At the heart of the "discussion", is the sentence:
"Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not."
The subordinate clause (bold) is heavily elided, it lacks a verb and a subject.
Now, I would have thought that most readers would instinctively fill the gaps, but apparently not.
The only possible subjects for which the sentence makes sense are "each other" (most likely as it just precedes the ellipsis), or possibly "any enemies". The verb is naturally "are". That's mostly how ellipsis works, by proximity.
If you find that difficult to grasp, try these intermediate between ellipsis and full sentence, pronouns:
1/ "Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether it is in close combat or not."
2/ "Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether they are in close combat or not."
1/ Such a sentence really grates. It is very poor usage, what is "it"? I suppose it could refer to the "it" in the previous sentence, which itself refers to "An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front comer contact ...". That would be piss-poor style, very unusual, borderline incorrect.
2/ is much more natural. And makes sense, as it extends the definition of overlap beyond close combat.
Sure, "overlap" is used primarily in close combat, but not exclusively (condition (d) p9), which is the entire point of that "Any ...not" sentence.
I should clarify ronisan, I agree with your first line but not with the rest.
I think option (d) in "Moving into contact with enemy" is independent of any frontal contact to that element. Rather it is a position in relation to an element. My rationale is:
a) Elements can end up overlapping each other after combat and outcome moves. It would be unusual for this to be legal contact that cannot be achieved by tactical moves. It is an extra complication to the game. It would also open up significant discussion, as at the end of the next movement bound it could be argued that the contact is illegal. Do you have to move them apart? Do you need to spend PIPs? What rules cover the situation?
b) As Psiloi and Scythed Chariots cannot be overlapped in combat by corner to corner contact (Page 10 "... any enemy element except Psiloi or Scyhed Chariots overlaps this"), defining overlap by combat doesn't work. It would mean a group cannot contact a lone psiloi with only corner to corner overlap as this would not fulfil option (d) as it is not in overlap and does not generate the tactical factor.
I think considering overlap as a position relative to an element helps simplify the game, avoids unusual differences between tactical moves, outcome moves and combat results and avoids contradicting the special nature of Psiloi (and Scythed Chariots).
But each to their own. We'll see if the FAQ team takes this up. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree and get back to painting and gaming!
I completely agree with Stevie, it is legal for psiloi or any element (except CP?) to move into side edge contact (overlapping) with or without first contacting the front edge first. The moving into contact with enemy clauses a-d only apply if a front edge is moving into contact, a side edge is not a front edge.
Some players interpret the page 9 Moving into Contact rules to mean you can only overlap or make mutual side-edge contact with an enemy if that particular enemy already has its own front-edge touching a friendly element. (Even though page 10 Close Combat says “Any enemies in any mutual flank contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not”, plus Figure 16a shows such a situation - although it doesn’t say if this position was reached by a voluntary tactical move or as a combat outcome, remembering that Cavalry and Bows in DBA do not pursue)
Other players interpret the page 9 Moving into Contact rules to indicate the four legal end of move phase positions allowed, a, b, c, and d, and ‘d’ says “with no enemy in contact to its front, but in an overlap”. (So they interpret an overlap, be it corner-to-corner or mutual side-edges touching, as nothing more than a legal end of move phase position, that has nothing to do with the enemy first having its front-edge in close combat)
Last Edit: Jan 23, 2021 11:20:55 GMT by stevie: ...I think that sums it up..
Well put Stevie, if I might add d) covers the situation where a group of two elements A and B both in the threat zone of element C (Diagram 1) advance to contact the front edge of C (Diagram 2). What to do? In diagram 3 element C slides across to conform to A leaving B in situation d) having "Contacted the front edge of C" and ending up "With no element to its front but in overlap" This is what d) is for, no more no less. (page 9) To use it, (d), to justify not allowing corner to corner contact or side edge contact for elements that have not made front edge contact and which are not in the threat zone is a not helpful, though I have seen it online in some videos as a house rule. In short, in diagram 4 in a universe consisting of only elements A, B and C where A and B are not in the threat zone of C then A and B can advance to make corner to corner contact with C (Diagram 5) or side edge to side edge contact (Diagram 6). These moves (5 and 6) may not be clever but in my opinion they are legal. Barkers rules are clear and simple, it is better not to overthink them.