|
|
Post by anythingbuta1 on Jan 14, 2018 17:18:44 GMT
Hello everyone I am a former player returning to DBA version 3 which is new to me.
If I am understanding the rules on conforming correctly they go something like this;
Single elements moving into contact always conform.
Single elements or groups contacting enemy groups conform to that group.
Groups contacting single elements make that single element conform to them, the exception being if the single element is in Bad or Rough going in which case it's the group that conforms.
Lets assume it's my turn. If there's a gap in the enemy group I am attacking which means my contacting group can't line up element versus element without splitting my group up or if my troops can't conform because something is blocking it the onus switches to my opponent. He then conforms to me or stays where he is and any of his elements not properly lined up fight as if overlapped.
That about covers it I think, please correct me if I am wrong.
So looking at diagram 13c. The spear move into contact with the blade. The blade should conform but they can't. So it's over to the spear to see if they can conform. They can't either. So the condition that at the end of the bound elements must be correctly lined up as stated in the first paragraph of Moving Into Contact With Enemy hasn't been fulfilled. Why is this not classified as being not a legitimate contact and the move cancelled?
Also what happens if it's the blade contacting the spear? Firstly the blade tries to conform, it can't so then it's over to the spear to try to conform but they can't either. Is that then cancelled as not a legitimate move? If it isn't cancelled would the spear count as being overlapped as contacted elements not conforming to contact? Logically they would but it seems odd that they take up the whole gap where the fighting takes place, the blade only take up part of it but it's the blade doing the overlapping!
Any feedback would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 14, 2018 19:47:00 GMT
Your synopsis seems about correct...
Diagram 13c...
The group of Spear is blocked from conforming by elements... the enemy Blade is also blocked... so the Blade must fight as overlapped (double in fact).
Element configuration can no longer block combat (in most cases). This was one of the design goals of DBA 3.
The second paragraph of "Moving into Contact with Enemy" lists the exceptions and the ramifications of those exceptions to the first paragraph. Yes,it is a bit muddy.
I rewrote both these damnable paragraphs perhaps 20 times. They are better that when we started. Phil did take some of my wording... but not all.
To answer your second question...
The Blade moves into contact and cannot conform. The Spears must conform. They also cannot. Thus one fights as overlapped. Please note that the Blade is also considered overlapped... though this is inferred but not directly stated in the rules (though shown in the diagrams).
I hope this helps.
These conformation rules really clean up a lot of the geometric tricks that were rampant in 2.2 and earlier versions.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 14, 2018 22:25:32 GMT
I don’t know if this is of any use, but here is a flowchart I’ve made to help me explain conforming to my mates who are new to DBA 3.0. It’s not official, but it is consistent with the rules as they are currently written:- If I make contact, Conforming troops line-up on contact, but those with an
----no---- do my troops have <----note---- enemy front-edge in contact with their flank or rear
l to conform? wait until the end of the Move Phase to turn to face.
l l (See rule 10.1)
l yes
l l
l Do I have enough
l movement to be -----no-----> Then contact can’t happen (see figure 10).
l able to conform? Think of something else.
l l
l yes
l l
l Trying to conform Then make legal contact (see rule 9.9).
l to the enemy front, -----yes----> (If not enough space to conform to a
l do I have the space? flank or rear, then contact can’t happen)
l l
l no
l l
l Then my opponent ……so just move your front-edge into any kind of
----------> has to conform…… ------------> contact and let the enemy worry about conforming!
The link below may also have some other stuff you may find useful as well…  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by anythingbuta1 on Jan 15, 2018 1:17:09 GMT
Thanks guys. The interesting thing about that diagram is that the rules actually don't cover it.
They talk about what happens when a contacting group DOES HAVE TO conform and they can't do it. As previously stated the contacted element or group has to conform then and if they can't or won't there is a penalty.
However in the diagram the contacting spear group DOES NOT have to conform. It's a group contacting a single element.
Thus as the rule doesn't apply because the opening qualification hasn't been met the contacted single element of blade is not obliged to conform or count as overlapped.
Don't get me wrong I know this is not what is meant. The text with the diagram makes that clear. Nevertheless, in my opinion it is what the rules actually say.
It would have been simpler to say that any element or group that is contacted by enemy and has to conform, whether that be at initial contact or because the enemy can't complete their own conform move, have the choice of lining up or taking the minus one penalty because that's clearly what is meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 15, 2018 2:41:12 GMT
For me the KEY point about 13c is the statement that elements unable or unwilling to conform fight as if overlapped. The written text of the rules does not explicitly give the impression the conforming is voluntary.
I realize many are opposed to this idea, but I have been consulting DBMM recently, as I think it helps to understand Phil's occasional forays into thinking of v3 as "DBMM-lite". For me, many of the key concepts introduced in DBMM for conforming seem to be a "jazzed up" version of the DBA conforming rules. For example, the "fight as if overlapped" rule in DBA v3 does not state if overlapped on one or two flanks. However, DBMM clearly indicates this applies to only a single overlap case. This is relevant to diagram 13c, since a newbie might mistakenly assume that since a fair bit of Spear element is sticking out past the Bd element on both flanks, the Bd should fight as if doubly overlapped.
Finally, for the moving into contact with a single element on a corner, as a group, the HotT rules first introduce the DBx concept of a single element not in bad going, conforming to a moving group. However, in these rules, the conforming element must have sufficient room to recoil after conforming, or the conforming doesn't happen. Since elements don't immediately die in DBA v3 for not recoiling a full outcome move, I believe this was removed as a condition. DBMM also introduced the idea of not dying on a short recoil, and of groups hitting single elements on a corner in good going, and "snapping" them to the grid to conform (DBMM diag 9a, page 54).
I believe Phil intended to generate as much movement flexibility with DBA v3 as possible, given the 12-element game, with the really short rules. He wanted fighting to happen thick, fast and often, with a minimum of disruption due to element angles and spacing. "When in doubt, fight anyway" seems good advice for the player new to DBA v3. I see inability to conform being an issue with either not enough movement to reach the enemy (rare) or single elements unable to conform due to spacing and/or terrain.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 15, 2018 13:59:05 GMT
In addition to what Joe Collins and Primuspilus have said, I just want to add a few words about the diagrams. I used to think that the rules were the most important thing, and the diagrams and their dialogue were secondary. I have since changed my opinion…the diagrams and their accompanying dialogue are the rules. You see, the rules are somewhat generalised, and in some cases even vague. The diagrams and their dialogue gives us what the rules don’t…practical examples of the rules in everyday use. Since I’ve started to treat the diagrams as actual rules, DBA 3.0 has become much clearer and easier to understand. To me they are no longer just secondary ‘icing on the cake’, they are in fact a vital and necessary part of the ruleset. 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 primuspilus on Jan 17, 2018 0:47:51 GMT
You know, Stevie, I believe most of us throughout our DBx careers have memorized key diagrams more effectively than rules statements. The statement is the "official rule" but rules are operationalized via the diagrams...For the single element contacted by a group, I recommend folks consult the old HotT diagrams. It is quite clear that contacting a single element corner IS a legitimate move in DBx, and that under various guises, single elements have been required to conform when so touched.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 19, 2018 19:04:44 GMT
You can thank Bob for getting Phil to add the diagrams. As I've mentioned 13c and 13d are essential to understanding the conforming rules (and as others have noticed streach them a bit).
It would have been better to have integrated them into the text so you'd have both together but as we could barely get Phil to add them that was impossible. (It would have helped bring to the fore the areas where the text and diagrams don't completely jive - bear in mind that Phil did not do the diagrams and they are not offically rules - but we game masters pay that no mind).
As to DBMM and DBA 3.0, I did massive playtesting for DBMM 2.0, including having Phil come to the US to demo games with me. In the end I concluded that while DBMM tried to solve some of DBXs basic geometry problems - its massive complexity defeated the attempt.
I then proposed the radical concept that we could get the DBMM solutions with much less complexity, if we set our minds to the task. Two things happened: I got tarred and featured on the DBMM boards and Phil sent me the first draft of DBA 3.0 and said OK lets give it a try. So we have DBA 3.0 which is not a "reduced" version of DBMM but instead just a far more efficient version. We fix the same problems with maybe a third the rule overhead. Did we in the end need to explain things a bit better? Yes. Did we perhaps retain a few DBMM ideas we should have jettisoned (like the phantom overlap penalty)? Yes. But for bang for your buck there is nothing better in the (official) DBX world.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 19, 2018 21:37:55 GMT
You can thank Bob for getting Phil to add the diagrams. As I've mentioned 13c and 13d are essential to understanding the conforming rules (and as others have noticed streach them a bit). It would have been better to have integrated them into the text so you'd have both together but as we could barely get Phil to add them that was impossible. (It would have helped bring to the fore the areas where the text and diagrams don't completely jive - bear in mind that Phil did not do the diagrams and they are not offically rules - but we game masters pay that no mind). As to DBMM and DBA 3.0, I did massive playtesting for DBMM 2.0, including having Phil come to the US to demo games with me. In the end I concluded that while DBMM tried to solve some of DBXs basic geometry problems - its massive complexity defeated the attempt. I then proposed the radical concept that we could get the DBMM solutions with much less complexity, if we set our minds to the task. Two things happened: I got tarred and featured on the DBMM boards and Phil sent me the first draft of DBA 3.0 and said OK lets give it a try. So we have DBA 3.0 which is not a "reduced" version of DBMM but instead just a far more efficient version. We fix the same problems with maybe a third the rule overhead. Did we in the end need to explain things a bit better? Yes. Did we perhaps retain a few DBMM ideas we should have jettisoned (like the phantom overlap penalty)? Yes. But for bang for your buck there is nothing better in the (official) DBX world. TomT So that is from where "phantom overlap" came. I always wondered... Joe Collins |
|
