Art De La Guerre

[Laurence]

Rules p52 Conforming: Conforming is MANDATORY [..]

Rules p52 Contact restrictions: WWg/Art can NEVER charge an enemy [..]

Contradictory?


p54 Unable to conform / diagram:
If A1 was a WWg, must he conform to B during its phase?

Again, contradictory to Contact restriction above-mentioned?

[madaxeman]

Conforming explicitly isn’t charging though......
_________________
www.madaxeman.com

[Laurence]

[Mark G Fry]

An interesting situation.

So Artillery & WWGs are forced to conform, but does this also apply to troops behind field fortifications as well? Or are they not required to do so?
In a situation where an attack on a field fortification might result in the defending unit being dragged out of its protective fortifications so as to conform, this hardly meets the situation as described on P.52 ["Conforming is mandatory unless it forces a friendly or enemy unit to leave the table or to enter terrain in which the unit is penalized in melee."] unless the unit enters a new terrain type (wood or steep hill etc).

This all seems very odd as generally field artillery in this period is primarily static (immobile - other than some smaller C15th wheeled bombards or wheelbarrow type Chinese rocket launchers). Likewise - in set piece battles most war wagons are without their draft animals and very often chained together or dug-in. The idea that they trundle around like wooden tanks is a rules writers fallacy based on a single Hussite battle.

Also ... if a WWg wins a melee and destroys all attacking enemy units - can it conform after melee? And if so can it do so along the edge where the last enemy unit was destroyed, even if that is one of the long sides ...?

I am aware I am being provocative here but it just seems crazy that you can have a battle-line of 12 (& I exaggerate for effect) flank-on WWgs with 2 Heavy Bombards behind field fortifications interspersed among them, all being dragged across the board to conform to a melee on one flank.
In this instance, the Heavy Bombard will almost certainly end up dragged away from their field fortifications, or will those fortifications 'travel' with the Heavy Artillery? (The mind boggles!)

Clarifications and thoughts appreciated
Many thanks

mark

[Hazelbark]

Well the likelihood this could be engineer is remote

So I can't quickly think of how a unit could be conformed away form fortifications. Unit is 1 UD. Fortifications are 1 UD. Anyone who contact there front even if for some odd reason don't conform still have 1.10th of a UD in front of the fortification. So its effect still applies.

So it is a game effect of weird bases, but in this case has no practical effect.

[Mark G Fry]

We had it in a game where the fortifications were set back so they were overlapped by terrain, whivh prevented the attacker conforming as his unit would have been dragged into impassible terrain.

However, my point is really that the sight of units behinf FF or WWgs and even worse Heavy artillery moving to conform not only looks odd but can lead to a wagon line being inadvertantly being pulled apart to conform.

Personally, I think there zhould be no conforming for WWgs or Artillery or troops defending Field Fortifications.

Alzo - my 2nd point can WWgs or Artillery pursue? A nd if so can the WWg pursue to its long side as that is not clear.

Many thanks

[fdunadan]

it seems that the rule p 54 covers this:

conformation impossible: the fight is resolved even if the unit cannot conform to each others (front contact only, a flank attack must conform to be valide)
so the attacking unit can't go in impassable terrain (or even rough or difficult if there is a mellee disadvantage) AND the defending unit won't conform since it would lead her in a less favorable terrain (ie outside the fortifiacations)
Ruling otherwise would lead to abuse and insanity

As for the WWg, since they don't have flank or rear and can't contact an ennemy, they never conform, it's the attacking unit that conform (as good as possible)

Pursuit is a tricky one. Apparently there is no restrictions on the unit that can pursue...
WWg will generaly prefer the shooting, and can't contact an ennemy so pursuit seems unlikely.
Artillerie must win a melee(and in her phase, so after a first combat in the opponent's phase). I have VERY rarely seen an Art winning a melee (once in fact, against LI) so unlikely too... and the Art can't contact, so no flank attack wich is the more useful use of pursue.
_________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat.

[lionelrus]

So british question..
According to the rule, wwg and art have to conform as other troop. It's not said FF prevent units behind to conform, and the rules says this must be done if terrain don't penalize the conforming unit, and good going don't pénalise.
So clearly Hervé forgot to treat this problem because it had not been seen by testers, only warped minded guy can see that. It' the reason why Hervé wrote "umpire is alway right", because a french umpire would put on eye on the game and would said "nobody is conforming".
Hervé was DBM player in a long time, and so know it's no way to foresee all cheesies and warped ideas.

I would be happy to fight again a army with 12 WWG and 2 art behind FF, in English it's named "easy victory" and in french "fingers in the nose".
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[AlanCutner]

[Mark G Fry]

Leaving aside the obvious Anglo-French provocation
I stand you my 12 WWg & 2 Hvy Artillery behind FF verse your Hsiung-Nu - any time

As I do not play the majority of my games with a French Umpire (or often any umpire at all) I cannot benefit from the superior gaming experience this might offer me with regards to rules interpretations

I disagree that the rules (as written) prohibit WWg and Artillery being forced to conform in melee, where their attacker cannot conform, for whatever reason.
The way the rules are written it is clear that all troops must conform as long as they are not going to do so into terrain that would adversely effect them.

Likewise there is nothing in the rules that states that troops behind Field Fortifications cannot be forced to conform away from their fortifications either.

We seem to be in agreement, regardless of whether this is a potentially hypothetical situation or not, that conforming for these troops (WWg, Artillery or troops in melee defending Field Fortifications) is unrealistic and brings the rules into disrepute.

A simple statement in the rules as follows would solve this issue:

[Mark G Fry]

P.60 FORTIFICATIONS
States:

[Mark G Fry]

[Hazelbark]

the 1/10th was for example.

XXXXZZZZ
__YYYY


So if two units match up like so.
Where Y is entirely behind fortification. X cannot conform for whatever reason so in initial attack Y is behind fortification and all its effects. Then in Y turn it conforms to X. But the situation remains that Y is still fighting across fortifications. So all effects apply. In effect the conform has been for the eye, but it does not change mechanics. There is no situation above where X starts attacking across fortifications that can conform Y away from them.

Note fortifications cannot be set up less than 1 UD apart so you cannot use this effect to have more troops behind fortifications than should be.

[Mark G Fry]

Thank you - Hazelbark

I see how the example works, it is the view that even if Y is only partly behind the field fortifications it is still counted as having the benefit of them, that is new to me.
This looks like it is a specific new ruling as the definition of being able to gain benefit from the field fortification is (as stated in the rules) that the unit behind them must be aligned with their rear edge.
We have always played it that this alignment must also be corner to corner so as to avoid a situation where you end up with 6 bases of FF protecting 8 bases of troops (for example).

The rule on P.69 that states that FF cannot be set up under 1 UD apart is helpful - thank you.

NB: I am not trying to be difficult with these questions - but I was UK Armati Umpire for nearly 20 years and as such I know just how important it is to have clear ruling on things.

Many thanks
Mark

Do you have a view on WWgs and Artillery pursuing?

[Hazelbark]

I don't like the artillery and war wagwagon pursing. I am sure it is an oversight. But it appears they can, although it may never happen.

On the Umpire side, I think these rules are time for a culture change. Now I litigated my share of the DBx rules. I did WRG 4th modified, but I was too young then to litigate. I have played ancients tournaments on 3 continents. I get where we come from. So the following includes both the present me and the past me and is not aimed at anyone else.

Why I an enthusiastic about these rules is they are common sense, written mostly where common sense is the right answer. We should eschew the dogmas of the past where we/me/others sought to win through rule exploitation and not through game strategy. My first love of miniatures was Napoleonic era. I would never tolerate in that period what I have personally litigated in ancients. Further in these rules with one rule exception the better strategist will beat the better rules lawyer. That was not the case in DBM for example. You could litigate to victory. So I get you are not trying to be difficult. I often do the exact same, "what is the snippet here that is the guiding rule". But at a larger level as a hobby niche we should try to embrace the move away from rule litigation. That is hard and I am not innocent. It's also hard often to separate a legitimate "how do we resolves this situation" versus a "can I exploit a rule to do this move" situation.

So back to the pursue I have yet to see an artillery able and want to pursue. I assume the time it will make sense is when it gets lucky and by advancing gets out of the rout zone from another unit and by avoiding that contact you hope to not lose the game before time is called. And for a warwagon it probably means pursuing into a place that protects the flank of something else by physically blocking the route size it does not have a ZOC. Neither is desirable in over 300+ games and umpiring a chunk more over here, it has never even come up. My end explanation if it happened was in the swirl and din of battle stuff happens and people got confused and its pretty marginal. Maybe it will come up more next year when I want to build scenarios with siege walls and thus more artillery.

* The one rule exception on block evaders is annoyingly easy, but I do think it keeps the skirmishing table sitting armies more honest.

** There was a second that was very sneaky and now banned. So hurrah!