|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 12, 2017 7:23:43 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT Hello medievalthomas, ok, so the "contact" is one of those contacts shown in figure 9a. And the sentence on page 10 (close combat) should be read as: "Any enemy front edge to own flank or enemy front edge to own rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element." Right? Thanks  Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 12, 2017 9:10:01 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT I'm reading the rules again and getting more confused! The way I read the section "Moving into contact with the enemy" make me think the rules state that overlap is contact (side to side or corner to corner). I'll quote below: At the end of the bound's movement phase the contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-up with an enemy element, either....d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap. Having said that, the same section describes four possible contact outcomes as we know: Front edge to front edge, front edge to rear edge, front edge to flank edge and overlap. So it would be reasonable to read the sentence "A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element" as pertaining to the second and third option but not the fourth. If Phil wanted overlap included would he not explicitly state it? So in summary, I've changed my mind! I am more than happy to exclude overlap as affecting the supporting element. The bases are way too deep for the troops represented and the little men from both elements would all be crowding around the front edge in my imagination. So maybe we could have a consensus that as overlap is not explicitly stated then it does not affect the supporting element? Jim PS I've also never liked the massive frontage/depth penalty pikes have to pay to achieve strength; a 3x2 block just doesn't look right! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 12, 2017 9:11:08 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side-to-side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT If it helps, here are some short lists of when ‘contact’ is mentioned. (The numbers in square brackets refers to the relevant rule page and paragraph)The Times DBA 3.0 Uses The Word ‘Contact’ To Mean ‘Touching’:-Groups: Elements must be in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another [8.10]. Flank Support: Some troops +1 if in mutual side-edge and mutual front-corner contact with a friendly element [11.2]. Recoil Obstacles: An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead [12.5]. (There are 8 other instances I could add to this list)The Times The Words ‘Front-Edge’ Are Added To A Line Containing The Word ‘Contact’:-Moving into Contact: moving a front-edge into contact with enemy always results in combat [9.9]. Pursuit Contact: If pursuing element’s front-edge contacts enemy or its front-corner contacts an enemy front-edge, [12.11]. Flank/Rear Destruction: An element that has an enemy front-edge in contact with its side or rear-edge is destroyed [12.1]. (There are 5 other instances I could add to this list)Clearly DBA 3.0 uses the word ‘contact’ to simply mean any kind of touching, and has to add the words ‘front-edge’ when only frontal touching applies. (If anyone is interested, here is the full list:-)Use of the word Contact.pdf (81.03 KB) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 12, 2017 14:41:54 GMT
I'm reading the rules again and getting more confused! There are several things I have read in the last few days which I have read 5 times and get more confused every time I read them.  |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 12, 2017 17:03:15 GMT
Given the Stevie's comprehensive analysis comparing front edge contact to just contact, I'm satisfied with the following rule is quite clear:
"A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element."
There is no "front edge " modifier" in which case, front edge and side edge contact are treated as if on the supported element.
|
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Dec 12, 2017 17:45:44 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT Yes side or rear contact would inflict -1 (in line with Figure 20a example 2) However if we accept "contact" to include side to side "overlap" then the section about Moving Into Contact on page 9 makes no sense. Overlap and Contact are used as contrasting terms eg from first paragraph " ...with no
enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap..." I conclude from this that overlaping an edge is not contact and so the -1 does not count against a second rank. Happily this avoids the silliness of the situation aluded to by ronisan where the presence of a double overlapped second rank would make the front rank warband fight worse! When I've seen this come up in the UK competitions Its been played that overlap support of a second rank does not apply. I believe we got it right. |
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Dec 12, 2017 18:32:08 GMT
But I am often wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 12, 2017 19:18:14 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT Yes side or rear contact would inflict -1 (in line with Figure 20a example 2) However if we accept "contact" to include side to side "overlap" then the section about Moving Into Contact on page 9 makes no sense. Overlap and Contact are used as contrasting terms eg from first paragraph " ...with no
enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap..." I conclude from this that overlaping an edge is not contact and so the -1 does not count against a second rank. Happily this avoids the silliness of the situation aluded to by ronisan where the presence of a double overlapped second rank would make the front rank warband fight worse! When I've seen this come up in the UK competitions Its been played that overlap support of a second rank does not apply. I believe we got it right. With you on this one, Pete. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Dec 12, 2017 21:10:08 GMT
Yes side or rear contact would inflict -1 (in line with Figure 20a example 2) However if we accept "contact" to include side to side "overlap" then the section about Moving Into Contact on page 9 makes no sense. Overlap and Contact are used as contrasting terms eg from first paragraph " ...with no
enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap..." I conclude from this that overlaping an edge is not contact and so the -1 does not count against a second rank. Happily this avoids the silliness of the situation aluded to by ronisan where the presence of a double overlapped second rank would make the front rank warband fight worse! When I've seen this come up in the UK competitions Its been played that overlap support of a second rank does not apply. I believe we got it right. With you on this one, Pete. Martin And that's how I would rule it at the Northern Cup in March, if it came up for discussion... P. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 13, 2017 8:29:14 GMT
Hello, the longer I think about it, the more I tend to agree with peteduckworth. See diagrams A1 to A4 attached. The two elements of Wb fight as "one block"! Arguing: "If A3 counts as overlapped, why shouldn't A4 count as overlapped also?" or Arguing: "At some point (shown in A4) the Sp element "D" maybe too far away to have any influence on the close combat of Sp element "C". So "D" should change facing and "close the door" in order to help "C"." Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 13, 2017 8:48:07 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT Yes side or rear contact would inflict -1 (in line with Figure 20a example 2) However if we accept "contact" to include side to side "overlap" then the section about Moving Into Contact on page 9 makes no sense. Overlap and Contact are used as contrasting terms eg from first paragraph " ...with no
enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap..." I conclude from this that overlaping an edge is not contact and so the -1 does not count against a second rank. Happily this avoids the silliness of the situation aluded to by ronisan where the presence of a double overlapped second rank would make the front rank warband fight worse! When I've seen this come up in the UK competitions Its been played that overlap support of a second rank does not apply. I believe we got it right. Hello peteduckworth, maybe this (see attachment) helps? If we agree, that according to "moving into contact with enemy" (page 9) B1 is correct/legal and B2 is not correct, then a side edge to side edge "contact" on an element providing rear support doesn't inflict the -1! ...? Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Dec 13, 2017 16:19:51 GMT
On what basis is B2 incorrect? B1 is definitely fine. Can't the Psiloi move to B1 and then move forward to B2?
Or am I perhaps missing the point?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 13, 2017 17:08:34 GMT
Hello Pete,
I was just thinking about the possibilities of "getting into contact" according to page 9 and shown in figure 9a.
I think it's not allowed to contact an enemy element in "side edge to side edge"-overlap (like B2 of my diagram).
It's only allowed to contact an enemy element in overlap, if you move into the "corner to corner"-overlap Position, isn't it?
And if so, a "side edge to side edge"-overlap won't be a "contact" Position.
Cheers,
Ronald.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 13, 2017 17:46:56 GMT
Hello Pete, I was just thinking about the possibilities of "getting into contact" according to page 9 and shown in figure 9a. I think it's not allowed to contact an enemy element in "side edge to side edge"-overlap (like B2 of my diagram). It's only allowed to contact an enemy element in overlap, if you move into the "corner to corner"-overlap Position, isn't it? And if so, a "side edge to side edge"-overlap won't be a "contact" Position. Cheers, Ronald. Isn't option d in the Moving into contact with the enemy paragraph "with no enemy in contact to its front but in overlap?" Overlap can be corners or mutual side to side. Cheers Simon |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 13, 2017 18:33:14 GMT
Hello Pete, I was just thinking about the possibilities of "getting into contact" according to page 9 and shown in figure 9a. I think it's not allowed to contact an enemy element in "side edge to side edge"-overlap (like B2 of my diagram). It's only allowed to contact an enemy element in overlap, if you move into the "corner to corner"-overlap Position, isn't it? And if so, a "side edge to side edge"-overlap won't be a "contact" Position. Cheers, Ronald. Isn't option d in the Moving into contact with the enemy paragraph "with no enemy in contact to its front but in overlap?" Overlap can be corners or mutual side to side. Cheers Simon Hello Simon, if so ... then Warband "A" in the diagram A4 still fights with +3 (like in A1 to A3), because "D" is in flank contact to the rear supporting Wb "B". Right? Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
