points (you are referring to the left front corners and ignoring the right corners completely I assume?) other than checking which pivot and/or slide would be the minimum?
The pivot is always the same and the slide is obviously shorter to the left.
And, if I understand you correctly, I am ignoring the right front corner of the charger. This is because every other corner moves further to align to your preferrred position 'C', whereas to align to my preferred position, 'B', every other corner moves less.
I reckon average the distance travelled by each corner between the two potential positions. Then average this acrossall bases in the front rank (or battlegroup) then go with the shorter average. That woudl make for a fun game.

seriously though the two 'reasonableness' eyballing options appear to be either:
- how far the base moves as a whole(dbesque furthest travelled corner)
or
- how far does the closest corner travel

Neither is in the rules. Unfortunately for us all slide adn pivot is in the rules and probably should be treated as such.

My preference is the simplest approach (which corner travels the furthest?). This keeps the base most closely situated where it starts and is easy to

A=B

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:40 am

BlackPrince wrote:and so it goes on again!
I like to encourage them - whilst they are considering angels on the head of a pin rather than actual tactics I think I'm ahead of the game :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:49 am

nikgaukroger wrote:I like to encourage them - whilst they are considering angels on the head of a pin rather than actual tactics I think I'm ahead of the game :lol:
I'm loving angels
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:05 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
BlackPrince wrote:and so it goes on again!
I like to encourage them - whilst they are considering angels on the head of a pin rather than actual tactics I think I'm ahead of the game :lol:
Shouldn't that be angles on the head of a pin?

rpayne
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:57 pm

Post by rpayne » Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:43 pm

I agree that we do need a clarification from the writers, as language has clearly failed in this circumstance.

kal5056
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:35 pm

Post by kal5056 » Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:20 pm

Good Luck with that wait you have before you there Ryan.
Gino
SMAC

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:25 pm

Its very clear.

1) Nothing says each base must only conform to the singular base it contacts.
2) Nothing says you slide then pivot or any other order.
3) Ruddock is wrong.

The issue is minimum necessary. Which is the minimum not by convulated motions, but minimum. Like Gino's usual score. The minimum.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:10 pm

hazelbark wrote: 3) Ruddock is wrong.

The issue is minimum necessary. Which is the minimum not by convulated motions, but minimum. Like Gino's usual score. The minimum.
Dan, just saying Dave is wrong usually means everybody else is right. But thats not right here so what is. A or D?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

kal5056
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:35 pm

Post by kal5056 » Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:38 pm

Which is the minimum not by convulated motions, but minimum. Like Gino's usual score. The minimum.


That Sir is a "Low Blow". :) Hardly worthy of comment.

No more, "Oh just let Hazelbark win, his party is out of power and he has a new baby at his age. The poor sod needs something."
I will have to have full at you next game putting all pity aside.
Gino
SMAC

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:25 pm

kal5056 wrote:I will have to have full at you next game putting all pity aside.
I look forward to the pleasure of your company when next we meet. Sadly I fear it may not be until next year.

johno
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Plymouth UK

Post by johno » Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:04 pm

Couple of random comments:

Everyone is clearly assuming that each base pivots on the point of contact - a sort of mini wheel. Why is that?

The rules say pivot, but don't tell you what point to pivot about: why are you all assuming that you can't pivot about the centre of the base?


I tend to measure the distance between the start point of the furthest moving front corner and the desired end position, with the shorter distance being where it ends up.

So, if the left corner of A had to move further to get to overlap in D than the right corner had to move to get to B, I'd go with B

However, from the posts above, it seems this simplistic straight line approach may not be correct!

johno
John Orange

Club Web Site: Plymouth Association of Wargamers

Family Web Site: The Oranges

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:33 am

johno wrote:However, from the posts above, it seems this simplistic straight line approach may not be correct!

johno
No Johno, some people think your method is more complex. I think shortest for all corners, pivotting and sliding at the same time (which BTW can never stop a possible conform despite some above arguments). Some think pivot then slide, which is easier to see, but will stop conforming in some situations.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23062
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Conforming on an angled charge

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:41 am

rpayne wrote:Dannie Martz and I have been having an argument about this for a few weeks now. We discussed it on the American FoG Yahoo Group thing, but he wants an official ruling from the people here, so I'm posting it here as well.

I have a diagram:

Image

Basically the root question is, is a base that adds dice on impact required to conform frontally to the base it threw dice against on impact, or does it conform to an overlap position if that is the shorter distance.

Thanks.
It is C.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”