| Auteur |
Message |
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
 Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 6:14 am Sujet du message: Conforming Units Already in Contact - some questions |
 |
First question:
| Citation: | Page 51, Conforming Units Already in Contact, paragraph 2:
The phasing player should resolve all such situations... if at all possible |
I read that as "The phasing player must resolve all such situations... etc."
Correct?
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 6:38 am Sujet du message: |
|
Two diagrams
CCK
KK
On K's turn two Kn have charged Impetuous HCv frontally and one has charged into the flank of the end unit.
The end Cavalry is routed as is the other end Knight unit, K chooses not to pursue. Like so:
C_K
_K
On C's turn there aren't enough CPs to move the Cavalry (it's Impetuous after all) so it has to conform into a situation where it is flanked. The combat factors are 0-5.
Second Question:
| Citation: | | Should the exception that allows impetuous units to not make an uncontrolled charge on enemy in situations where they would be flanked (P46, penultimate bp) be extended to cover all units that "should" conform in this way? |
PS for Tim - I'm not disputing with what the rule says here, just asking if that's the way it should  be
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Dernière édition par daveallen le Sam Juil 24, 2021 8:48 am; édité 2 fois |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 6:52 am Sujet du message: |
|
Similar to the previous situation:
K_H
_H
But H are HCv that routed a Kn on their turn.
This time K chooses to conform the Knight unit onto the HCv.
The HCv unit to it's front chooses to evade.
Third question:
| Citation: | | I assume it fights the HCv on its flank without further conformation. Correct? |
Fourth question:
| Citation: | | Does the flanking HCv have the option to evade? (bp4 suggests it can) |
Fifth question:
| Citation: | | If the HCv to the front chooses not to evade, would the flanking unit still have the option to evade? |
That's it for now.
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1599
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 8:19 am Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | First question:
| Citation: | Page 51, Conforming Units Already in Contact, paragraph 2:
The phasing player should resolve all such situations... if at all possible |
I read that as "The phasing player must resolve all such situations... etc."
Correct? |
I'm pretty sure that "should" was used instead of "must" in this line in the hope and expectation that this would avoid having some players ask if the implicit obligation of the words "must conform" would apply in situations when it would be impossible for them to do so.
Looks like another partial success... 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 8:34 am Sujet du message: |
|
| madaxeman a écrit: | I'm pretty sure that "should" was used instead of "must" in this line in the hope and expectation that this would avoid having some players ask if the implicit obligation of the words "must conform" would apply in situations when it would be impossible for them to do so.
Looks like another partial success... |
While I'm asking questions it doesn't hurt to get the easy ones out of the way first.
And I'm pretty sure "if at all possible" deals with cases where it's "impossible"
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1599
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 2:13 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | | madaxeman a écrit: | I'm pretty sure that "should" was used instead of "must" in this line in the hope and expectation that this would avoid having some players ask if the implicit obligation of the words "must conform" would apply in situations when it would be impossible for them to do so.
Looks like another partial success... |
While I'm asking questions it doesn't hurt to get the easy ones out of the way first.
And I'm pretty sure "if at all possible" deals with cases where it's "impossible" |
Do you know many Wargamers .....? Â
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015
Messages: 95
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 6:37 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I had one of these in my last game too.
_XX
ZYY
_Z_
Player 1 has cataphracts X fighting Player 2's cataphracts Y.
Player 1's cavalry Z hits the end cataphract in both the flank and rear.
Y on the left is predictably killed, Y on the right eliminates its opponent, but has no room to pursue (X had another line of cataphracts at a refused angle fighting more of Y's cataphracts, and there wasn't anywhere for Y to advance to).
The next turn:
_X_
Z_Y
_Z_
The only move Y could do was spend 2 CP to turn around and run away KNOWING it was going to get hit in the rear next turn... because getting hit in the rear was actually better odds than conforming into THAT mess.
_________________
- Let the Die be Cast |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015
Messages: 95
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 6:46 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Citation: | | Should the exception that allows impetuous units to not make an uncontrolled charge on enemy in situations where they would be flanked (P46, penultimate bp) be extended to cover all units that "should" conform in this way? |
Philosophically, I don't think the phasing player should be able to make -any- positive action that moves their flank or rear into the front of an enemy.
As far as conforming goes, it does seem odd that a bit of disadvantageous terrain negates the obligation to conform, but certain death by being surrounded doesn't do so.
Sadly, the convenient new chapter on conforming seems to have nothing in it that addresses the subject.
_________________
- Let the Die be Cast |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1599
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Sam Juil 24, 2021 7:11 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | Two diagrams
CCK
KK
On K's turn two Kn have charged Impetuous HCv frontally and one has charged into the flank of the end unit.
The end Cavalry is routed as is the other end Knight unit, K chooses not to pursue. Like so:
C_K
_K
On C's turn there aren't enough CPs to move the Cavalry (it's Impetuous after all) so it has to conform into a situation where it is flanked. The combat factors are 0-5.
Second Question:
| Citation: | | Should the exception that allows impetuous units to not make an uncontrolled charge on enemy in situations where they would be flanked (P46, penultimate bp) be extended to cover all units that "should" conform in this way? |
PS for Tim - I'm not disputing with what the rule says here, just asking if that's the way it should be |
Conforming is a game mechanic to allow an element based game to simulate two contiguous, undifferentiated lines of opposing combatants “thinning out†in a prolonged melee.Â
As such, which element moves into which position during conforming is irrelevant- the outcome is key, and that is that combat continues without pip expenditure as two lines of opposing elements start to eliminate one another.Â
Sometimes that’ll work out in your favour, sometimes it won’t….Â
It’s a different mechanism to achieve a different outcome to the impetuous “hold†thingÂ
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Dim Juil 25, 2021 12:53 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | First question:
| Citation: | Page 51, Conforming Units Already in Contact, paragraph 2:
The phasing player should resolve all such situations... if at all possible |
I read that as "The phasing player must resolve all such situations... etc."
Correct? |
Yes. This was amended from V3 to remove the odd situation where enemy units stayed in corner-to-corner contact without fighting. As you say, there may be reasons why conformation may not be possible. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Dim Juil 25, 2021 1:07 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | Two diagrams
CCK
KK
On K's turn two Kn have charged Impetuous HCv frontally and one has charged into the flank of the end unit.
The end Cavalry is routed as is the other end Knight unit, K chooses not to pursue. Like so:
C_K
_K
On C's turn there aren't enough CPs to move the Cavalry (it's Impetuous after all) so it has to conform into a situation where it is flanked. The combat factors are 0-5.
Second Question:
| Citation: | | Should the exception that allows impetuous units to not make an uncontrolled charge on enemy in situations where they would be flanked (P46, penultimate bp) be extended to cover all units that "should" conform in this way? |
PS for Tim - I'm not disputing with what the rule says here, just asking if that's the way it should be |
No Dave. Impetuous or not, the cavalry must conform if they cannot move away. So here they 'lose their heads', slide sideways to continue fighting with the Kn previously in simple support and with those odds, are most likely to lose their heads literally. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Dim Juil 25, 2021 1:29 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | Similar to the previous situation:
K_H
_H
But H are HCv that routed a Kn on their turn.
This time K chooses to conform the Knight unit onto the HCv.
The HCv unit to it's front chooses to evade. |
| daveallen a écrit: | Third question:
I assume it fights the HCv on its flank without further conformation. Correct? |
Correct. If the HC to the front of the Kn evades, there is no further conformation.
| daveallen a écrit: | Fifth question:
If the HCv to the front chooses not to evade, would the flanking unit still have the option to evade? |
I think the answer here is "No", because the flanking unit is not the subject of the conformation or subsequent melee. P52, BP4 allows units that are the subject of conformation to evade if they can.
| daveallen a écrit: | Fourth question:
Does the flanking HCv have the option to evade? (bp4 suggests it can) |
I think the answer is "Yes". Conformation is a rules mechanic that allows players to establish which units are in melee. Usually this is the reult of a charge (and evasion) or continuing a melee as here. Since the flanking HC will become the "main unit" of the melee when the other HC has evaded, I think it it may also evade, though it is not entirely clear in the rules. I will check with the DT
Dernière édition par Ramses II le Dim Juil 25, 2021 2:49 pm; édité 1 fois |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Dim Juil 25, 2021 1:39 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Jhykronos a écrit: | I had one of these in my last game too.
_XX
ZYY
_Z_
Player 1 has cataphracts X fighting Player 2's cataphracts Y.
Player 1's cavalry Z hits the end cataphract in both the flank and rear.
Y on the left is predictably killed, Y on the right eliminates its opponent, but has no room to pursue (X had another line of cataphracts at a refused angle fighting more of Y's cataphracts, and there wasn't anywhere for Y to advance to).
The next turn:
_X_
Z_Y
_Z_
The only move Y could do was spend 2 CP to turn around and run away KNOWING it was going to get hit in the rear next turn... because getting hit in the rear was actually better odds than conforming into THAT mess. |
Yup, Tim got it spot on where he said that sometimes conformation works for you, sometimes it doesn't. However from a wider perspective, you might have to cashier the commander for getting his cataphracts into such a trap in the first place . . .  |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Dim Juil 25, 2021 2:48 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Thanks for the replies, pretty much what I expected. I'm not convinced conforming into the valley of death was an intended consequence of the rule change, but as you say - it's the same for everyone. So just something to watch out for.
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1599
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Dim Juil 25, 2021 6:03 pm Sujet du message: |
|
“Free†, “mandatory†conforming was one of a number of things introduced to speed up combat resolution, and in that respect it has achieved what was intendedÂ
I’m not sure Herve really cares about “how†the minutiae of some of the corner case outcomes pan out - the fact it’s quicker was probably the key objectiveÂ
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
