|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 27, 2018 16:32:04 GMT
The moving Cav must attempt to conform but as it cannot the non-moving Aux must conform (or confusingly fight ast if overlapped a real mess if you try and enforce this option - not a good rule). The Aux will slide into corner contact and then if not contacted by another element to the front turn to face.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 27, 2018 17:36:34 GMT
So not much chance of getting a definitive ruling from the FAQ committee then!
And when do you think that the limitation "If this is not possible the move does not happen" applies, Tom?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 2, 2018 19:09:21 GMT
You want the "If not possible" to apply as little as possible - ideally never - its a fail safe catch all where we admit maybe even the more robust 3.0 conforming rules don't work.
Clearly in this case the real world answer is that the Cav should be able to charge the flank of the Aux. But Joe has convinced me for now that the well oiled (if not explained) 3.0 conforming rules apply only to front contacts. So we may have screwed up.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Oct 3, 2018 11:17:15 GMT
You want the "If not possible" to apply as little as possible - ideally never - its a fail safe catch all where we admit maybe even the more robust 3.0 conforming rules don't work. Clearly in this case the real world answer is that the Cav should be able to charge the flank of the Aux. But Joe has convinced me for now that the well oiled (if not explained) 3.0 conforming rules apply only to front contacts. So we may have screwed up. TomT Could it be altered to cover all round situation?
David Constable
Private note to myself - glad I like squares, life is so much simpler. Aide-mémoire to myself, need circa 500 hexagon bases for WWII by January.
|
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Oct 8, 2018 14:26:55 GMT
"... trops that would contact in real life, do so in the game and that moving a front edge into contact with enemy must result in combat. At the end of the bounds movement phase the contacting element ... must be lined up with an enemy element ... (c) in front edge to side edge contact with front corners in contact ... One party moves the minimum distance to so conform."
Sounds clear to me. The cavalry will charge. It cannot confirm, so the Auxilia confirme. Afterwards the Auxila are turned, because they have no enemy in their front.
menacussecundus. You are right, that the sentence "If this is not possible the move does not happen" becomes redundant. But otherwise the sentence "must result in combat" becomes redundant. I would say, that everything i heard from the intent of DBA 3.0 is, that "must result in combat" is the sentence, that tops everything else. (And that the part starts with this sentence makes the case stronger.) |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 8, 2018 14:40:31 GMT
"... trops that would contact in real life, do so in the game and that moving a front edge into contact with enemy must result in combat. At the end of the bounds movement phase the contacting element ... must be lined up with an enemy element ... (c) in front edge to side edge contact with front corners in contact ... One party moves the minimum distance to so conform."
Sounds clear to me. The cavalry will charge. It cannot confirm, so the Auxilia confirme. Afterwards the Auxila are turned, because they have no enemy in their front.
menacussecundus . You are right, that the sentence "If this is not possible the move does not happen" becomes redundant. But otherwise the sentence "must result in combat" becomes redundant. I would say, that everything i heard from the intent of DBA 3.0 is, that "must result in combat" is the sentence, that tops everything else. (And that the part starts with this sentence makes the case stronger.)Not quite. Because what the rules actually say is "moving a front edge into contact with the enemy always results in combat". The rules then go on to define what constitutes moving a front edge into contact with an enemy for the purposes of the game and to exclude other moves which, although they could result in the front edge touching an enemy element, are disallowed. |
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Oct 9, 2018 12:36:42 GMT
Not quite. Because what the rules actually say is "moving a front edge into contact with the enemy always results in combat". The rules then go on to define what constitutes moving a front edge into contact with an enemy for the purposes of the game and to exclude other moves which, although they could result in the front edge touching an enemy element, are disallowed. No, they dont. (Ok, i am no born english speaker, so maybe i am absolutely wrong about the english language.)
"moving a front edge into combat" is not defined by "at the end of the bounds movement phase the contacting element must be ...". That is no definition of the contact, but of the result.
So the rules say a combat will (absolutely) happen and than define, how it (normally) will end.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 9, 2018 15:05:20 GMT
Not quite. Because what the rules actually say is "moving a front edge into contact with the enemy always results in combat". The rules then go on to define what constitutes moving a front edge into contact with an enemy for the purposes of the game and to exclude other moves which, although they could result in the front edge touching an enemy element, are disallowed. No, they dont. (Ok, i am no born english speaker, so maybe i am absolutely wrong about the english language.)
"moving a front edge into combat" is not defined by "at the end of the bounds movement phase the contacting element must be ...". That is no definition of the contact, but of the result.
So the rules say a combat will (absolutely) happen and than define, how it (normally) will end.
Actually, what counts as moving a front edge into contact for the purposes of the rules is defined in the rules, decebelus. That's what the rules themselves say. They define what constitutes contact and it is only if such contact is made that combat results. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 9, 2018 18:11:39 GMT
Actually its totally unclear what "moving a front edge into contact" means. I much prefer it to cover the situation herein as it produces the best real world and game result. As I've said before you need a well defined trigger point to establish when the conforming rules come into play. To me its front edge contact of any kind. But others view it as some sort of mix of contact and then some sort of partial "pre"-conforming. I'll bief up the Knights & Knaves rules to make sure this point is clear.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 9, 2018 20:44:01 GMT
No, they dont. (Ok, i am no born english speaker, so maybe i am absolutely wrong about the english language.)
"moving a front edge into combat" is not defined by "at the end of the bounds movement phase the contacting element must be ...". That is no definition of the contact, but of the result.
So the rules say a combat will (absolutely) happen and than define, how it (normally) will end.
Actually, what counts as moving a front edge into contact for the purposes of the rules is defined in the rules, decebelus. That's what the rules themselves say. They define what constitutes contact and it is only if such contact is made that combat results. Doesn’t seem logical or ‘right’, but Menacus is correct in what he is saying here... unfortunately... flank contact is not allowed in this situation. P |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 9, 2018 22:52:49 GMT
Sorry, I am disagreeing with this. I am on Tom's side on this one. The situation where the contacted element can't conform (due to such a situation) is due to the board edge, other friendly or enemy elements, etc. People keep making this mistake, and it is why so many still seem to think a moving group must first "try" to conform to a single element.
The rules are clear. Contact is what it says it is. If the rule was as menacussecundus says it is, then why don't the rules say "a conform must always result in combat" rather than "contact must..."?
Once again, people are conflating and confusing conforming (which is clearly NOT intended to be a requirement for close combat to occur, as per PB's frequent statements to this effect) with contact.
Conforming may be required, if possible, but it is NOT clear to me that conforming is a prerequisite for close combat. In fact, sometimes there is conforming, but no immediate close combat (recoil and pursuit)...
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 10, 2018 7:28:16 GMT
Sorry, I am disagreeing with this. I am on Tom's side on this one. The situation where the contacted element can't conform (due to such a situation) is due to the board edge, other friendly or enemy elements, etc. People keep making this mistake, and it is why so many still seem to think a moving group must first "try" to conform to a single element. The rules are clear. Contact is what it says it is. If the rule was as menacussecundus says it is, then why don't the rules say "a conform must always result in combat" rather than "contact must..."? Once again, people are conflating and confusing conforming (which is clearly NOT intended to be a requirement for close combat to occur, as per PB's frequent statements to this effect) with contact. Conforming may be required, if possible, but it is NOT clear to me that conforming is a prerequisite for close combat. In fact, sometimes there is conforming, but no immediate close combat (recoil and pursuit)... But, following that line of argument, any front edge contact must always result in conforming. And if that is so, the sentence "If this is not possible, the move does not happen" is meaningless (since the situation can never arise). The structure of the paragraph as I see it is as follows: 1. moving a front edge into contact with an enemy element always results in combat; 2. "moving a front edge into contact" means (a), (b), (c) or (d); 3. if you can't manage (a(), (b), (c) or (d) the move doesn't happen. I see nothing illogical in describing the sequence in this way and each part of the paragraph has meaning. Let's take another situation. Suppose an element (A) is to the side of and slightly behind an enemy element (B), with its front edge facing B's side edge. No other elements are involved. (A picture would be worth a thousand words, but I don't do diagrams.) Moving its full distance, A can get part of its front edge into contact with part of B's side edge, however, it can't manage front corner to front corner contact. Does anyone think the move can be made? Because that is the logic of the "any front edge contact always means the elements conform and combat follows" school. (Which, while we're analysing the paragraph, also renders the extra sideways slide of up to 1 BW after contacting an enemy's front edge, redundant.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 10, 2018 8:18:33 GMT
I wonder if people are confusing ‘close combat’ with ‘conforming’, because they are really two totally different mechanisms. The truth is that conforming has nothing to do with close combat (yes, it is an odd thing to say, but bear with me).In DBA, one element or the other must at least try to conform so that they end up in a legal contact position, before combat starts, i.e. front-to-front, front-to-flank, or front-to-rear, with corners touching (see page 9 paragraph 9 “Moving into Contact”) If the conforming element cannot conform, then the opposing element should do so (see page 9 paragraph 10 “if physically blocked”). Therefore I agree with Joe Collins, Chrishumphreys, MedievalThomas, Primuspilus, and the sequence of events is as follows:- 1) The Cv moves into contact with the flank of the Ax, it should conform but cannot, so the Ax will have to conform instead. 2) After the movement phase has ended, the Ax turns to face the flank attack (see page 10 paragraph 1 “Turning to Face”). 3) Once all movement and all conforming is completed and legal do we move on to the close combat phase... This fulfills all the contact and conforming rules, and allows the “moving a front-edge into contact results in combat” principle. However, note that if the Ax were already engaged to it’s front, so couldn’t turn to face the flank attack, then it’s up to the flank attacker to conform...and if they cannot then the contact can’t take place (remember, before combat takes place, all corners must touch). This does break the “moving a front-edge into contact results in combat” principle...but I didn’t write the rules.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 10, 2018 9:29:05 GMT
I wonder if people are confusing ‘close combat’ with ‘conforming’, because they are really two totally different mechanisms. The truth is that conforming has nothing to do with close combat (yes, it is an odd thing to say, but bear with me).In DBA, one element or the other must at least try to conform so that they end up in a legal contact position, before combat starts, i.e. front-to-front, front-to-flank, or front-to-rear, with corners touching (see page 9 paragraph 9 “Moving into Contact”) If the conforming element cannot conform, then the opposing element should do so (see page 9 paragraph 10 “if physically blocked”). Therefore I agree with Joe Collins, Chrishumphreys, MedievalThomas, Primuspilus, and the sequence of events is as follows:- 1) The Cv moves into contact with the flank of the Ax, it should conform but cannot, so the Ax will have to conform instead. 2) After the movement phase has ended, the Ax turns to face the flank attack (see page 10 paragraph 1 “Turning to Face”). 3) Once all movement and all conforming is completed and legal do we move on to the close combat phase... This fulfills all the contact and conforming rules, and allows the “moving a front-edge into contact results in combat” principle. However, note that if the Ax were already engaged to it’s front, so couldn’t turn to face the flank attack, then it’s up to the flank attacker to conform...and if they cannot then the contact can’t take place (remember, before combat takes place, all corners must touch). This does break the “moving a front-edge into contact results in combat” principle...but I didn’t write the rules. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
But the Ax could conform in the scenario you describe, Stevie. Move whatever it is in combat with the Ax back to make room; move the Ax forward, et voila. (Or move the chariot to its right, move the Cv with which it is in combat sideways to maintain contact/continue the combat.) I don't think this is how the game should be played, but don't let that stop anyone who wants to play that way. Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear people's views on the other scenario I described (where the element can make front edge to side edge contact but doesn't have sufficient move to make front corner to front corner contact). I wasn't clear from Stevie's response what view, if any, he took of it. It raises the same issues as the original question. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 10, 2018 11:29:23 GMT
I’m with you Menacus - if you just use the first sentence and ignore the rest, then carnage results...most of the diagrams would then be redundant in this matter
P
|
|
