|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 23, 2018 4:08:32 GMT
Gents:
I have released the 2018 FAQ into the wild!
You will find it in the Files section of the Yahoogroup, on Keith's website, and hopefully in the Wiki on this site... hopefully... If I can figure out how to do it.
New entries answer some sticky questions regarding conformation, remind players of some often overlook changes from previous editions, and clarify an overlap issue.
I hope everyone finds it useful.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 23, 2018 15:10:16 GMT
We will be bringing our local group up to speed this Friday.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 23, 2018 15:16:19 GMT
Thanks for the good work Joe. I am especially glad of the clarification of conforming for single elements hit by a moving group. For some inexplicable reason, people have this strange idea that a single element of Psiloi canted at an odd angle can effectively break up an entire Pike phalanx, by forcing all kinds of shenanigans to conform... It was never thus in HotT nor in DBA 2.2. I have no idea where this idea came from!
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 23, 2018 20:24:51 GMT
Not sure why anyone would think a single element can "mess up" a group in DBA 3.0. This was true in 2.2 (for all but Ps) and there were a few crafty ways to do it in HOTT but DBA 3.0 specifically requires a single element to conform to a group (except for the terrain exception).
FAQ committee had to deal with side/rear contacts on a single element where it must turn to face as part of conforming. Most players seemed to have assumed the whole thing took place at contact but this is not the case, because of the turn to face at least part of the move must occur at end of movement.
AFter much discussion we reached the committee like decision that the single element must immediatly conform into a "legal" contact but then must wait to turn to face at end of movement.
While this sounds convaluted it does solve some possible glitchs in waiting to even start conforming until end of movement.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 24, 2018 16:02:23 GMT
It was essentially applying 2.2 group to group movement mechanics to v3, I reckon, Tom. That said, how did these folks play Ps in good going, contacted by groups? I really don't know where this came from.
I am loving the FAQs. They are a great resource. They serve as great material for any formally issued clarificationa to v3! (I suggest v 3.001... Not v 3.1)
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jan 24, 2018 20:16:33 GMT
I am loving the FAQs. They are a great resource. They serve as great material for any formally issued clarificationa to v3! (I suggest v 3.001... Not v 3.1) Joe puts a lot of work into this process in an effort to clarify, on occasion, some sticky points. It was great to see that the conforming area clarified as for a range of reasons people had interpreted this differently in different countries. All these views needed to be discussed. It took a bit of work to achieve this outcome, but well worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 27, 2018 14:29:32 GMT
I think the interpretation could have arisen through Sue's book, in the example where a group of Ps contacts a single element of Ps. I really wish that example had shown the group hitting the corner of the single element. We would have had way more bang for the buck.
|
|
