|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 6, 2016 6:42:35 GMT
Hi everybody, take a look at the picture attached, please. Mr. Barker tells in the rules section of DBA 3.0, that mutual side to side contact and corner-to-corner contact is required to be part of a group. So the element of LH would be part of the group in position "A" and "B". But in the schemata section of DBA 3.0, he tells that mutual side-to-side and front-corner-to- front-corner contact is required to be part of a group!? So the element of LH would only be part of the group in position "B" and not in "A". How do you play it?  Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by gaelyann on Sept 6, 2016 6:49:59 GMT
Hi everybody, take a look at the picture attached, please. Mr. Barker tells in the rules section of DBA 3.0, that mutual side to side contact and corner-to-corner contact is required to be part of a group. So the element of LH would be part of the group in position "A" and "B". But in the schemata section of DBA 3.0, he tells that mutual side-to-side and front-corner-to- front-corner contact is required to be part of a group!? So the element of LH would only be part of the group in position "B" and not in "A". How do you play it? Cheers, Ronald. only front corner to front corner makes sense to me... |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 6, 2016 7:01:46 GMT
Hi gaelyann,
could you explain why?
What, if your opponent plays correctly (conforming to the rules), like version "A"?
Cheers,
Ronald.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 6, 2016 9:02:17 GMT
BOTH are legal groups. Front or rear corner contact and edge contact are the requirements, so both examples are of legal groups. Has been debated before on t'other Fanaticus, and a few people were under the impression that only front corner counts, but that isn't the case.
Sometimes groups can be complex, with all sorts of different base depths involved, but the same principle applies.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by wombatdazzler on Sept 6, 2016 12:11:41 GMT
Diagram 3a states "front corner to front corner contact" So I would say only B is a group.
Cheers
Daz
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 6, 2016 13:10:46 GMT
Page 8, Tactical Moves, 3rd paragraph
“A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing the same direction with each in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another or in at least corner-to-corner contact if part of a wheeling column.”
The rule section does not specify either “front” or “rear”, so referencing the illustration given by the original poster, both groups are correct.
It is unfortunate that the text in Diagram 3a, paragraph one has added the extra phrase “and front corner to front corner contact.”
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 6, 2016 14:42:51 GMT
Hi everybody,
I also play it the way, "A" and "B" are groups for me.
So, thank you for your comments.
Cheers,
Ronald.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 6, 2016 18:44:35 GMT
The diagrams are to help clarify the rules, not to muddle them. When there is disagreement between the rules text and the diagrams, the rules text takes precedent. Both examples are groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaelyann on Sept 6, 2016 21:40:09 GMT
The diagrams are to help clarify the rules, not to muddle them. When there is disagreement between the rules text and the diagrams, the rules text takes precedent. Both examples are groups. all right, I'll play it that way from now on (not that we put ourselves in that kind of position usually), but in real life would'nt that make sense that, to make a manoeuver as a group (especially for example a wheeling move), they'd align their front and not their rear ? Are there historical examples of case A manoeuvers ? |
|
|
|
Post by sydwargamer on Sept 6, 2016 22:50:53 GMT
The diagrams are to help clarify the rules, not to muddle them. When there is disagreement between the rules text and the diagrams, the rules text takes precedent. Both examples are groups. all right, I'll play it that way from now on (not that we put ourselves in that kind of position usually), but in real life would'nt that make sense that, to make a manoeuver as a group (especially for example a wheeling move), they'd align their front and not their rear ? Are there historical examples of case A manoeuvers ? Are there any historical examples of any manoeuvers involving rigid blocks of troops, as portrayed in DBA?
A number of manuals may indicate how manoeuvers are carried out, but I doubt whether they equate to DBA's representation.
As usual I expect that this situation was not encountered during play testing and that no-one realised that both groups were legal. Since DBA v3.0 is perfect, it is no longer possible to correct the rules to prohibit the second group being valid. Therefore, it must be realistic and examples of this must exist in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 7, 2016 7:59:59 GMT
all right, I'll play it that way from now on (not that we put ourselves in that kind of position usually), but in real life would'nt that make sense that, to make a manoeuver as a group (especially for example a wheeling move), they'd align their front and not their rear ? Are there historical examples of case A manoeuvers ?
As usual I expect that this situation was not encountered during play testing and that no-one realised that both groups were legal.
The group definition, with the option of front OR rear corner and edge-to-edge has been much the same for quite a few iterations of DBA, possibly since the very first, as I don't recall it changing in the approx 15-20 years I've been using the rules. Consequently, it wasn't likely to need to be 'picked up in playtesting'. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 7, 2016 8:46:47 GMT
Hi everybody, have a look at my attachments. A group of pikes and psiloi ... wheeling left ... and wheeling right. Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 8, 2016 21:35:07 GMT
First DBA 3.0 isn't perfect. No rule set is (even one's I've authorered). All systems have compromises and no large group of gamers will ever totally agree which trade offs produce the best results. I can say that DBA 3.0 has by far the most bang for its buck amongest any of the DBX systems.
As to back corner groups - this was not missed in playtest but much discussed. We eventually decided to retain the prior rule that back corners could maintain groups. This does not represent a particular formation. It simply represents the point at which a group loses movement cohesion. So elements can be bounced back but the group as a whole can still stick together. Rear aligned groups make very poor fighting formations (just picture an inverse front aligned formation hitting a rear aligned formation - the front guys would get lots of overlaps). Consequently you would not expect to see this used as an intentional "formation". Don't confuse the practical with the possible. Armies can form into lots of formations but don't do so as they aren't practical fighting formations. Back aligned groups generally occur when lines have been battered back by missiles or fighting and represent formations barely hanging on. You would still have to spend PIPs to get them a proper fighting line.
I was actually in the get rid of back aligned groups but understood the rationale and the general feeling that we should not change long established practices unless we were solving a major problem.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 8, 2016 22:25:59 GMT
I would have preferred front corners as well. Still, it has little bearing on the game.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 10, 2016 6:45:34 GMT
I would have preferred front corners as well. Still, it has little bearing on the game. Joe Collins The rear corner to rear corner contact for groups was often overlooked during big battle games as a command reached demoralization. |
|
