Conforming...

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

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Conforming...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:42 am

Image

There seems to be some confusion about conforming and, if possible, I'd like some sort of definitive ruling (are you reading this BHGS? :-)).

In the diagram above most players seem to favour 'B' as the correct conform after impact, presumably on the grounds of the wording, "slide by the minimum necessary to conform..." but, IMHO, forgetting what follows: "...to the enemy bases in contact."

There are two v two bases in contact at impact, so why would one of them slide to 'only' become an overlap? The diagram at the top of page 78 contains notes which favour 'A':

(1) Bases that DO NOT CONTACT ENEMY move to become an overlap...

(2) Bases move (shift or pivot or both) the shortest distance possible, and sideways, up to 1 base width in order to line up OPPOSITE enemy troops.

The 'fly in the ointment' is in the first bullet point on Conforming on page 77: Conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base, or CONFORMING TO AN OVERLAP POSITION (see below). The 'see below' bit seems to refer to the third bullet point, which deals with bases in contact with with the flank of enemy bases which did not qualify as a flank charge. There is no other mention of overlaps, except in the diagram on page 78.

However, the fateful words, 'or conforming to an overlap position', are used to justify position 'B'.

Help, please...

Chris

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Conforming...

Post by philqw78 » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:56 am

B
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2988
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by grahambriggs » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:43 pm

Chris, it might be me but I can't see your diagram

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Conforming...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:21 pm

Just e-mailed it to you, Graham...

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2988
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by grahambriggs » Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:37 pm

BGs of 2 bases? B definitely. You measure what would be the shortest conform to the bases you hit and/or an overlap position. So, both A and B are appropriate conforms but B is shorter, so you do B.

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Conforming...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:52 pm

"You measure what would be the shortest conform to the bases you hit and/or an overlap position."

I see what you're saying but I can't find anything in the rules which actually says a base in frontal contact conforms by becoming an overlap. Have I missed something (which wouldn't be unusual!)?

:-)

evernight
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:06 pm

Re: Conforming...

Post by evernight » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:27 pm

In impact fase the both BG 2 would fight with 2 dices, because they have 2 bases in contact.
In melee fase they conform as B, having each 1 base in contact and 1 base as overlap, right?

Two images in pages 91 and 93 V1.0 describe that.

gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by gozerius » Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:13 am

Actually, every image related to conforming shows that. It is what is meant by "conforms by the minimum necessary with the bases in contact." The wording and diagrams do not change between V1 and V2.
Although I have always asserted that the emphasis should be on the part of the rule requiring moving by the minimum necessary to line up with an enemy base, or an overlap, a large number believe that the emphasis is on conforming fully with the bases in contact. In V2.0 the relevant wording on page 92 adds clarity. If two bases would conform to the same enemy base, then the one which has the shortest move fights against it. So, a base with more frontage in contact with an enemy base will conform to it, while a base with just a fraction in contact will generally be pushed to overlap, or to an adjacent base. See diagrams for simple conforms, page 73; Melees that don't line up, page 93; and the relative positions of bases shown on pages 97 (impact) and 99 (melee). In no case does a base get to claim conforming rights against an enemy base just because it rolled dice against it in impact. In each of these cases the bases conform to the base or overlap position that is the shortest move. Or in the case of the bases unable to conform by the shortest move, they do not move at all but fight the enemy bases they would have conformed to if there were room.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians

Cynical
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by Cynical » Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:34 am

ChrisTofalos wrote:Image
I would say neither. In your diagram you say it's 2 BG vs 2 BG and that it is 2 bases vs 2 bases at impact.

So unless I'm completely on the wrong track I think it would become:

:mrgreen: :D :D :) :)
:mrgreen: :D :D :) :)
:oops: :oops: :twisted: :twisted:
:oops: :oops: :twisted: :twisted:

with :mrgreen: being a space.

otherwise in B the :oops: cavalry would have no bases fighting it.

If I'm on the wrong track feel free to ignore this :?

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2988
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by grahambriggs » Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:38 am

gozerius wrote:Although I have always asserted that the emphasis should be on the part of the rule requiring moving by the minimum necessary to line up with an enemy base, or an overlap, a large number believe that the emphasis is on conforming fully with the bases in contact.
I think the trap people fall in to is not conforming to the bases in contact but to assume that that means the only option for that is to end up in full front edge contact with those bases. Whereas the definition in the rules also specifically says that that an overlap position also counts.

mungocallow
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:22 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by mungocallow » Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:41 am

B

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Conforming...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:19 am

grahambriggs wrote:I think the trap people fall in to is not conforming to the bases in contact but to assume that that means the only option for that is to end up in full front edge contact with those bases. Whereas the definition in the rules also specifically says that that an overlap position also counts.
Got to disagree, Graham (no surprise, eh?! :D ). The rules state: " ...or conforming to an overlap position (see below)." The only reference which follows which mentions overlaps concerns bases in contact with an enemy FLANK as a result of a charge not qualifying as a flank charge. These bases conform as an overlap. There is no mention at all of other bases (such as bases in frontal contact) becoming overlaps.

Furthermore, in my post of 8th December (viewtopic.php?f=43&t=54730) you stated:
grahambriggs wrote:This is a common error. people read the "by the minimum move possible" or whatever it says and want to move the bases the shortest distance but they forget the conform is to the enemy bases in contact.
I know outcome 'B' is the most commonly applied but there is absolutely nothing in the rules to justify it...

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Conforming...

Post by philqw78 » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:44 am

The diagram below the rule justifies it
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2988
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by grahambriggs » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:36 pm

philqw78 wrote:The diagram below the rule justifies it
and that is indeed part of the rules...

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Conforming...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:59 pm

philqw78 wrote:The diagram below the rule justifies it
No, it simply doesn't!

In fact, the first diagram reinforces my original opinion by stating: "Bases THAT DO NOT CONTACT ENEMY FRONTALLY move to become an overlap." In my diagram BOTH pairs of bases are in frontal contact with an opponent; that is, two bases frontally contact two bases. Why should one on each side become an overlap, rather than fighting front face to front face?

Can anyone give me the rule wording (or diagram) which actually states (or shows) a base in frontal contact with an enemy base is moved to an overlap? I can't see anything - anywhere! - that does.

I've got to repeat Graham's quote to my December post:
grahambriggs wrote:This is a common error. people read the "by the minimum move possible" or whatever it says and want to move the bases the shortest distance but they forget the conform is to the enemy bases in contact.
By the above (and what's written and shown in the rules), outcome 'A' is the only one which is legal...

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Conforming...

Post by philqw78 » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:57 pm

But some bases that do not contact frontally must conform frontally
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

titanu
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 am

Re: Conforming...

Post by titanu » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:24 pm

ChrisTofalos wrote:…. "Bases THAT DO NOT CONTACT ENEMY FRONTALLY move to become an overlap." ...
Chris you are missing the point here. It does NOT say that bases IN contact conform onto front edge to front edge contact ONLY. It DOES say if that conforming is front edge to front edge OR as an overlap are equally valid.
ChrisTofalos wrote:….
In my diagram BOTH pairs of bases are in frontal contact with an opponent; that is, two bases frontally contact two bases. Why should one on each side become an overlap, rather than fighting front face to front face?
Because it is the ‘MINIMUM NECESSARY’ movement distance.
ChrisTofalos wrote:….Can anyone give me the rule wording (or diagram) which actually states (or shows) a base in frontal contact with an enemy base is moved to an overlap? I can't see anything - anywhere! - that does.
Page 77 – conforming – 1st bullet
‘Conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position.
NOWHERE and I repeat NOWHERE does it mention that bases IN front edge to front edge contact already are moved differently.
So if conformation to front to front or an overlap are treated in EXACTLY the same as one another which of ‘A’ or ‘B’ is the shortest move? It is ‘B’.

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Conforming...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:34 pm

titanu wrote:
ChrisTofalos wrote:…. "Bases THAT DO NOT CONTACT ENEMY FRONTALLY move to become an overlap." ...
Chris you are missing the point here. It does NOT say that bases IN contact conform onto front edge to front edge contact ONLY. It DOES say if that conforming is front edge to front edge OR as an overlap are equally valid.
Sorry, but it does not state anything about conforming to front edge or overlap being EQUALLY VALID in any way, shape or form. For conforming as an overlap it actually states "see below" and the ONLY text following this refers to conforming as an overlap after contacting a side edge.
ChrisTofalos wrote:….
In my diagram BOTH pairs of bases are in frontal contact with an opponent; that is, two bases frontally contact two bases. Why should one on each side become an overlap, rather than fighting front face to front face?
titanu wrote:Because it is the ‘MINIMUM NECESSARY’ movement distance.
Sorry, again, but you're completely misquoting what is written. It actually states: "...by the minimum necessary to conform TO THE ENEMY BASES IN CONTACT. There is nothing in the rules that suggests, implies, hints or insinuates that a base in FRONTAL CONTACT with an enemy base becomes an overlap. Period...
ChrisTofalos wrote:….Can anyone give me the rule wording (or diagram) which actually states (or shows) a base in frontal contact with an enemy base is moved to an overlap? I can't see anything - anywhere! - that does.
titanu wrote:Page 77 – conforming – 1st bullet
‘Conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position.
NOWHERE and I repeat NOWHERE does it mention that bases IN front edge to front edge contact already are moved differently.
So if conformation to front to front or an overlap are treated in EXACTLY the same as one another which of ‘A’ or ‘B’ is the shortest move? It is ‘B’.
They are NOT treated in EXACTLY the same way at all. Where on earth did you pull that one from? The only reference to troops becoming an overlap concerns those that contact an enemy SIDE EDGE.

I've tried to defend my interpretation of conforming by actually quoting the wording in the rules (and diagrams). I find myself fending off counter arguments that simply MISQUOTE WHAT IS WRITTEN or even conflict with what the writer has previously said.

I stand by what I've said because it's based on what is written down completely - not selectively quoted.

It HAS to be 'A'...

PS: I welcome further contributions but PLEASE quote chapter and verse - in full!

PPS: Apologies for the 'odd' formatting! :-)

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Conforming...

Post by philqw78 » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:01 pm

to anoverlap position (see below)

Means see below for description of overlap position. Not see below to expand on this rule as it stands as a rule on its own

So its still B
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Conforming...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:36 pm

philqw78 wrote:to anoverlap position (see below)

Means see below for description of overlap position. Not see below to expand on this rule as it stands as a rule on its own

So its still B
Nope! If they'd left out the comma between, "...front edge contact with an enemy base (AND) or conforming to an overlap position (see below)." you might have a case but the comma clearly separates what preceded with what follows. If they meant what you're suggesting there'd be no need for a comma at all...

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”