|
Post by paulisper on Feb 11, 2020 11:30:57 GMT
Interesting exchange on group alignments. I need to picture it to get a clear understanding.
Are you saying that both A and B below are groups?
As I always thought A is not a group, since front-corner-to-front corner contact is needed.
yes, they are P
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 11, 2020 12:35:19 GMT
Baldie is correct.
Elements with corners touching (front or rear) and facing the same direction are a 'group.'
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 17:48:35 GMT
Interesting exchange on group alignments. I need to picture it to get a clear understanding.
Are you saying that both A and B below are groups?
As I always thought A is not a group, since front-corner-to-front corner contact is needed.
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 11, 2020 20:11:11 GMT
Interesting exchange on group alignments. I need to picture it to get a clear understanding.
Are you saying that both A and B below are groups?
As I always thought A is not a group, since front-corner-to-front corner contact is needed.
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
Nope, you’ve got that wrong. See p8, Tactical moves, paragraph 3. ‘A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner to corner contact with another...’ P
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 11, 2020 21:07:18 GMT
Interesting exchange on group alignments. I need to picture it to get a clear understanding.
Are you saying that both A and B below are groups?
As I always thought A is not a group, since front-corner-to-front corner contact is needed.
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
Yes it is a group. I can see your argument given the wording for Diagram 3a but FAQ says that the last line should read, “and at least one corner to corner contact.” So if you believe FAQ then it’s a group.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:02:02 GMT
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
Nope, you’ve got that wrong. See p8, Tactical moves, paragraph 3. ‘A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner to corner contact with another...’ P To repeat my argument earlier in the thread, "... the 3.0 rules do say that in the text section, but they also modify what the text section says in the diagrams section. Logically, you have to go with the more restrictive case. It's like saying both of the following must be true, "a positive number" and "the number three". That constrains you to the number three." So you're entitled to play the way you want to, but in this case, you would be ignoring part of the rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:08:21 GMT
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
Yes it is a group. I can see your argument given the wording for Diagram 3a but FAQ says that the last line should read, “and at least one corner to corner contact.” So if you believe FAQ then it’s a group. I agree with you in that "if you believe FAQ then it's a group". However, it depends on whether the people you play with choose to use the FAQ or not.
As mentioned earlier in this thread I view the FAQ as a useful set of interpretations produced by some of our fellow players, but since I disagree with some of the interpretations, not as definitive as the rulebook. I would use the FAQ when playing with people who wanted to use it, and not use the FAQ otherwise. Hence my Mahjong analogy, where the rules differ from venue to venue.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 11, 2020 23:17:02 GMT
Nothing to do with FAQ - just read the rules... 😎
P
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:32:23 GMT
Nothing to do with FAQ - just read the rules... 😎 P You did read my reply to your post didn't you? The "rules" include BOTH the text section and the diagrams section. One is more general and the other more specific, but they do not contradict each other. Hence basic logic is used to resolve the combination of a general constraint and a more specific constraint.
EDIT (about 20 times; sorry about that): To illustrate this specific case, both of the following are in "the rules". So we ask do they contradict each other? No. Well then what is the logical combination of constraints which they impose? Page 16 defines a subset of the configurations defined on page 8. Since both are in the rules, and don't contradict each other, logically the configurations described on page 16 must prevail. Think of it as sets of situations described by Venn diagrams. Using Venn diagrams, the circle defining the set of configurations specified on page 8 would entirely enclose the circle defining the set of configurations specified on page 16. (See here for more info on the relationship between Venn diagrams and logic: www.britannica.com/topic/Venn-diagram ).
Page 8 Tactical Moves: "A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another . . . "
Page 16, Figure 3a: ". . . These elements must all face in the same direction and . . . be in . . . side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact. . . ."
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 12, 2020 7:24:48 GMT
Yes, I read your reply - I just don’t agree with it. The diagrams are in support of the rules and act as clarification NOT there to overwrite them where there is contradiction or mistakes made, as in this case. RAW, ie. the body of the text, should always takes precedence 😉
P
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 12, 2020 9:36:07 GMT
Mark The issue is:-
Mistakes were made in some of the diagrams (admitted to by a core of playtesters, who were part of the writing process).
One of them is the text relating to ‘groups’.
The very same core of playtesters have clarified what SHOULD have been written in the FAQs.
Thus, the FAQs are taken by many ( / most) as definitive.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 12, 2020 9:37:31 GMT
....and thus rear corner contact still gives a group, as in previous v2.x
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 12, 2020 13:16:29 GMT
I just like to say that I agree with both Paulisper and Martin (and Paddy and Goragrad). To illustrate this specific case, both of the following are in "the rules". So we ask do they contradict each other? No. Well then what is the logical combination of constraints which they impose? Page 16 defines a subset of the configurations defined on page 8. Since both are in the rules, and don't contradict each other, logically the configurations described on page 16 must prevail. Ah, but there IS a contradiction. Tactical Moves, page 8, third paragraph, says:- "A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another; or in at least in corner-to-corner contact if part of a wheeling column.”(Note no mention of ‘front corner’ contact, just any ‘any corner’ contact)Figure 3a Groups dialogue says:- “These (grouped) elements must all face in the same direction and must be in either full front or rear edge, and corner-to-corner contact, or side-edge contact and front corner to front corner contact.”(Note that the words ‘front’ have now been added before the word ‘corner’)So the rules don’t say ‘front corner’...but the Figure 3a dialogue does. Hence the contradiction. To clarify this the FAQ has decided to follow the rules, and treat the Figure 3a dialogue as a mistake, and it should say:- “...or side edge contact and corner-to-corner contact” by removing the words ‘ front’. Now the rules and the Figure 3a dialogue match each other.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 12, 2020 17:28:15 GMT
Yes, I read your reply - I just don’t agree with it. The diagrams are in support of the rules and act as clarification NOT there to overwrite them where there is contradiction or mistakes made, as in this case. RAW, ie. the body of the text, should always takes precedence 😉 P Well the problem here is that the the diagrams come with additional text. Even if they didn't, I consider ignoring them to be arbitrary. IMHO they are in the rulebook and are therefore part of the rules.
Hence, all you and I can do on this one is agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 12, 2020 17:32:35 GMT
....and thus rear corner contact still gives a group, as in previous v2.x Only if one is in a game governed by the FAQ, my opinion of which has already been expressed in this thread.
|
|