|
Post by bob on Aug 10, 2020 5:44:58 GMT
Late here, just found this. An element can not recoil and then be destroyed. It is destroyed immediately if it is flanked, or if it cannot recoil at all.
An element can recoil into having its side edge in contact with enemy front edge and is not automatically destroyed.
"An element that has an enemy front edge in contact with its side or rear edge (not corner Bob) is destroyed by recoiling, being pushed back, fleeing or being in a column whose front element is destroyed."
A flanked element does not recoil and then be destroyed if ending in flanked position. It is destroyed by a recoil outcome. If there is no side edge flank contact at the time of the combat, the loser can recoil into a new position (if it is not hemmed in). Once an element completes its recoil, it remains there, no turn. "Recoiling or pushed back elements move straight back without turning. "
So in the next bound, the recoiled element is in close combat with the Cv It cannot move as moves "can be by a single element or a group of elements, but cannot include any element currently in close combat."
At the end of all movement, "Immediately after the movement phase, elements contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first enemy element to contact them unless they are already in full front edge contact with another enemy element or providing rear support. The only interpretation is whether "contacted" must be active or can it be passive. That is to say, can it mean an element is "in contact with an element to its flank?"
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 9, 2020 22:48:16 GMT
Some loose use of words here. May I reconstruct. Two elements of Light Horse move into contact with the front edge of a camel element which has a second, like element behind (this would be the north camel). Now does the North light horse "out flank" the camels by hitting them in the flank or do they hit the north camels in the rear. The latter seems to be a sandwich.
2 LH on the bottom(South, facing a Cm with a Cm behind with 2 LH in contact with its rear (North). Two decker camel sandwich. North LH LH Cm Cm LH LH South
If the North light horse hits the back of the north camel, then that element will turn to face and fight a separate combat. If the south light horse (+3) are beaten by the south Camels (+3) then they recoil. Likewise the north LH vs north camels. If either Cm are recoiled, then it is destroyed.
Let's say both LH are recoiled. Then the south camel is in TZ of south LH but I think not in TZ of north LH which is now 30mm recoil and camel depth further north. Likewise the north camel, 60mm away from south LH.
North LH LH
Cm Cm
LH LH South
Maybe I did not understand the original scenario.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 8, 2020 22:36:56 GMT
I am not sure about the original question. I understand the corner to corner overlap. But when you say “ Edge to edge flank support” do you mean side edge to side edge overlap or front edge to side edge flank contact ? You are using too many different words here. There is either overlap, corner to corner or side edge to side edge. Or there is flank support, which is front edge to enemy side edge. If you were talking about two different types of overlap, then Joe is correct. But if one is overlap and the other is front edge to side edge, then the latter is not a suitable target.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 17, 2020 2:36:48 GMT
Games to be played on 6 foot wide tables :-)
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 11, 2020 5:57:39 GMT
A couple of comments by Phil about diagrams. Unlike Joe, I do not know Phil's state of mind. Was he frustrated? How does that impact his beliefs?
In response to question about role of diagrams vis a vis the rule text
From: "'Phil Barker' pc.barker@blueyonder.co.uk [DBA]" <DBA@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [DBA] Re: More Than One Threat Zone Date: August 9, 2014 at 3:39:08 AM EDT To: <DBA@yahoogroups.com> Reply-To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
On the contrary, the text IS the rules. Diagrams are an aid to understanding the text, for those that need it. Phil ---------------------------------------
During discussion of whether the diagrams should be interspersed in the text.
"I don't see why people who can understand the rules should have to navigate around a block of diagrams they are not using. Diagrams are to help the player who cannot understand, and hopefully when he has referred to the section at the back once, he will rarely have to do so again. Most games are NOT between beginners. For 10 years, DBA has had only a single diagram page."
------------------ When asked about the relationship between rule text and diagrams
"The purpose of diagrams is to help explain the written rule. They are a double edged sword in that someone will always claim that a diagram supersedes the written rule."
------------------------- Warning us not to be critical of the diagrams. I attach so show Phil's plan for who will take over DBA.
"Chris is working on the diagrams and sending doubtful bits to me progressively for vetting
I should perhaps point out that he is not a retired gentleman of leisure, but works long hours in a full time job, is a working director of 2 companies and has a leading role in our other big new set HFG. I dare say he will consider putting the final version out to this group for checking, provided he is not cheesed off by too much nagging.>>> I regard him as my intellectual rule writing heir should I vanish prematurely, so do not annoy him needlessly, lest he look with a jaundiced eye on your favourite armies... Phil"
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 8, 2020 21:45:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 8, 2020 19:16:21 GMT
I have just learned of a new and creative line of figures from World of Fun (Wofun) made from Plexiglass (Plexifigs). wofun-games.com/AntiquityThese look very interesting for DBA. The bases are not yet DBA ready, no 4 wide that I can find) but you can get sets with no bases and do your own. Such a great variety in both 18mm and 28mm. Has anyone yet gotten these. They seem perfect for DBA. Cut out, base and play. NO painting needed.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 4, 2020 16:03:17 GMT
Why bother having the FAQ team speak, when Menacussecundus speaks so well as it is. This is exactly how I read it.
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 16, 2020 5:17:44 GMT
Zendor, great discovery of flaw in the 2.1 version. The statement you quote from diagram on page 36 (Close Combat Example 2) is a clear violation of the rules in the text, on page 26 and as you note, a change from the 2 version. Someone should write to Sue to point this out.
Text with Diagram in Version 2 "As it is warband , E pursues. C does not pursue, as it fought only as an overlap. F does not pursue, as i t fought only as a flank contact. G does not pursue, as it fought only as a rear contact."
Text with Diagram in Version 2.1 "As they are war band, E and G pursue, meeting the middle of B's previous position..."
Rule 2.0 PURSUIT An element of knights, behemoths, beasts or warband whose close combat opponents recoil, break off, flee or are destroyed immediately pursues straight forward the lesser of its own base depth or width unless any of the following apply: • • It fought only as an overlap or flank or rear contact.
Rule 2.1
Same as above
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 12, 2020 18:14:17 GMT
You are right, Zendor. The type of enemy element doesn't change the point you were making. To answer your question, yes. They are in a column behind an element which pursues, so they all pursue. Even the Art. It's hard for me to agree with you, menacussecundus. Pursuing Artillery is truly madness, don't you think so? Imo, Art do not belong to any type of elements that have to pursue. Therefore why will it pursue? My point is, to pursue while standing in column, both conditions have to be met: being in column + belonging to a certain type of element mentioned below. It seems madness to me to put artillery into a column with elements that pursue. Sometimes for the sake of play ability rules needs to be general and cannot take into account certain specific nonsensical situations.
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 11, 2020 22:55:12 GMT
Ditto to Stevie: the whole column moves forward behind the 3Kn. Phil was not explicit as to how far the following elements move, so we must assume that they move as far as the front element moves.
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 11, 2020 21:37:20 GMT
I was one who complained much about the change. Mostly on the grounds that it was not needed and would serve to distract people from the good changes in the game. Phil was adamant about the change. Once it was inevitable I sat back and enjoyed it I now use Base Width moves for HOTT too. The two games seem so slow without it.
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 10, 2020 19:41:27 GMT
If you put a little bit of wall around the outside and flock it And then fill with plastic water, you would have a nice rice patties.
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 2, 2020 17:45:13 GMT
Ditto to Baldie. I am motivated by price, however. While I prefer metal, I can always add a little bit of weight to an element of plastic figures. What troubles me the most with these figures is the flash. Well the commentator didn’t seem to mind it, once you’re scraping away a whole DBA army worth of figures it gets to be tedious.
I wonder how the MeG people got their own line of figures? I suspected many of the readers here do not know that Phil Barker had his named range of figures back in the 70s. Miniature figurines made a PB series of ancient figures.
Does anyone know the composition of the particular figures in a box. For example is there enough but not too much imperial Romans to make an army for Dba?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 25, 2020 18:59:07 GMT
Thanks for posting these. Very good for inspiration, I’ll give it a try.
|
|