|
Post by goldenhord on Jul 27, 2017 18:44:31 GMT
Personally i think that first of all 3.1should include all clarifications to questions raised in 3.0 forum All armies could easily be uptaded with historical proofs I am not in favor of changing combat or melee factors, we all the impact on previous rules in the past who did that. If Fast and Solid is a balanced issue may you could make pursue Fast with 3 figs and stands Solid with 4 figs disregard the class of the element. If no change this is also perfect for me.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jul 27, 2017 18:32:11 GMT
Personally i am thinking that first of all the rules should clarify all the points which have been raised in the forum. Amended armies if historically proved seems obvious and easy. Changing combat or melee factors are changing the rule and we all know the negative results on rules who did it in the past. If you want impact fast vs solid, why do not must pursue fast with 3 fig and stand solid with 4 figs ? Otherwise if no change that is fine for me.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jul 27, 2017 18:19:37 GMT
initial rules said all ploughs must extend into 1 adjacent quarter. could you please confirm so, if not could please indicate errata list of DBA3.0 ? thx.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jun 6, 2017 15:23:29 GMT
Sure of course stick the rule is better for all but "the never clear why " is still a question Thank.s anyway
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jun 5, 2017 7:20:26 GMT
Not consistant in reality as pursuing people stop immediately as they could encounted an obstacle farther but we will apply the rule, hope it will be corrected in 3.1. Thank you very much for your reply.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Jun 4, 2017 13:39:05 GMT
Sorry if it has been already stated but we have a discussion in our DBA club about pursuing and i could not find the response in the previous subjects.
Some troops must pursue but not if they enter into a bad going (except march and gully) or if reaching a table edge.(rule)
We are wondering if you do not start the pursuit if you risk to enter into bad going or tabke edge OR if you start the pursuit and stop when you reach the bad going or the table edge ?
In the other cases of pursuit we undertood you stop when you encounter an obstacle you cannot interpenetrate or enter as the fleeing process where you flee then you stop when obstacle.
Thank you for your advice as it seems the rule said that you do not start the pursuit but it does not seems to be very consistant with the other process as recoiling, fleeing and pursuing enemy.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on May 2, 2017 20:42:46 GMT
You are right, the Fig 6A wording is the key answer. As it is written There is no contact between front corner edge to front corner edge but there is contact between both front edge and front corner edge enemy. So in our case the Sp group hits his front edge with the front corner enemy of the Bd single element which has to turn to conform to the Sp group.
thank you for your participation and thinking, we could close this topic as you found the rules wording for it.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on May 2, 2017 20:40:38 GMT
You are right, the Fig 6A wording is the key answer. As it is written There is no contact between front corner edge to front corner edge but there is contact between both front edge and front corner edge enemy. So in pour case the Sp group hits his front corner with the front corner enemy of the Bd single element which has to turn to conform to the Sp group.
thank you for your participation and thinking, we could close this topic as you found the rules wording for it.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on May 2, 2017 17:05:38 GMT
less 1 BW slide of course, typo error. i will wait a bit for other points of view but you both seems agree to make the single element conforms to the group. Thank you for your advices. The point was: Is front edge corner to front edge corner still considers as a front edge and it seems you say yes so single element is conforming to group in good going. References to diagram 12b and c are not relevant as their front edges are already in contact and 12a are single element.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on May 2, 2017 14:11:25 GMT
I am waiting for a previse and detailed answer if possible. I joined a scheme in a word doc to explain the above text. I suggest in the scheme two options. I would like to know which one is valid according DBA rules and why ? which part of the DBA rules test is pointing the solution. Thank you in advance. the case is in goog going as the rules precises attacker conforms to defender in bad/rough going.
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on May 2, 2017 8:36:49 GMT
Hi guys, May be an old story for you but I did not see the point in the Q&A forum. We have a debate in my DBA club about the interpretation of a DBA rule. Could you please reply and clarify it for us ? The situation, we are in good going. The defender a single element (blade) for example The attacker a group of two spears. Nothing around them, no other elements, only plain area The 2 spears have the distance to contact the blade frontally but prefer To contact the blade on the front corner edge and stop their movement. Question : Do the single blade element has to conform immediately to the attacker and turn his Element to contact frontally a spear element ? At the opposite of the previous DBA rules which precised a contact with front corner to front corner, the DBA 3.0 rules do not mention it anymore in the moving into enemy ยง so is it a valid front edge move and if so the single element has to conformed (from 1 to 180deg) or it is not a valid move and the contact should be in the front (or flank or rear edges) and the single element turns only 90/180 deg or slip front edge to conform to the group attacker ? Attachments:DBA case.docx (38.15 KB)
|
|