Art De La Guerre

[SteveR]

Is a unit of medium infantry required to enter a gully in order to fully conform to an opponent, or can it elect to fight with an incomplete conformation per page 53?

A unit is not required to conform to an enemy if it will enter terrain which penalizes it, however a gully does not penalize medium infantry and fighting in a gully is a +1 to the opponent rather than a minus to the unit in the gully.  

So a literal reading to me implies that the medium infantry must conform.

[Longtooth]

On the basis that the medium infantry is conforming, it must be attacking. Although details are not clear, I imagine that the enemy unity has a corner sitting just outside the gully and you want to attack in such as way as to receive a +1 bonus for your opponent being 'in the gully'.....if this is correct, it sounds like a case of you wanting to have your cake and eat it too

I would opt for the literal reading. If you want the +1 bonus for your opponent being in the gully, you will have to wait for him to attack you.

Jesse

[SteveR]

No, the cunning was on the part of my opponent. Sorry for being unclear.

He had a unit of Medium infantry outside a gully and wheeled it so that although I contacted his front outside the gully, and I was originally outside the gully, a full conformation would pull me into the gully.

[KevinD]

[SteveR]

Not exactly Kevin.

No one was in the gully.  He just positioned himself so that although I could contact his front edge outside the gully, when I conformed completely I would have to enter it.

The rules do not say “disadvantaged” they say “penalized” and there was no penalty to me, only a bonus to him.

Situationally it feels like a conformation into a penalizing terrain situation but by the letter of the rules this is not the case.

However in these rules you can’t always go by the letter of the law particularly when the intent in an unusual circumstance is unclear.

So is this supposed to be analogous to a conformation into terrain, or are the rules deliberately make a distinction in this particular circumstance?

[Za Otlichiye]

Page 64 is "defending" a gully edge different than attacking into a gully? (probably just a color word)
The gully bonus plus the rough terrain penalty is a double whammy...

[Hazelbark]

The rule says conformed unless "penalized" by terrain. A penalty is common sense a negative not the lack of a positive.

[Za Otlichiye]

[Ramses II]

This question was answered in a similar fashion in V3 Here:

Melee Disadvantage for Impetuous Troops
http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/adlg/v3/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93767#93767

An impetuous unit is forced to charge into an apparently ‘unfavourable’ position where the enemy gains a bonus rather than the chargers suffering a combat penalty.
So, impetuous units are indeed required to charge uphill (if the hill does not penalise them), because the target on top of the hill gains an advantage rather than the hill imposing a disadvantage on the chargers. (P46 exceptions to uncontrolled charge, terrain disadvantage).

If you think about it, this closely models the situation in the battle of Hastings, where the Normans made several unsuccessfull cavalry charges uphill (being impetuous), and the battle only changed when the over confident Anglo-Saxons pursued them downhill.

In a similar fashion, from the original question, the charging MI would be forced to conform into a gully (which does not penalise them per se) giving their opponents a bonus for fighting on the edge of a gully. The same would be true for fighting on the edge of a river bank provided the river did not penalise the unit being forced to conform.

Note, a road fording a river removes the movement penalties but not the combat penalties (p72 definition)

[SteveR]

Thanks to all who answered.

The implications of interpreting it any other way that, for example, impetuous troops would not be forced to go into an enemy which is on a gentle hill, had not escaped me.  

Dan, you made two mistakes, first in saying a lack of a positive is not a negative.  That is not the situation- in a zero sum game a positive to your opponent is definitely a relative negative to you.

Secondly in appealing to common sense in trying to interpret the rules. 

Hastings is probably not a completely analogous situation.  The impetuous troops were surely the ones who charged down off the hill.  Harold must not have had 3 CP to hold them.

[Ramses II]

[Hazelbark]

[SteveR]

Well Gavin, I am certainly aware of the page 46 exemption. So the Normans would have had to turn to not have a front edge showing. It was a feigned flight after all, or at least their embedded bards claimed so after the fact.

And Dan, you are a prince among men.

[Hazelbark]