|
|
Post by bob on Oct 4, 2019 21:21:38 GMT
I was looking over Figures related to conforming in the Diagrams section as a result of the earlier thread about conforming. I noticed the in Figure 13c the following text "The Spear group is also unable to conform and so the Blade element remains in place and fights in close combat as if overlapped on both flanks."
The Blade is in frontal contact with two Spear elements. I could not find in the rules any text that says which Spear the Blade fights. I could make a difference if the Spear had recoil problems, or in another situation if the two elements were different, say a Knight and a Spear. Does the moving player pick which element fights, or is the fight between the two with most contact. What if equal? Anyway, I cannot find any rule on this.
Is this case where the Rules differ from the Figure? The rules say "It (combat) occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element or at least partial front edge contact with a city, fort or camp." The situation in 13c does not conform to this definition. Perhaps there is actually no combat or the Spear move cannot be completed. Is the diagram writer just making up a rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Oct 4, 2019 21:36:46 GMT
No, Chris (the diagram's writer) did not make up the rule, it is on page 9, third paragraph from the bottom.
Although the rules do not explicitly say which of teh two contacting elements fights, you would normally make the minimum extra slide to conform, so the element most in contact would usually be the one that fights after the conform. Therefore, I would assume that the element most in contact is the one to fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 4, 2019 21:45:45 GMT
No. The diagrams are the rules-just as much as the text.
They were certainly made up by both Chris and Phil.
The content page states this.
Thank goodness we have them to explain all of Phil's errors in the text.
It is unfortunate that Phil and Sue didn't include the full rules in their SAW.
Someone starting with it could have problems without the diagrams to fix Phil's errors.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 4, 2019 21:57:23 GMT
Everyone (including Bob) is correct. As I've pointed out before diagram 13c is a massive extension of the conforming rules and must be studied carefully for all it implies. Call it the 13th corollary.
Again bear in mind that while we treat the "elements that should fight must fight" rule language as asperational and the following text as the rule - Phil believes the opposite - the first sentence is the rule the rest just examples (and not exhaustive) of how to implement the concept.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 8, 2019 2:24:11 GMT
No. The diagrams are the rules-just as much as the text. They were certainly made up by both Chris and Phil. The content page states this. Thank goodness we have them to explain all of Phil's errors in the text. It is unfortunate that Phil and Sue didn't include the full rules in their SAW. Someone starting with it could have problems without the diagrams to fix Phil's errors. Joe Collins In response to question about relationship between rules and Diagrams From: mailto:DBA@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 8:39 AM To: DBA@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DBA] Re: More Than One Threat Zone On the contrary, the text IS the rules. Diagrams are an aid to understanding the text, for those that need it. Phil |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 8, 2019 2:32:39 GMT
No, Chris (the diagram's writer) did not make up the rule, it is on page 9, third paragraph from the bottom. Although the rules do not explicitly say which of teh two contacting elements fights, you would normally make the minimum extra slide to conform, so the element most in contact would usually be the one that fights after the conform. Therefore, I would assume that the element most in contact is the one to fight. Yes this is well and good if conforming is possible. In Figure 13c, conformation is not possible. So which element does the single element combat. As I wrote, not a problem if only as shown, but what if instead of two spears there was a Warband and Spear? Who picks the pair of combatants? Must this situation revert to assumptions? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 8, 2019 3:28:40 GMT
Well rats... I was hoping to get a better response out of tweaking Bob...
Oh well...
On a serious note...
(and to answer your question)
Yes, I think we must make some assumptions here as Phil gave us no direct help with this... but common sense says that the elements with the most contact should fight...
On a 50/50 split... I would give the bounding player the choice.
I'm not sure of a better way to do it.
What do you think?
Am I off base here?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 8, 2019 9:30:05 GMT
I think you’re right Joe... ...if 3 figures are facing one element, but only 1 figure is facing the other element, then common sense tells us which enemy it should fight. The rules are the rules, there’s no doubt about that...but the diagrams give us practical examples of the rules in action, whereas the rule by itself does not. Even in a court of law there is the rule, and this is backed up by precedent showing the use of that law in action in previous cases. I for one couldn’t follow DBA 3.0 entirely by the rules alone, and we would probably all end up interpreting them differently were it not for the diagrams to keep us on the straight and narrow and synchronised with each other. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 8, 2019 15:06:48 GMT
Stevie...
In the next version I do think we need some extra text to guide us. Tom has made some excellent suggestions.
Basically, he suggests the bounding player must attempt to conform as much as possible.
Phil hints at this...but doesn't state it outright.
Further, we need to add guidance on which elements fight.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 10, 2019 19:24:33 GMT
I am thinking one alternative is if an element cannot align as it is supposed to to initiate close combat, the elements do not make contact. Or perhaps, building a on city Combat, when one element is contacted by two enemy, it figuts each enemy independently. One of the two counts as overlapped in the first combat but not the second, unless a tie. This, of course, only if conforming is not possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 10, 2019 20:38:09 GMT
I am thinking one alternative is if an element cannot align as it is supposed to to initiate close combat, the elements do not make contact. Or perhaps, building a on city Combat, when one element is contacted by two enemy, it figuts each enemy independently. One of the two counts as overlapped in the first combat but not the second, unless a tie. This, of course, only if conforming is not possible. I think our current solution works well. Do you think otherwise? Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 17, 2019 21:13:59 GMT
As Joe points out the concept of the moving element/group (or in some cases stationary single element) conforming as much as possible and then the "non-conforming" element conforming as much as possible - if necessary - is not in the rules but seems implied by the diagrams.
It really helps to insure in most cases you get elements in contact with the minimum of jostling.
Always bear in mind that Phil did express the clear intent that elements that contact should end up in Close Combat - however murky the explanation of how to do this, at least in the text, ended up.
As always I'm interested in players applying these principles in game situations and then giving feedback as to problems/confusion.
TomT
|
|
