|
|
Post by j on Oct 14, 2019 1:00:22 GMT
Quick question. Due to a congested situation we came across a problem tonight. I hope you can shed some light.
I wanted to hard flank an enemy Ax but, because of the way the elements around it were positioned, the only way was to move my Ps onto the flank of the Ax first & then move my Cv to its front edge.
Now, I obviously wanted my Cv with CF3 to fight vs his Ax with CF3 -1 = 2 for being hard flanked.
He said that I had to face the first element to contact his Ax so it would be Ps with CF2 vs his Ax with CF3 -1 = 2
quoting Purple p12 Turning to face a Flank or Rear contact "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"
He said that the Cv was not "already" in full front edge contact so he must face the Ps & not the Cv
I maintain that the "already" should mean "in the previous bound" & he must remain facing the Cv with the Ps flanking.
I think I remember that one of the differences between DBA & HotT was that HotT held that the FIRST element to contact was the one who fought but in DBA this was not the case but I may be mistaken.
Which of us is right?
Regards,
j
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 14, 2019 2:16:48 GMT
Although not an expert, I would agree with your interpretation. The element only turns if there’s no element immediately to its front at the end of the movement phase. I interpret the “first element” as only applying when multiple elements are contacting the flanks and there’s nothing to the elements front.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 14, 2019 5:53:20 GMT
If anything hits the front by the end of the movement phase the unit turns to face it.
If two units hit a flank each and nothing to front, or I think rear, the unit turns to face the first flank contacted.
I believe if nothing has hit the front but units have contacted the rear and flank it turns to rear contact.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 14, 2019 7:17:23 GMT
Yep
Only need to apply the “1st to contact front or rear“ rule is if there is nothing on the front of the element at the end of movement phase. Always obliged to fight an opponent on your front. Only turn if there is none.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 14, 2019 7:21:00 GMT
If anything hits the front by the end of the movement phase the unit turns to face it. If two units hit a flank each and nothing to front, or I think rear, the unit turns to face the first flank contacted. I believe if nothing has hit the front but units have contacted the rear and flank it turns to rear contact. Don’t think the suggested ‘rear contacter takes priority’ rule is correct, Baldie. I have a feeling that if there’s nowt on the front then whichever flank or rear opponent arrived first if fought. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 14, 2019 7:40:22 GMT
I agree with both Greedo and Martin. At the end of the movement phase, elements turn-to-face... ...but they can’t if they are already frontally engaged. I know it sucks...it means that it’s the front element that fights, and the hard-flankers are nothing more than a -1, no matter what they are. You’d have thought that Knights, which are capable of sweeping away enemy foot when they attack them in the front, would be even more deadly when they charge into a vulnerable open flank. But no, they merely give the enemy a -1, as if the Knights were no better than Psiloi when attacking a flank. Oh well...”I didn’t write the rules”.  (However, I really, Really, REALLY wish that turning-to-face were instantaneous on contact,
instead of the artificial and convoluted ‘wait-till-the-end-of-the-movement-phase’ method.
It would be both simpler and more realistic.
See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/991/turning-face-future-version-dba?page=1
One for the “House Rules” I think)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 greedo on Oct 15, 2019 13:41:56 GMT
Thinking about this one a bit more, I’m actually inclined to agree now with the “front takes priority” to flanking rule that is currently in place.
It speaks to the fact that units don’t fly around wildly nilly and changing the facing of a unit is a non trivial matter.
As to the idea that all units are the same when flanking, I’m moving further into the camp of abstraction. The flanker might not actually be charging the flanked unit. It might only be preventing an escape or rally at a crucial time...
Perhaps the rule that the most “dangerous” opponent counts as the main unit was chosen by the flanking player is what it should be, but there’s something wonderfully simple about the front facing rule even if it treats knights and ps the same regarding flanking.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Oct 15, 2019 21:44:06 GMT
I think Greedo has the right idea. DBA requires a sense of perspective and a degree of imagination. Often, I think suggestions for rule changes arise when players don't accept, or ignore, the design intentions of the author.
For example, it's easy to forget that elements in close combat do not necessarily represent men fighting in physical contact. Two opposing elements in contact represent an area of ground being fought over. Sometimes this involves the slow, steady advance of a phalanx towards an enemy, who may or may not be inclined to counter-charge. At other times, it might represent small groups darting forward to shower the enemy with missiles before running away. The recoil might represent an enemy being beaten and forced to retire a short distance while both groups reform after the melee, or it might represent never getting into contact at all, but slowly giving ground due to the psychological pressure of an undaunted enemy.
To deal with the "hard flank" case specifically, the rule implies that it does not matter what kind of element is moving onto the flank. The -1 factor represents the threat to the defender arising from the behaviour of the enemy moving onto the defender's flank.
My point is that the simple act of moving an element into enemy contact represents a complex, variable and highly dynamic aspect of combat that the author has elegantly recreated using one die for each player. There are plenty of suggestions for change that may be appropriate for house rules, but they are simply a different person's perspective on how these things should be represented. I really, Really, REALLY hope that future DBA versions do not substitute other people's design intentions for those of the author.
|
|
|
|
Post by eg407 on Oct 16, 2019 4:42:39 GMT
I'd like to just add a point agreeing with chaotic. From my point of view, what we have are an awesome set of rules. And while there are arguments for tweaking the army lists to fit certain battles and even exact moments in those battles. The rules themselves are almost perfect for me. I'd really hate to have another schism just because people feel the need to fix something that isn't exactly broken (Bakerese English is a case in point)
On a slightly more on topic point, it seems the original question has been answered. But I'm curious about the original situation. J, how come the Ps had to move first?? If they were blocking the Cv's path to the front of the Ax...then surely they couldn't close the door, as they wouldn't already be fully to the flank. Probably a little late but I'm just curious.
Best,
Eg
|
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Oct 16, 2019 7:23:57 GMT
I've always done it the same way you do - elements only turn if their front isn't in contact.
If we take into account that in reality movement isn't sequential - troops don't wait until confirmation that their mates have got into the desired position before moving themselves - you can imagine some degree of simultaneity when two elements move into close combat with an enemy. It makes sense for troops who are approached only by the flank to turn to face the first group approaching which would pose the most immediate threat, but it's harder to justify breaking formation when enemies are approaching from the front, which is precisely the point of formation; much less if these troops are part of a longer line with other elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 16, 2019 8:27:05 GMT
I think Greedo has the right idea. DBA requires a sense of perspective and a degree of imagination. Often, I think suggestions for rule changes arise when players don't accept, or ignore, the design intentions of the author. For example, it's easy to forget that elements in close combat do not necessarily represent men fighting in physical contact. Two opposing elements in contact represent an area of ground being fought over. Sometimes this involves the slow, steady advance of a phalanx towards an enemy, who may or may not be inclined to counter-charge. At other times, it might represent small groups darting forward to shower the enemy with missiles before running away. The recoil might represent an enemy being beaten and forced to retire a short distance while both groups reform after the melee, or it might represent never getting into contact at all, but slowly giving ground due to the psychological pressure of an undaunted enemy. To deal with the "hard flank" case specifically, the rule implies that it does not matter what kind of element is moving onto the flank. The -1 factor represents the threat to the defender arising from the behaviour of the enemy moving onto the defender's flank. My point is that the simple act of moving an element into enemy contact represents a complex, variable and highly dynamic aspect of combat that the author has elegantly recreated using one die for each player. There are plenty of suggestions for change that may be appropriate for house rules, but they are simply a different person's perspective on how these things should be represented. I really, Really, REALLY hope that future DBA versions do not substitute other people's design intentions for those of the author. Beautifully put!! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2019 9:30:52 GMT
I really, Really, REALLY hope that future DBA versions do not substitute other people's design intentions for those of the author. ...then there won’t be any future versions of DBA, and a hundred years from now people will still be playing DBA 3.0 (or more likely will have moved on to newer more innovated rule-sets). “You can’t progress and improve by just standing still”. A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source. Thank heavens for the “House Rule” section of Fanaticus, which contains many new innovative ideas (some of them are daft I admit...but some of them are really quite good, and would improve the rules by making them simpler, easier to remember, more play-balanced, and even more realistic). Anyway, with the current rules the moving player does have a choice...if they don’t want a weak element to do the fighting then only move the flanker’s into contact. That’ll force the enemy to turn-to-face. You’ll just have to wait for your next bound if you also want to give the enemy a -1 as well. Either that or charge them both in and have the weak element doing the fighting. Ah, decisions, decisions...  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 j on Oct 16, 2019 11:42:06 GMT
I'd like to just add a point agreeing with chaotic. From my point of view, what we have are an awesome set of rules. And while there are arguments for tweaking the army lists to fit certain battles and even exact moments in those battles. The rules themselves are almost perfect for me. I'd really hate to have another schism just because people feel the need to fix something that isn't exactly broken (Bakerese English is a case in point) On a slightly more on topic point, it seems the original question has been answered. But I'm curious about the original situation. J, how come the Ps had to move first?? If they were blocking the Cv's path to the front of the Ax...then surely they couldn't close the door, as they wouldn't already be fully to the flank. Probably a little late but I'm just curious. Best, Eg Actually, it turned out that I could, in fact, move the Cv to contact first but it required a quite a bit of fussy manouvreing, of which I am not a fan of - as I think it wastes a lot of time & can come off as gamesmanship - & visually, at first, it didn't look look possible. It was only when I attempted to solve the problem by moving the Ps first that my opponent questioned which element the enemy would face in combat. We seemed to remember the "first element to contact" rule being from HotT & were initially inclined to go with the front element. It was just that, on reading the rules, the word "already" was troubling. To keep the momentum of the game, I moved the Cv first but we thought it best to post the question for future reference. Thanks to all who answered & we are happy to accept that an element must fight any enemy in frontal contact at the end of the movement phase. I think it is the most logical & easily applied rule in retrospect but PB has a habit of getting into my mind & causing me to doubt myself Regards, j |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 16, 2019 12:38:09 GMT
Gamesmanship or beutifully crafted move showing grace and finesse?
It is the little fiddly moves that i love about our great game.
Full of grace and finesse myself of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by j on Oct 16, 2019 12:57:24 GMT
Gamesmanship or beutifully crafted move showing grace and finesse? It is the little fiddly moves that i love about our great game. Full of grace and finesse myself of course. Yeah, you don't have to play with a guy who measures every millimetre of every possible move ten times before having to go for a fag to think it through Lucky if we get a game in under 2 hours! Regards, j |
|
