corner-to-corner contact

Hmmm...this is a tricky one.
Let’s see what the rules say.

MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH (THE) ENEMY [on page 9]
　　“At the end of the bound’s movement phase, the contacting element, or at least one
　　 element of a contacting group, must be lined-up with an enemy element, either:-
　    　(a) in full mutual front-edge contact (sliding so front-corners touch), or
　    　(b) in full front-edge to rear-edge contact (corners touching), or
　    　(c) in front-edge to side-edge contact with front corners in contact, or
　    　(d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in (an) overlap (position).”
(not mentioned, but still allowed, is mutual side-edge to side-edge contact)

Item (d) is what interests us, and the relevant bit is “with no enemy in contact to its front".
This is obviously talking about the moving element (the one doing the contacting), and NOT
the stationary element being contacted.
In short, an element can only give the corner-to-corner overlap penalty IF IT has no-one to its front.
This described in more detail on page 10.

CLOSE COMBAT [on page 10] says:-
　　“An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front-corner
       contact with any enemy element (except Psiloi or Scythed Chariots, see figure 16c) overlaps this;
       even if it is exposed by a frontal opponent having recoiled, fled or been destroyed that bound.”
This tells us WHEN you can claim the overlap penalty...there no mention here or anywhere else in the rules
that prohibits players from moving into such a front-corner to front-corner overlap position.

It seems that Tony is trying to apply the “with no enemy in contact to its front" to the STATIONARY element,
and thus interpret things so that you can only get into a corner-to-corner overlap position if the non-moving
element (the one being contacted) already has an enemy in contact with its front.

However, this is clearly contradicted by Figure 16a, which shows that you CAN move into a corner-to-corner
overlap position...even if those being contacted do not have their front-edge in contact with an enemy.

Indeed, it would be weird if you were allowed to move into mutual side-edge to side-edge contact with an enemy,
such as advancing into a gap in the enemy battleline, but were not allowed to move into a corner-to-corner overlap
position unless the contacted enemy was already engaged!

At least, that is how my little gang of DBA players interprets things.

Not mine.
The Portuguese and Spanish had a great six game series and today the Livonian are going head to head with the Later Polish.

I would agree to a certain extent, but Figure 16a does not show what you say it does. All it shows is that these elements are not in combat with one another, not that they have moved into that position this bound. For instance, this position often comes about when one element (ie. Bow Y in the diagram) has destroyed an element to its front and is left with elements to both its sides. This could have happened several bounds ago and none of the elements in the diagram have since moved.

The key for me is the first part of the first sentence - “At the end of the bound’s movement phase..." which implies that, so long as the rest of the conditions are met by the end of the movement phase, you can move the Ax into overlap FIRST and then the LCh into combat to the enemy's front, and so meet the demands of the conditions attached to this sentence. What I don't think you can do is move an element into corner-to-corner contact without having another in legal contact and thus in combat at the end of the bound. 

Can you move an element into side-edge to side-edge and be in that position at the end of the bound without another element in combat to the front - I'm not sure here...

Cheers
P.

I think we may be back into the "is a corner part of the front edge" debate. If it is, then the Ax has to conform the moment it contacts the enemy element (which also means it will block the LCh).

Personally, I take the view that corners is corners and edges is edges and I'd be perfectly happy to allow the Ax to move into corner to corner contact and then have the LCh move into front edge to front edge contact with the enemy.

I think what we need is some feedback from the playtesting group regarding PB's intent regarding the contact rules.

We know that elements can end up in corner-to-corner or side-to-side contact due to outcome movement without any requirement for frontal contact for either element and we are all fine with this contact. Outcome movement can easily explain the alignment of elements found on the diagrams.

It's tactical movement that is the question here. My view of the text is as follows, highlighting what I think pertains to moving an element into corner-to-corner contact only with no frontal contact:
At the end of the bound’s movement phase the contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-up with an enemy element, either;(a) in full mutual front-edge contact, (b) in full front-edge to rear-edge contact, or (c) in front-edge to side-edge contact with front corners in contact, or (d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap.

This makes no grammatical sense because it deals with three situations of edge to edge alignment and then tacked on is corner-to-corner contact. But it seems to me that it allows corner-to-corner contact only without any need for frontal contact by any element as a legal contact. Therefore, you could get the Aux out of the way and charge in with the chariot. Personally, I think this is the intent because I think the TZ rules are the mechanism PB uses to limit movement around the enemy. So as long as TZ is not violated then moving to corner-to-corner contact without frontal contact is acceptable. This also allows tactical and outcome movement to provide the same results.

I also think that a tactical move to side-to-side contact without any need for any frontal contact for any element is allowed. Again, the rules say:
The general principle is that troops that would contact in real-life do so in the game so that moving a front edge into contact with enemy always results in combat. 

So I would argue that side edge to side edge is allowed (and therefore rear edge to rear edge) as PB expects contact between elements and so restricts frontal contact so that it leads to combat but doesn't deal with other contact as it doesn't lead to combat (assume the troops are separated by enough distance within the area encompassed by the base.) I think this is strengthened by the fact that touching the side edge of a TZ is outside TZ but touching the front edge is inside the TZ. This of course is crucial given the different base depths would make melee so confusing otherwise!

Now for my final observation, if you allow corner-to-corner contact without any need for any frontal contact then by definition corners are not front as frontal contact always leads to combat.

But going back to the beginning, if possible, PB's intention would be important to know when trying to decipher his rules!

Cheers

Jim

That is a nice summing-up of the situation Jim, and I entirely agree with you.

Anyway, nowhere in the rules does it say:-
“You can only move into an overlap position (be it corner-to-corner or mutual side-edges touching)
  if the enemy is already engaged frontally.”

The DBA rules can sometimes be a little bit hard to follow as it is...
...without muddying the waters even further by trying to add stuff that isn’t there.
                                                          

Nah, it would get out of date quick.
I am going to focus on what we do and are good at.
I already have enough on my plate honestly.
Maybe SOMEONE else can make those kind of videos.