|
Post by ronisan on Dec 8, 2023 17:47:26 GMT
Hi folks, I play it the way goldenhorde does: 3) Another interpretation from goldenhord is that "Any third element is the player's choice from elements yet unused" means that the troop types already chosen as general and large number cannot be chosen as the third element. Exemple with the issue about a Commagene ally (II/44) : - 1 x Gen 4Kn or 4Pk, - 1 x 4Kn or LH, - 2 x LH, - 2 x 4Pk/4Bd, - 4 x 3Bw, - 1 x 4Pk or 4Ax or 4Wb, - 1 x Ps.
Ally must include - 1 x General 4kn or 4 Pk - 1 x 3 Bw - any element that does not belong to the lines in bold (ie, you cannot choose another 3Bw)Cheers Ronald So why does "elements yet unused" mean "troop types yet unused", ronisan ? Hi menacussecundus, well - I‘m not a native speaker but … if you „used“ or have chosen from elements of „3Bw“, then for me it‘s obvious, that you can‘t „use“ again „3Bw“ (or a 3Bw-element), because you have used it already. So you have to chose a different one … different from „3Bw“!
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 8, 2023 17:36:15 GMT
Hi Les1964, That‘s a simple one…🤣 1 Cv + 2 LH or 3 LH. So you can take more than 1 , none General element of the same type . Hi Les1964, well - of course you can - because there is no different type available! How would you fill your three-element-ally-contingent?
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 7, 2023 16:37:21 GMT
Hi Les1964, That‘s a simple one…🤣 1 Cv + 2 LH or 3 LH. If there’s nothing to choose from, you can‘t choose.🤣
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 7, 2023 14:36:41 GMT
Hi folks,
I play it the way goldenhorde does:
3) Another interpretation from goldenhord is that "Any third element is the player's choice from elements yet unused" means that the troop types already chosen as general and large number cannot be chosen as the third element. Exemple with the issue about a Commagene ally (II/44) : - 1 x Gen 4Kn or 4Pk, - 1 x 4Kn or LH, - 2 x LH, - 2 x 4Pk/4Bd, - 4 x 3Bw, - 1 x 4Pk or 4Ax or 4Wb, - 1 x Ps.
Ally must include - 1 x General 4kn or 4 Pk - 1 x 3 Bw - any element that does not belong to the lines in bold (ie, you cannot choose another 3Bw)
Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Aug 2, 2023 14:36:22 GMT
Hello Brian,
if your line of mounted contacts your line of infantry, your mounted can only move around your infantry by using single element moves (1 PIP per element!). If your line of mounted stays behind your infantry (minimum 1 BW from rear edge infantry to rear edge mounted!), then your flank element of mounted can pivot on its front corner and is able to form a column for a group move (1 PIP).
Regards, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jul 29, 2023 8:59:16 GMT
Hello Brian, Edit: It is quite interesting that the 2012 DBA 3.0 free pdf version uses this variant of rule (4.):
On the rare occasions that a 3rd element is contacted, it moves straight back to make room for the others to turn.
But why, and what does it mean? That‘s just the explanation of figure 14c in the rulebook Now, that leads me to a disagreement concerning your example: In fact, I would play it the way, that all three elements of bows will be moved backwards to make room for the spears to turn (facing the knights contacting their side edge). Why? Because for me, the wording in the rulebook: 4. On the rare occasions that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back (p.9) [invalid reference, read: p.12] to make room for the others to turn. (p.10) is not a push back combat outcome move! It‘s just a move straight back to make room. For me - no elements are eliminated in or at the end of the movement phase by „rearranging“/„adjusting“ for the coming shooting or Close combat phase - never ever! Elements are eliminated in the shooting and/or in the close combat phase because of being doubled, being unable to recoil, being pushed back … unable to interpenetrate, etc.!
But reading page 12 (Recoiling or being pushed back) … „This represents troops falling back … to make space for friends while continuing to maintain formation and facing.“ Could be taken as: The leading element of bows will be eliminated because of „Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others“!?!?!?!? Regards, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jul 28, 2023 11:20:37 GMT
Hi Brian, Perfect analysis of the rules - how they are written and how they should be played!
Just one little thing: [Edit: And it is also destroyed because of (6.) only: flank contact plus being pushed back, so even if it had no units behind.]
Your quote refers to a „Combat Outcome“ situation! But here we are in the end of the movement phase! So - the first element of bows is destroyed, because it couldn‘t be pushed back. If 2nd and 3rd element of bows wouldn‘t be there, the (1st) element of bows would be pushed back until its front edge is in contact with the side edges of spear 2 and spear 3. (page 10: „On the rare occasion that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back to make room for the others to turn“)
(And yet there again is still a small question mark: The free sideways move of the LH into full rear contact is only legal if PB really meant "any existing contacts" (2.), but I'm not 100% sure about that, since in connection with the sentence before he might have meant as well only "elements contacted to flank or rear". Personally I find the LH move from legal side contact to full legal rear contact to be very realistic, even elegant.
Your absolutely right - at the end of the movement phase, the LH was in contact with the 1st element of spears. Of course the LH conforms to them, after they have turned!
Regards Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 23, 2023 15:54:44 GMT
Hello goldenhord,
well - there are two types of overlaps. A. Front corner to front corner contact B. Mutual side edge to side edge contact
For exapmle: Your element (blue 1) is in frontal Close Combat (CC) (front edge to front edge) with your opponent's element (red 1). Another red 2 element adjacent to the CC fighting element contacts your blue 1 element's front corner by its own front corner and therefore creates a -1 overlap to your blue 1 element. That is "A". (If your element blue 1 is PS or SCh, you'll ignore that -1! And if the overlapping red 2 element is in CC by itself, it has its own CC business and doesn't create an overlap!).
If your element (blue 1) is in frontal Close Combat (CC) (front edge to front edge) with your opponent's element (red 1) and another red 2 element is in contact with its own side edge to the side edge of your element (mutual side edge to side edge contact, "B"), then the red 2 element in side edge to side edge contact creates a -1 overlap to the CC of your element (blue 1)... "whether in frontal CC (red 1) or not (page 10, rulebook)" by another of your blue 2 elements (in which case the overlapping red 2 element is in CC by its own! Anyway - the facing / direction of red 2 doesn't matter as long as a part of red 2's side edge is in contact with a part of blue 1's side edge it'll create an overlap!!! Vice versa - of course, blue 1's side edge contact to red 2's side edge will create a -1 overlap to the CC of red 2 with blue 2!
Rear corner contact or "Back" (rear edge contact) is not creating any overlap!
Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 18, 2022 17:48:00 GMT
Would it be better if only the front edge being on the base width limit (ie at 40mm) restricted your movement to the usual TZ requirements. Being ‘at’ exactly 40mm with your side or rear edge would not then create this situation and we could still live with the X-Ray TZ approach… Hello paulisper, that‘s exactly what I was trying to explain on Nov. 11th: What if there are just 2 conditions, but the second one has an option a) and b)? It would read like this: "An element or group which is (1) at least partly within or whose front edge (2a) enters an enemy TZ or (2b) touches its far edge can move only: ..." If so, Stevie's element Blue-C wouldn't be in the TZ of Red-2 and would absolutely be able to wheel and contacting Red-1 in its flank! Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 11, 2022 14:05:52 GMT
Hello,
the original text in the purple rulebook (THREAT ZONE, page 9) says: "An element or group which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only: ..."
Well, some players (like stevie and his diagram) read it as there are 3 terms or conditions:
"An element or group which is (1) at least partly within or (2) whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or (3) touches its far edge can move only: ..."
What if there are just 2 conditions, but the second one has an option a) and b)? It would read like this: "An element or group which is (1) at least partly within or whose front edge (2a) enters an enemy TZ or (2b) touches its far edge can move only: ..." If so, Stevie's element Blue-C wouldn't be in the TZ of Red-2 and would absolutely be able to wheel and contacting Red-1 in its flank!
Please, I'm not a native speaker so the following is just an idea of a german guy.
In case (3) the word "which" is missing for me (?) ... making it clear that "touches its far edge" referes to "An element or group".
"An element or group which is (1) at least partly within or (2) whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or (3) which touches its far edge can move only: ..."
But I think the "touches its far edge" refers to "whose front edge" of case (2) and therefore flank and rear edges touching the far edge of an enemy TZ are not (!) restricted in their moves!
"An element or group which is (1) at least partly within or (2a) whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or (2b) whose front edge touches its far edge can move only: ..."
Any statements?
Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 27, 2022 6:31:24 GMT
Hi.
Sometimes, in the middle of the struggle, we stumble on thorny questions...
2) Another simple one. On the second figure, Player Red has a Pikes unit fighting in CC a 3Bw enemy unit. When comes his turn, Blue players sends an unit of Knights 3Kn in rear edge contact against Pikes P.
...
Hello bbs, just to minimize the confusion ... in your picture 2nd figure ... you drew the red element (Pike P) the wrong way. The typo must be readable and not upside down, to show Pike P in Close Combat with 3Bw!
You drew it "after" your hypothetical 180 degree turn of Pike P, which won't be allowed.
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Feb 12, 2022 13:58:52 GMT
So what can the blue group do? Actually it has several options. It could stand where it is, and let the end element (the one contacted) fight as if overlapped. Or it could be split by its owner, and three of the elements conform leaving the CP behind. So it’s not entirely blocked from reacting at all. Either way the blue group will be at a disadvantage… …but that’s what you get for not aligning with the enemy and being out-manoeuvred. Hi everybody, I'm completely fine with the conforming rules on page 9!
IMO - if the red general's intention is not able (lacking of MA) or not aggressiv enough to split his red line and contacting the blue line and the single blue element in front edge to front edge contact... then (for me) it's obvious, that the "initiative" goes to the blue general, who now can decide, whether his blue line fights with one element "being overlapped" ... or conforming with one, two or (if enough MA) even 3 elements and leaving his CP-element behind! The only thing to consider is, if the blue general chooses to conform ... should it be mandatory for blue to conform with as much elements as (MA!) possible to reach the enemy?
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Feb 12, 2022 13:29:22 GMT
@ Stevie,
honestly – your concept of 'responsibility'
This is a tricky one Tom, but I think it can all be made simple by keeping in mind a single word… …’responsibility’. Only those that have the ‘responsibility’ and duty to conform need sufficient movement to do so.
Let ‘s put this concept of ‘responsibility’ to the test shall we:-
When a group touches a single element, it is the single element that has the ‘responsibility’ of doing the conforming, not the group (unless the single element is in Rough or Bad Going). The moving group doesn’t need enough speed to conform, just enough movement to touch it.
is exactly, what's written in the rules ( page 9, Moving into contact with enemy, 2nd paragraph). A single element contacting a single element conforms to it. A single element or group contacting a group conforms to that group. A single element contacted by a group conforms to that group unless itself entirely in bad or rough going in which case the group conforms. Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Feb 10, 2022 8:06:45 GMT
Hello Tom,
your So here's my corollary: an Element that cannot voluntarily contact a foe cannot fully conform and therefore must fight as if Overlapped. (Also applies to Art, WWg and well as the dread "CP" Element.) is a nice rule extension.
Those extremely vulnerable single elements (Art, WWg, CP) will not conform, if being attacked (just edge-to-corner or corner-to-edge but not edge-to-edge!) by an enemy group and must fight „as overlapped“ (-1)! But if they are part of a group (e.g. supported by an element of Psiloi), the enemy group has to contact and conform and the fighting wouldn‘t be „as overlapped“ (depicting the supporting friendly element)!
Disadvantage to consider: Wouldn‘t that lead to other „special-if-then-rule extensions“, spoiling the simplicity of DBA?
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Feb 9, 2022 16:10:55 GMT
Hello Stevie,
In short, a group is like a giant element, and just as a single element can leave a TZ when it Aligns, Lines-up or Conforms with an adjacent enemy, so can a group. Groups stay together…
Ok - conviced for the part of "Groups stay together".
Like spear A in figure 7b, page 18: A single element starting its movement bound in more than one TZ is allowed to choose, which one to ignore!
So – a group starting its movement bound in more than one TZ is also allowed to choose, which one to ignore – and sometimes will be able to leave a TZ by conforming.
Cheers Ronald.
P.S. I'm so envious not being able to upload diagrams ... what's wrong with my account?
|
|