|
Post by ronisan on Jun 21, 2021 13:46:30 GMT
Perfect Stevie - perfectly explained!
Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 19, 2021 17:38:13 GMT
Hello, I completely agree with Stevie! (Wow - must be a special day today🤣). If the flank threatening element wanted to spoil or avoid the group attack on it’s friendly element (splitting up the group), it should have made it into contact (front edge contacting enemy flank edge). Now they will be one bound too late/ too slow😉. Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 18, 2021 18:50:39 GMT
Right, that‘s an interpretation. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 18, 2021 15:35:23 GMT
Imagine an element of Wb getting behind a Sp line, attacking them from the rear, and destroying their opponent. They then pursue through the gap into the Sp line. Clearly it makes historical sense that the Sp on either side of the victorious Wb element are overlapped now, regardless of the facing of the Wb! Hello primuspilus, unfortunately that would be a mutual right-to-left or left-to-right front corner contact ... and that‘s not allowed according to the rules. Mutual flank edge contact (even if facing in opposite directions) seems to be allowed. Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 17, 2021 6:25:45 GMT
@ roland
Hello Roland, just as an additional hint to you ...
In your example of a group of 4 elements in column, you may e.g. use one PIP to move the 2nd row element "sliding sideways" out of the column to one side of the front row ... and use a 2nd PIP to move the small group left (column of 2 elements consisting of row 3 and 4) to move (!) to the other side of the front row.
Or 2nd row sliding 2BW sideways and then forward (if the troops have enough movement) ... and filling the gap with with the group (2 element column) left.
But beware - it needs some free space in it's front because group moves are only allowed to move forward (!) - no sliding sideways!
Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 16, 2021 13:41:09 GMT
Hello Roland,
every single element moving costs 1 PIP.
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 16, 2021 12:40:26 GMT
@ stevie Thanks stevie. I thought p9,point d) was specific about corner to corner overlap. But it just says overlap and refers to p10 to define overlap. So I'm definitely with the "not requiring frontal contact" view of the rules @ ronisan It seems a stretch to say you can move through but just can't stop, particularly as the rules state "straight back" indicting no change in formation. Does the enemy just wave as you pass? This interpretation, which is just as criticized, also doesn't lead to complicated or unsolvable problems. It is also easy and makes all moves, tactical and outcome, follow the same pattern. This makes the game even simpler. But if the author did specifically address this issue then we would be best to hear from the playtesters and then be in a better position to decide which interpretation we wish to play. Cheers Jim Hello Jim, But it just says overlap and refers to p10 to define overlap. So I'm definitely with the "not requiring frontal contact" view of the rulesYou know that the chapter on page 10, defining overlap, is titled "Close Combat"? ;-) "When an element is in close combat both to front and to flank or rear or in close combat to its front and overlapped, only it and the enemy element in front fight each other. Others only provide tactical factors." ... like -1 for being overlapped by the element in frontal contact? ;-) Does the enemy just wave as you pass?Hmmm ... Told by somebody who thinks side edge to side edge contact is allowed to move into contact with enemy? ... and doing what? ... shaking hands? ;-) Cheers Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 16, 2021 10:30:38 GMT
@ jim1973
Hi Jim, quoting you „ watching Tony's video, where and element couldn't move away because its side would rub against the side of an enemy “. Well - Tony was wrong, because it would have been a legal move as long as „at the end of the movement“ there wouldn‘t be a side edge to side edge contact. See page 8 second paragraph „can pass through any gap it’s lading edge...“. So if it‘s allowed to „rub“ both side edges against enemies... it‘s obviously allowed to rub one!?
A different situation would be if one of the „rubbing“ enemies is in Close combat to its front! Then it would be allowed to „park“ your element in the gap, because it would provide overlap!
It‘s interesting for me, that my criticized interpretation of the rules doesn‘t lead to complicated or unsolvable problems.😉 The rules are just perfect ... and easy.🤣
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 20:16:57 GMT
Hi Menacussecundus,
I think the reason for our misunderstanding is my talking about „moving into contact“ instead of calling it „moving into enemy contact“ - right? Of course you as a general are free to contact your own elements and forming groups, etc.
Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 19:27:13 GMT
@ Stevie Hi Stevie, I‘ll definitely keep the DBA 3.0 rulebook because the rules bring so much fun and are sooooo elegant and simple. ;-)
Bye.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 18:39:08 GMT
@ menacussecundus I‘m sorry ... I don‘t understand your last post ... or I‘ve misunderstood your examples (1. - 3.)?
@ Stevie Well - I‘m just playing DBA 3.0 rules as they are written. And ... No - I‘m not the one who‘s adding words that are not there, Mr. Hard-contact / soft-contact Stevie ;-)
Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 14:20:02 GMT
I can think of three instances where one might want to contact an enemy element and not initiate combat. 1. Bow who move in order to get an alternative target within range/arc. (I'd rather shoot at my opponent's LH than his Sp.) 2. An element which wants to place a second enemy in its ZOC (to limit the latter's options in the next bound). 3. While you are confident that your Sp can handle the enemy Ps it is facing, you are worried about the line of Bd behind the Ps and want to move a second element of Sp to give it side support. There may be others. Hello menacussecundus, -> 1. Well - no problem ... Tactical move without contacting. -> 2. Well - no problem ... Tactical move without contacting. -> 3. Well - no problem ... Tactical move into contact with enemy (the case d) of page 9 moving into overlap) ... the Ps will ignore the -1 overlap, but your Sp in front edge contact will get a +1 flank support by the second Sp. Easy, isn't it? Cheers Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 12:25:57 GMT
Hi folks,
It could be sooooo easy …
1. Tactical moves without contacting (staying slightly away from) enemy (using PIPs). These moves get restricted as soon as you enter enemy thread zones!
2. Tactical moves into contact with enemy (using PIPs). The idea of contacting an enemy element is … getting into fighting action (Close combat).
The rules say: MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge into contact with enemy always results in combat.
Any overlapping element is supporting the close combat (front edge in contact) of the adjacent friendly element, which is taking the part of the fighting action! It doesn’t make sense to me, contacting an enemy element and then doing nothing … not starting any action?
3. Outcome moves as results of shooting and close combat (PIP free). Everything can happen here … corner contacting edge … edge contacting corner. No problem - that will be solved as soon as somebody moves in a future bound.
Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 7:56:37 GMT
Dear Ronald, Thanks for your posts, I'll write for Stevie. This really should have been sorted out by the FAQ people in January, perhaps Co-Vid got in the way, I don't know, but we are all using up a lot of time on this. Here with three points for you to consider (my opinions only, I am new to the forum): 1 Ronald, the bit I have quoted from you is one of four ways (way (d)) an element can sit after moving into contact with its front edge (contacting with a front edge for a group, with a corner for a single element not in bad going (figs 10 and 12c)). It applies when a group of N+1 moves into a group on N elements frontally, all of them making front edge contact and hence legally making contact with a front edge so one of (a) to (d) must happen. N of the elements line up as (a) front edge in contact, the last one slides sideways out of contact into an overlap position (d), this is what (d) is for. 2 Moving into front corner to front corner contact is not moving into contact as established in the FAQ, it does not initiate combat. It is a tactical move, so (a) to (d) don't apply. 3 The definition of overlap on page 10 does not require close combat as a prerequisite as suggest in the quote, in fact the opposite, it says enemies in mutual side contact are in overlap whether in close combat or not. Indeed in the first line it says that left front corner to right front contact with any element constitutes an overlap (stress on any) as long as the element doing the overlapping is not in close combat and this is the way it has been played for years. IMHO I think that, (unlike 2.2 where it was expressly not allowed), the rules do not stop a move to such an overlap position (flank overlap or front corners contact) as a tactical move. By the way in one of Tony's recent videos where an element could not move straight back in a tactical move because it would come into mutual flank contact with another element shows some of the problems that arise with your interpretation. Youtube: Book 1 DBA 3.0 - Tony and Mitch Live play! around 40 mins in. Regards Chris Hi Chris, -> 1 Here you describe a group making front edge contact with the enemy front edge. That's "case a)" ... not d)! -> 2 Moving into front corner to front corner contact ... you can't do this with a "tactical move" (using PIPs) ... it can only happen by an outcome move! -> 3 Page 10 explains 1.) corner to corner and 2.) mutual flank edge overlap ... it refers to the overlapping element ( not the overlapped!) -> in the first case the overlap will cease if the element gets into frontal close combat by itself ... in the second the overlap will continue to exist "whether in close combat or not"! Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 14, 2021 18:57:12 GMT
@ menacussecundus Hi, that‘s a very good point mentioned here! That leads us to the idea that Ps and SCh cannot be contacted by a corner to corner overlap! You must grab those guys with a mutual flank edge overlap🤔
|
|