|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2016 12:54:40 GMT
There appears to be an ‘unwritten rule’ in DBA 3.0 about what can force a group to split up. This rule is not mentioned anywhere in the rules, but nonetheless it does exist, and can only be found not by what the rules do say, rather by what the rules do not say.
This ‘unwritten rule’ appears to be as follows:- “Groups can only be split by (a) turning to face, (b) as a result of combat (i.e. pursuing, recoiling, fleeing, or the loss of an element), or (c) if the owner of the group wishes to do so. Conforming does not split a group.”
Turning to face causes a group to split, because the turning troops are no longer in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with friends. And a column 3 or more ranks deep becomes split because the first two turning elements are no longer part of the same column as those behind them.
Combat obviously can split a group (except that pursuers and recoilers can sometimes remain in group, if they can stay in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with friends on their flanks).
That leaves conforming. Nowhere in the rules does it say that a group must split up when conforming...although the owner of the group has the option to do so if they wish. Indeed, this is confirmed by the diagrams included in DBA 3.0.
In diagram 13c, the moving player could choose to just move Spear B into contact, so that it can conform to Blade Y...but this would split the spear group and he is not compelled to do so.
Likewise, in diagram 13d, the moving player could choose to just move Spear A into contact, so that it can conform to Blade X, or split the group so that Spears B &C form a new group that conforms to Blade Y with an overlap...but again, he is not compelled to do so.
Even moving into contact, on page 9 paragraph 9, simply says at least one element of a contacting group must conform (if possible). It does not say that the group must be split in order to achieve this conforming.
Am I correct in this?
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 31, 2016 14:13:15 GMT
…maybe if you use a different army; an fast moving auxilia army or a light horse army you would like your troops in positions to force your enemy to split his stronger but slower force...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2016 15:36:01 GMT
…maybe if you use a different army; an fast moving auxilia army or a light horse army you would like your troops in positions to force your enemy to split his stronger but slower force... Yes, using faster troops may, or may not, temp an opponent into voluntarily choosing to split a group... ...but that is a Tactic. I am referring to Rules that must be obeyed by both players, like knights must pursue, or who can interpenetrate who. The DBA 3.0 diagrams seem to imply that there is a hidden rule which says conforming does not split a group... ...even though this is rule is not mentioned anywhere in the rule book.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 31, 2016 19:13:21 GMT
I don't understand why you want to call these unwritten rules when they are written?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2016 20:54:53 GMT
I don't understand why you want to call these unwritten rules when they are written? Simple answer Bob.... ...can you tell me where in the rules it says that conforming does not split a group? Even the diagrams do not actually say this.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. So let’s look at the question from the opposite angle. Where in the DBA 3.0 rule book does it say that a player MUST split a group in order to conform? The rules say no such thing, and the diagrams seem to imply that groups can stay together (if the owning player wishes).
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jan 1, 2017 8:37:31 GMT
DBA is a simple? set, it gives you only the information you need (in theory).
It will only say you cannot do something when it needs to, so you work on the principle that you can do something unless the rules specifically say you cannot (within reason).
The style causes unforeseen consequences, and problems that need sorting. It also means that the board edge tactical factor is not listed in tactical factors. You have to go with the rules as written, as far as possible, and not look for problems that do not exist, if unsure or unhappy with something, before playing a game check with your opponent.
Just general thoughts.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 1, 2017 9:47:45 GMT
You have to go with the rules as written, as far as possible, and not look for problems that do not exist, if unsure or unhappy with something, before playing a game check with your opponent. Good advice David. Or.... ....you could post questions here on Fanaticus to make sure that your understanding of the rules is correct. And if there are differences of opinion, or possible problems found, then these can be clarified and added to the FAQ so that all players are interpreting the rules in the same way. By the way....I still haven’t received an answer to my question:- Does conforming force a group to split up or can a conforming group stay together?
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jan 1, 2017 14:19:58 GMT
I may be wrong but I have always played it that if you make contact as a group then you conform as a group if you are required to conform and in the rare situations when a contacted group has to conform because those making contact are unable to conform, then again the whole group conforms.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jan 1, 2017 18:20:34 GMT
The problem with groups is bases, in a real battle bases do not exist, so the logical thing is for the group, even if it is the entire army, to align.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 2, 2017 3:24:01 GMT
Good advice David. Or.... ....you could post questions here on Fanaticus to make sure that your understanding of the rules is correct. And if there are differences of opinion, or possible problems found, then these can be clarified and added to the FAQ so that all players are interpreting the rules in the same way. By the way....I still haven’t received an answer to my question:- Does conforming force a group to split up or can a conforming group stay together? The conforming group can stay together. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 2, 2017 5:41:49 GMT
Or the conforming group can split. "Can "means there's an option.
After I wrote this I was thinking about when does a conforming group split. At least in the situation of a column of three elements, contacted on their flank by a single element, or column. The front two elements of the contacted column turn to conform with the attacking element(s). So they break off from the group to conform.
In the DBA Yahoo group, there was a question about diagram 13a. A player wrote If "X" were part of a group line extending to it's right, can “X” also be treated as a single element and conform by breaking off from the group.
Joe wrote "yes". So here we have a case where the group does not conform, but one element splits off to conform.
I have been troubled by diagram 14d which shows a group column contacted on both flanks. The diagram shows one element in the column facing right and one element facing left. thus another example of a group being split.
The diagram troubles me because I don't believe the group should be split. At the end of movement, the group should turn to face one side or the other. The writer of the diagram assumes that movement in the bound ended twice. Once when the whole group turned, and once when the back element turned to face the rear. This might be true if the back element of the group did not support the front. But if the back element did support the front, then it should not turn.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 3, 2017 7:30:32 GMT
In the DBA Yahoo group, there was a question about diagram 13a. A player wrote If "X" were part of a group line extending to it's right, can “X” also be treated as a single element and conform by breaking off from the group. Joe wrote "yes". So here we have a case where the group does not conform, but one element splits off to conform. A good point Bob. But isn’t that a choice taken by the owner of the group? As I said in my original first post:- “Groups can only be split by (a) turning to face, (b) as a result of combat, or (c) if the owner of the group wishes to do so.” In the situation you are describing, the owner of the group has decided that the contacted element will split from the group...but he is not compelled to do so. He could shuffle the entire contacted group sideways to conform if he wishes. (See page 8 paragraph 10:- “A group can only move forwards...except to pivot, wheel and/or slide sideways to line up in an enemy TZ, or to conform in close combat.” So groups can move sideways in some cases.) As for diagram 14d, I do agree, but diagram 20d does say “As Blade Y is not providing rear support, it must turn face Warband B, as shown”. So I think this is already covered. By the way, I’ve uploaded that Detailed Rule Index to the wiki (ok, I’ve made a right mess of uploading it, but it IS there.) I hope people find it useful.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 4, 2017 4:53:16 GMT
Stevie... I look forward to studying your rule index...
Thanks for the work!
Joe Collins
|
|