| Auteur |
Message |
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
 Posté le: Ven Jan 31, 2025 11:16 pm Sujet du message: Incomplete conformation on a flank |
 |
Notice that I have turned unit B2 180° so that its front edge partially protrudes from the terrain.
The question is does unit A2 still fight to the flank of B2 or does it now make an incomplete conformation on the front instead?
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 721
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Ven Jan 31, 2025 11:33 pm Sujet du message: |
|
What makes A2 different from A1 in your picture?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Ven Jan 31, 2025 11:41 pm Sujet du message: |
|
The front of B1 is entirely outside the terrain, otherwise A1 would not have had sufficient move to conform fully on the front.
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 721
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Ven Jan 31, 2025 11:49 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Do you pay for conform distance?
Is it ever effected by terrain they can move through?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Ven Jan 31, 2025 11:54 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Isn't it obvious from the text that you do pay for conform distance? And that the terrain affects that distance. Otherwise there would be no point to the original diagram in the book.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 721
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Sam Fév 01, 2025 12:21 am Sujet du message: |
|
That's contact distance your paying for.
Never considered paying to be sent to the front if some if the side is in charge reach.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 721
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Sam Fév 01, 2025 12:54 am Sujet du message: |
|
P50 conformation definition last but one bullet point.
Don't pay for conformation distance.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Sam Fév 01, 2025 8:49 am Sujet du message: |
|
We are both wrong, it says:
| Citation: | | The distance moved during a conformation is not deducted from movement allowance |
The diagram makes it clear that the cavalry would not have the movement allowance to make contact if it entered the terrain.
However, that is not the point of the question so let's change the diagram:
The Cavalry has just charge into contact. Does it fight on the flank or on the front?[/img]
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 721
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Sam Fév 01, 2025 8:23 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Front - as incomplete conformation there.
P53 incomplete conformation 1st bullet.
Flank and rear conformation must be fully conformed, front does not have this stipulation, incomplete conformation is possible there.
Does that work for you?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Lun Fév 03, 2025 1:26 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Of course it doesn't, because that isn't the rule 
| Citation: | Page 53 Incomplete conformation, bullet points 1 & 3
• If a unit cannot fully conform on the flank of an enemy, then if possible, it must fully conform on the rear if it contacts a rear corner or on the front if it contacts a front corner.
• Otherwise, units remain in a position of incomplete conformation[/list] |
All I'm trying to do is establish if this is the intention of the rule since it seems to run against the general concept flank attacks being difficult to achieve because of the overwhelming power they give.
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Andy Fyfe
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 80
|
| Posté le: Lun Fév 03, 2025 2:58 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | Of course it doesn't, because that isn't the rule
| Citation: | Page 53 Incomplete conformation, bullet points 1 & 3
• If a unit cannot fully conform on the flank of an enemy, then if possible, it must fully conform on the rear if it contacts a rear corner or on the front if it contacts a front corner.
• Otherwise, units remain in a position of incomplete conformation[/list] |
All I'm trying to do is establish if this is the intention of the rule since it seems to run against the general concept flank attacks being difficult to achieve because of the overwhelming power they give.
Dave |
It stays in incomplete conformation with the flank of the target.
It gets +1 in melee for a flank attack but does not drop the target to a combat factor of zero.
It does cancel the targets 2HW, Impact, Javelin, Polearm, Furious charge and Missile support.
Andy |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1597
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Lun Fév 03, 2025 5:18 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | Of course it doesn't, because that isn't the rule
| Citation: | Page 53 Incomplete conformation, bullet points 1 & 3
• If a unit cannot fully conform on the flank of an enemy, then if possible, it must fully conform on the rear if it contacts a rear corner or on the front if it contacts a front corner.
• Otherwise, units remain in a position of incomplete conformation[/list] |
All I'm trying to do is establish if this is the intention of the rule since it seems to run against the general concept flank attacks being difficult to achieve because of the overwhelming power they give.
Dave |
In the picture the “thing†stopping the cavalry co norming fully is terrain that would penalise it in meleeÂ
This is a specific, named exception to the Thou Shalt Confirm Fully basic rule, and is spelled out in the second part of the 5th bullet on p50.  It’s got nothing to do with distance of conform.Â
So… the main rule is you have to conform fully
If you physically can …and the caveated exception is “unless this would put you in bad terrainâ€.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Mar Fév 04, 2025 4:07 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| madaxeman a écrit: | In the picture the “thing†stopping the cavalry co norming fully is terrain that would penalise it in meleeÂ
This is a specific, named exception to the Thou Shalt Confirm Fully basic rule, and is spelled out in the second part of the 5th bullet on p50.  It’s got nothing to do with distance of conform.Â
So… the main rule is you have to conform fully
If you physically can …and the caveated exception is “unless this would put you in bad terrainâ€. |
No, it's not an exception. If you read the rubric below the diagram it doesn't say that the cavalry chooses not to conform, but that it "cannot conform". There isn't any suggestion that not conforming fully on the flank is ever optional.
In the situation originally diagrammed, there is little functional difference between a partial conformation on the flank and a a partial conformation on the rear so the restriction of not being able to get the bonus of a flank attack without being fully conformed doesn't really matter.
I agree with Andy's reading of the rules as written on page 53, Incomplete conformation. The reason for posting the changed diagram and asking the question was to check whether that is compatible with our understanding of wider principles.
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Neep
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 296
|
| Posté le: Mar Fév 04, 2025 11:30 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I'd assert that the bullet should be read as:
| Citation: | | If a unit cannot fully conform on the flank of an enemy, then if possible, it must fully conform on the rear if it contacts a rear corner or [fully conform] on the front if it contacts a front corner. |
It's the usual problem with trying to use conversational narrative to convey technical specifics.
This reading means the attacker remains on the flank in both cases.
----
I'd suggest the use of "cannot" in the illustration caption is one of those language nuance/translation issues and it would be better as "does not" or "will not".
----
This is a development of a question that recently appeared on the Facebook forum. Other questions that arose include:
If the alternate edge cannot be initially contacted by the rules on page 41, do you nonetheless conform to it?
[In my opinion no, the page 53 rule is intended to cover the case when either edge might have been targeted.]
If the charge does not make contact with a corner (i.e. a corner of the attacker makes contact with the side of the enemy) does the rule apply?
[On the one hand this allows the attacker to manipulate the outcome with a small wheel even when well aligned. On the other hand, you have a convoluted process where you charge, partially conform, then conform again on another face because you contact the corner in the first conformation. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
