|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 15, 2020 11:04:34 GMT
stevie: how do you treat your „side edge to side edge contact“ conserning „turn to face a flank contact“? You will realize, that turning to an enemy contacting a flank needs to be contacted by a front edge!!! Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Sept 15, 2020 12:00:50 GMT
A pic posted by haywire on FB .  In this case Ax2 is in an overlap without frontal contact . Take Ax1 away , you have 2 elements just in side edge contact . |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 15, 2020 12:35:07 GMT
Exactly... thank you haywire.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 15, 2020 13:14:23 GMT
Good picture Lesp1964, and I entirely agree.
If Ax-1 weren’t there, we’d have 2 elements just in side-edge contact.
Now the big question:-
If Ax-1 weren’t there, could Ax-2 voluntarily move into such a position?
I say it can...
The rules say it can...
Figure 16a gives an example showing it can...
But Ronisan says it can’t.
I think it is be better to actually follow the rules that are there,
(such as “enemies in mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not.”)
rather than trying to add rules that are not there.
(such as “you can only make corner-to-corner or mutual side-edge contact if the enemy is already engaged”)
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 15, 2020 13:24:35 GMT
According to the rules, an element can only move to a position where it overlaps, when there is a close combat to take part in! Otherwise it not an „overlap“
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Sept 15, 2020 13:32:02 GMT
What a bizarre discussion...
It's not even ambiguous, the rules are clear (as many have already pointed out, Menacus, Jim, Stevie ...).
P10 defines "overlap": "Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not."
Sure, this definition is done under the heading of "close combat", but the subordinate clause makes it explicitly clear that the definition extends beyond close combat.
That is not ambiguous, and in the figure above, even in the absence of Ax1, "Ps and Ax2 overlap each other" (which then allows condition (d) from page 9).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 15, 2020 14:08:36 GMT
Agreed Arnopov.
I think Ronisan is treating ‘an overlap’ as a secondary effect caused by close combat.
(i.e. combat is the only thing that causes overlaps).
However, the rules treat ‘an overlap’ merely as a type of position.
(a position that may or may not influence close combat).
For example, Figure 16a shows that we can be in a corner-to-corner or side-edge contact position,
yet not trigger combat, because close combat requires someone to have their front-edge touching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Sept 15, 2020 14:49:13 GMT
For example, Figure 16a shows that we can be in a corner-to-corner or side-edge contact position, yet not trigger combat, because close combat requires someone to have their front-edge touching. As nothing is stated about how the elements got in that position , we can't be sure if it was from combat outcomes last bound and not normal moves . |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 15, 2020 16:00:52 GMT
arnopov: hi, you mean if Ax1 won‘t be there and for example Ax2 ends its move half a BW more in front... you‘ll treat that as a legal contact? No way, guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 15, 2020 16:02:15 GMT
Thank you lesp1964. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 15, 2020 16:24:22 GMT
For example, Figure 16a shows that we can be in a corner-to-corner or side-edge contact position, yet not trigger combat, because close combat requires someone to have their front-edge touching. As nothing is stated about how the elements got in that position, we can't be sure if it was from combat outcomes last bound and not normal moves. True Lesp1964, true... ...but here is where I use my ‘common sense’ approach. Ignoring what we may or may not think about what the rules do or don’t say, give a practical real-life realistic reason why an element of between 500 to 1,00 men should not be able to move into a corner-to-corner or mutual side-edge contact position with an unengaged enemy element also consisting of 500 to 1,000 men. Yes, there will be some ‘friction’ between a few men on the flanks... ...but would that be enough to prevent the whole body from advancing? One interpretation allows such a move, as it seems common sense. The other interpretation does not allow it, because......? |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Sept 15, 2020 17:33:55 GMT
Sigh... Let's try maieutics. In the figure, are element "A" and "1" overlapping each other? (Hint: "Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not.")
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 15, 2020 19:48:09 GMT
Just me again, with yet another example to reinforce my ‘common sense’ approach:- Bd
Ax Sp Ax
↑ ↑
↑ ↑Are we to believe that the Ax on the left will happily charge into contact with the Bd yelling “Yeah, let’s get stuck in, we don’t mind the -1 for being overlapped by the Sp, as we like a challenge!”. Meanwhile the Ax on the right cry “oh no, ordering us to move into mutual side-edge contact with the Sp even though there is no-one in front of us to fight is simply asking for too much, and we refuse to advance into such a position!”. Nowhere in the Great Purple Book does it say:- “Warning! You must not apply common sense when using these rules.”  |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 16, 2020 10:57:04 GMT
Ok... to all those „hyper-realistic-common-sense-Players“. ;-) Page 9: „The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge (!!! Not a side edge !!!) into contact with the enemy always results in combat.“ So the attacker has to pin the enemy by getting him into his own TZ. Case a) - c). In case d), an adjacent friendly element has to do that job of front edge contact and combating, in which case the overlap is supporting that combat. Now to page 10, which defines the two possible overlaps (corner to corner + flank edge to flank edge). Perhaps it gets clearer, by exchanging „Any enemies...“ by „Any troop type...“ because p.10 explains which troop types are affected by which kind of overlap. See figure 16c: if element X wouldn’t be Ps but e.g. Bd, Ax B overlaps it corner to corner. That overlap will be negated, if Ax B would be engaged in frontal close combat by a third enemy (between X and Y). Let’s keep that third enemy element in mind and look at the flank-to-flank overlap of Ax B and Ps Y. „Any enemy“ (troop type) is affected by such an overlap even Ps + SCh. Even if one of them is in close combat or not. But there must be at least one close combat! If both (diagonal) enemy elements (Ax B + Ps Y) were not in frontal close combat, there would be no overlap between Ax B + Ps Y!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 16, 2020 15:00:12 GMT
Page 9: "The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge (!!! Not a side edge !!!) into contact with the enemy always results in combat.“ Quite right...close combat only occurs when someone has a front-edge in contact. No one is saying otherwise. But contact and close combat are not the same thing. They are two entirely separate and completely different things. You seem to be implying that ANY kind of contact IS close combat. That is not the case. Indeed, Figure 16a shows that you can still be in contact without triggering close combat.The question is, how did the elements in Figure 16a get into that position? Was it by a voluntary tactical move, or was it because of a combat outcome? And putting myself in the shoes (or should that be the sandals?) of an ancient warrior, I cannot think of any logical, realistic, real-life reason why a body of 500+ men could not move into corner-to-corner or mutual side-edge contact with an unengaged enemy. Is there some sort of invisible force field that surrounds elements that prevents any kind of contact until this force field is switched off by first engaging them in combat? That just doesn’t make any sense. The fact is DBA uses the word ‘ overlap’ to describe a particular type of contact position. A type of contact position that doesn’t result in close combat. Nothing more. And page 9 says: “(d) with no enemy to its front, but in an overlap” is a perfectly valid legal end-of-move-phase position. So why do you keep on trying to ignore “mutual flank-edge contacts overlap each other, whether in close combat or not”. And IF you are right, then why doesn’t the overlap rules say: “elements can ONLY contact and overlap an enemy that is already engaged frontally”? You are ignoring words that are there, and trying to add words that are not. All I can say is my little group of DBA players do not play it that way. And the few tournaments I have been in don’t play it that way either. Still, “each to their own” as they say...  |
|
