|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 12, 2020 18:18:29 GMT
I just like to say that I agree with both Paulisper and Martin (and Paddy and Goragrad).  To illustrate this specific case, both of the following are in "the rules". So we ask do they contradict each other? No. Well then what is the logical combination of constraints which they impose? Page 16 defines a subset of the configurations defined on page 8. Since both are in the rules, and don't contradict each other, logically the configurations described on page 16 must prevail. Ah, but there IS a contradiction. Tactical Moves, page 8, third paragraph, says:- "A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and
corner-to-corner contact with another; or in at least in corner-to-corner contact if part of a wheeling column.”(Note no mention of ‘front corner’ contact, just any ‘any corner’ contact)Figure 3a Groups dialogue says:- “These (grouped) elements must all face in the same direction and must be in either full front or rear edge,
and corner-to-corner contact, or side-edge contact and front corner to front corner contact.”(Note that the words ‘front’ have now been added before the word ‘corner’)So the rules don’t say ‘front corner’...but the Figure 3a dialogue does. Hence the contradiction. To clarify this the FAQ has decided to follow the rules, and treat the Figure 3a dialogue as a mistake, and it should say:- “...or side edge contact and corner-to-corner contact” by removing the words ‘ front’. Now the rules and the Figure 3a dialogue match each other. You must have quoted an earlier version of my post. Note the final version includes the 2 rules sections you refer to. In my final revision I actually considered explicitly calling attention to the word "front", but decided that it was obvious.
In any case, as I use the term, those 2 rules section are not contradictory. "A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time." They would be contradictory if they said something like "rear corner" on page 8 and "front corner" on page 16, since both could not always be true at the same time. In contrast, the 2 rules sections we refer to are analogous to someone saying "I live in Pennsylvania" and also saying "I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania". The second is more restrictive than the first, due the the addition of the word "Philadelphia", but they can still both be true at the same time.
I have already given my perspective on the FAQ, including how authoritative it is, earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 12, 2020 20:00:16 GMT
Been thinking about doing Theban vs Spartan battles, and trying to figure out how to do Echelon formation, refused flank type tactics that the Thebans and the Macedonians used to great success. It's hard to figure out how to do this in DBA with the group PIP system. As usual I am of two minds. The PIP Group system means that units are incentivized to stick together into groups, modelling cohesion problems with spreading your troops out in an ancient context. It also means that keeping in line is important, and when the battleline meet, recoiling will cost more PIPs and command to get everybody fighting again. This works SO well. SO, is the way to do a refused flank simply to have 2 groups? One about 1BW ahead of the other? i.e. Thebans with their 8Sp: 2Ps8Sp8Sp _________4Sp4Sp4Sp4Sp4Sp__3Cv Note I have a 2Ps guarding the left flank of the 8Sp. Also note that the 4Sp line is it's own group, and is 1-2BW behind the 8Sp Is this the way to do it? It's a *slight* PIP cost, but should give the required effect (only 2 groups instead of 1 giant line of spears). Have to try it, but I think this is right. What do people think? Chris Have you considered placing the cavalry to the left of the two double elements and move the psiloi behind the second 8Sp? This would maintain group integrity allowing an echelon movement while costing 1 pip.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 12, 2020 20:26:43 GMT
medievalthomas Is that you in the picture, and if so, where did you get the chair? :-) Yes that is me on the Iron Throne. Its a fan made replica which the Game of Thrones Cos play groups brings to Dragon Con. I run a big Battle for the Iron Throne campaign at every Dragcon Con oft in costume (my wife by the way is a professional costumer as well as veteran DBX gamer). We use of course A Game of Knights & Knaves to handle Westeros speicfic stuff but its based on DBA 3.0. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 12, 2020 20:37:01 GMT
Look the FAQ has to get consensus or we can't issue a ruling. Sometimes a "bad" ruling is better than no ruling.
The Diagrams are supposed to be the rules - indeed the game is almost unplayable without them.
It isn't clear whether when Phil wrote the rule section he just omitted "front corner" but it was caught by the diagram creator or whether the diagram creator missed this nuance. Phil approved the diagrams and they do clarify a lot of stuff (maybe this too). But we had to get to consensus so we decreed the diagram a misprint mainly because it had the most votes and it seemed too important an issue to not rule on at all.
Generally I favor sticking with the diagrams as they are a bit less stream of consciousness than the text.
Final thought: what is the better simulation outcome? I'm free to do whatever I want in Knights & Knaves and would like to get some thought on what is the better real world interp. I'm leaning toward front corner contact as the depth is way over scale and a bit random (its legal to have some elements with different depths).
Keep in mind that I can fix anything in K&K and to a lesser extent in D3H2.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 13, 2020 1:19:45 GMT
Look the FAQ has to get consensus or we can't issue a ruling. Sometimes a "bad" ruling is better than no ruling. The Diagrams are supposed to be the rules - indeed the game is almost unplayable without them. It isn't clear whether when Phil wrote the rule section he just omitted "front corner" but it was caught by the diagram creator or whether the diagram creator missed this nuance. Phil approved the diagrams and they do clarify a lot of stuff (maybe this too). But we had to get to consensus so we decreed the diagram a misprint mainly because it had the most votes and it seemed too important an issue to not rule on at all. Generally I favor sticking with the diagrams as they are a bit less stream of consciousness than the text. Final thought: what is the better simulation outcome? I'm free to do whatever I want in Knights & Knaves and would like to get some thought on what is the better real world interp. I'm leaning toward front corner contact as the depth is way over scale and a bit random (its legal to have some elements with different depths). Keep in mind that I can fix anything in K&K and to a lesser extent in D3H2. Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games Again, I appreciate the FAQ for those contexts where it is needed, for example in a structured convention competition setting. I just object to people being told on Forums that if they don't use the FAQ, they aren't playing the game correctly. IMHO the FAQ would be equally useful, and less controversial, if was prefaced with a caveat similar to the NASAMW caveat which I quoted to Joe, earlier in this thread.
WRT your "better real world interp" concern, my expertise is probably no better than yours. I see DBA as being over on the more abstract end of the rules spectrum. Therefore, I am not uncomfortable constraining groups to the "front corner" interpretation, because it seems intuitively easier to maneuver a large body of men in formation when aligned by the front. If aligned by the rear, they would have to be looking behind themselves all the time. This fuzzy perception is even more convincing as in DBA we use the same rules for the least organized armies as we do for the more organized ones.
WRT what Phil intended here, who knows? I argue that "front corner" is most logical given the rules as written. OTOH, a quick check of my other DBx rules sets doesn't show this constraint anywhere else, including in DBA 1.1, DBA 2.0, and DBMM.
MH
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 13, 2020 10:59:10 GMT
Final thought: what is the better simulation outcome? I' free to do whatever I want in Knights & Knaves and would like to get some thought on what is the better real world interp. I'm leaning toward front corner contact as the depth is way over scale and a bit random (its legal to have some elements with different depths). Keep in mind that I can fix anything in K&K and to a lesser extent in D3H2. Well, in this particular setting, it's to allow the Theban deep phalanxes the opportunity to destroy the Spartans in front of them. That would be 4+1 (deep)+1 side support ?+1 General against 4+1(side support) ?+1 (General). So 7v5, 7v6, 6v6 and 6v5 combinations. Not great odds for the Thebans but then again the Spartans have no specific modifier for themselves against other Hoplites. Perhaps -1 to the enemy would be better modifiers in order to make the combat more decisive? In general, there are enough examples of echelon advance to allow a decision to be made on one side before the other was involved/enveloped for it to be plausible in DBA. But how? Maybe groups don't need corner contact, only side? Great for specific periods but I think too radical for all 4500 years of DBA. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 20, 2020 16:41:38 GMT
Have been pondering Spear in Hopilite context as I'm getting lots of requests for an "Ancients" version of K&K.
Current under playtest rule is that Spear can get a +1 for Rear Support OR Shieldwall (side support) but not double count for both.
Advantage of Shieldwall is that you get a longer linear formaiont to avoid Overlaps; advantage of Rear Support is that it doe not go away when your line breaks up.
Not quiet willing to give both as a standard rule as this would get Spear up to +6 - but would consider.
So for now the Phalanx Ability allows you to get a +1 for Rear Support but not in addition to Shieldwall.
Would also consider suggestion to give opponent a -1 for Phalanx again in lieu of +1 for Shieldwall (should Spear then also Pursue?) If made a general concept for Rear support could carry over to Pike to give them more Pop.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 20, 2020 22:43:25 GMT
Have been pondering Spear in Hopilite context as I'm getting lots of requests for an "Ancients" version of K&K. Current under playtest rule is that Spear can get a +1 for Rear Support OR Shieldwall (side support) but not double count for both. Advantage of Shieldwall is that you get a longer linear formaiont to avoid Overlaps; advantage of Rear Support is that it doe not go away when your line breaks up. That is genuinely clever and rather elegant in its simplicity. |
|
