|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 6, 2017 15:52:44 GMT
What happens if one group (e.g. in line) contacts two or more groups at the same time (multiple lines, multiple columns, a mix thereof)?
If the contacting group cannot conform to all those groups (because of spacing), who conforms to whom?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 6, 2017 16:37:29 GMT
I would think this rule applies
"If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented by part-element spacing between enemy or physically blocked by elements, terrain or a table edge, contacted elements or groups must either conform or fight as if in full contact and overlapped. "
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 6, 2017 16:40:52 GMT
I would think this rule applies "If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented by part-element spacing between enemy or physically blocked by elements, terrain or a table edge, contacted elements or groups must either conform or fight as if in full contact and overlapped. " I was just about to type the same answer Bob but you were quicker on the draw! Simon |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 6, 2017 20:11:07 GMT
Diagram 13 d) shows a single group contacting two groups. If the single group cannot conform to both then the contacted groups have to conform (or fight as if overlapped).
When this is triggered and how much the moving group has to conform before the non-moving groups need to start conformimg is of course the essence of the contact & conforming thread.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 7, 2017 0:06:24 GMT
Bob, thank you. I was aware of that rule.
But what if conforming is possible, but would mean that the attacking group would have to split? Is that covered by "part-element spacing"? What if it the gap is wider than a single element, but the attacking group still covers both groups that it attacks (which are more than 41mm apart)?
Tom, thank you. The contact and conforming thread has grown so unwieldy that I have given up on following that discussion. Sorry about that.
13d does not cover the case I am thinking of. In my example, the two enemy groups would not be kinked, would be lined up to the attacking group and would either be 39mm or less apart, or 41mm or more apart. Both would be contacted simultaneously. I am not sure whether this is covered.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 7, 2017 2:12:33 GMT
The moving group is a moving group. If it splits... it isn't a moving group. It would cost extra pips to move.
The group moves into frontal contact and ends with one element (at least) lined up. The defender bears the burden of conforming the other elements contacted in this example. If the defender refuses to conform, then he fights as overlapped.
This is exactly what the rules say. (Though to be fair... you don't have to end the move with one element of a group in complete frontal contact... you just have to try to...Hey, I tried to get Phil to change this... more than once.)
Everyone is over-thinking this.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 7, 2017 11:25:20 GMT
Joe, thank you. That is remarkably clear and makes for a very reasonably solution. I will play like that, unless proven wrong.
It was not clear to me from the rules that a group cannot be split by conforming. And since it seemed to me that when contacting groups with a group the attacker has to conform (the defender only conforming when this is not possible), I thought it well possible that the attacker could/must split the attacking group. Intuitively though, that felt wrong and I would have preferred to do it as suggested by Joe.
(This is, by the way, the biggest desideratum that I have for a next edition of DBA: An even better try at making the rules as intuitive as possible. Statements of intent, as found in some places in the DBA rules, are extremely helpful for that).
|
|
