|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 7:56:37 GMT
Dear Ronald, Thanks for your posts, I'll write for Stevie. This really should have been sorted out by the FAQ people in January, perhaps Co-Vid got in the way, I don't know, but we are all using up a lot of time on this. Here with three points for you to consider (my opinions only, I am new to the forum): 1 Ronald, the bit I have quoted from you is one of four ways (way (d)) an element can sit after moving into contact with its front edge (contacting with a front edge for a group, with a corner for a single element not in bad going (figs 10 and 12c)). It applies when a group of N+1 moves into a group on N elements frontally, all of them making front edge contact and hence legally making contact with a front edge so one of (a) to (d) must happen. N of the elements line up as (a) front edge in contact, the last one slides sideways out of contact into an overlap position (d), this is what (d) is for. 2 Moving into front corner to front corner contact is not moving into contact as established in the FAQ, it does not initiate combat. It is a tactical move, so (a) to (d) don't apply. 3 The definition of overlap on page 10 does not require close combat as a prerequisite as suggest in the quote, in fact the opposite, it says enemies in mutual side contact are in overlap whether in close combat or not. Indeed in the first line it says that left front corner to right front contact with any element constitutes an overlap (stress on any) as long as the element doing the overlapping is not in close combat and this is the way it has been played for years. IMHO I think that, (unlike 2.2 where it was expressly not allowed), the rules do not stop a move to such an overlap position (flank overlap or front corners contact) as a tactical move. By the way in one of Tony's recent videos where an element could not move straight back in a tactical move because it would come into mutual flank contact with another element shows some of the problems that arise with your interpretation. Youtube: Book 1 DBA 3.0 - Tony and Mitch Live play! around 40 mins in. Regards Chris Hi Chris, -> 1 Here you describe a group making front edge contact with the enemy front edge. That's "case a)" ... not d)! -> 2 Moving into front corner to front corner contact ... you can't do this with a "tactical move" (using PIPs) ... it can only happen by an outcome move! -> 3 Page 10 explains 1.) corner to corner and 2.) mutual flank edge overlap ... it refers to the overlapping element ( not the overlapped!) -> in the first case the overlap will cease if the element gets into frontal close combat by itself ... in the second the overlap will continue to exist "whether in close combat or not"! Cheers Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 12:25:57 GMT
Hi folks,
It could be sooooo easy …
1. Tactical moves without contacting (staying slightly away from) enemy (using PIPs).
These moves get restricted as soon as you enter enemy thread zones!
2. Tactical moves into contact with enemy (using PIPs).
The idea of contacting an enemy element is … getting into fighting action (Close combat).
The rules say:
MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY
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.
Any overlapping element is supporting the close combat (front edge in contact) of the adjacent friendly element, which is taking the part of the fighting action!
It doesn’t make sense to me, contacting an enemy element and then doing nothing … not starting any action?
3. Outcome moves as results of shooting and close combat (PIP free).
Everything can happen here … corner contacting edge … edge contacting corner.
No problem - that will be solved as soon as somebody moves in a future bound.
Cheers
Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2021 13:52:11 GMT
Hi folks, It could be sooooo easy …
........ 2. Tactical moves into contact with enemy (using PIPs). The idea of contacting an enemy element is … getting into fighting action (Close combat). The rules say:
MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY
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.
Any overlapping element is supporting the close combat (front edge in contact) of the adjacent friendly element, which is taking the part of the fighting action! It doesn’t make sense to me, contacting an enemy element and then doing nothing … not starting any action? .......I can think of three instances where one might want to contact an enemy element and not initiate combat. 1. Bow who move in order to get an alternative target within range/arc. (I'd rather shoot at my opponent's LH than his Sp.) 2. An element which wants to place a second enemy in its ZOC (to limit the latter's options in the next bound). 3. While you are confident that your Sp can handle the enemy Ps it is facing, you are worried about the line of Bd behind the Ps and want to move a second element of Sp to give it side support. There may be others. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 14:20:02 GMT
I can think of three instances where one might want to contact an enemy element and not initiate combat. 1. Bow who move in order to get an alternative target within range/arc. (I'd rather shoot at my opponent's LH than his Sp.) 2. An element which wants to place a second enemy in its ZOC (to limit the latter's options in the next bound). 3. While you are confident that your Sp can handle the enemy Ps it is facing, you are worried about the line of Bd behind the Ps and want to move a second element of Sp to give it side support. There may be others. Hello menacussecundus, -> 1. Well - no problem ... Tactical move without contacting. -> 2. Well - no problem ... Tactical move without contacting. -> 3. Well - no problem ... Tactical move into contact with enemy (the case d) of page 9 moving into overlap) ... the Ps will ignore the -1 overlap, but your Sp in front edge contact will get a +1 flank support by the second Sp. Easy, isn't it? Cheers Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2021 14:44:19 GMT
I can think of three instances where one might want to contact an enemy element and not initiate combat. 1. Bow who move in order to get an alternative target within range/arc. (I'd rather shoot at my opponent's LH than his Sp.) 2. An element which wants to place a second enemy in its ZOC (to limit the latter's options in the next bound). 3. While you are confident that your Sp can handle the enemy Ps it is facing, you are worried about the line of Bd behind the Ps and want to move a second element of Sp to give it side support. There may be others. Hello menacussecundus, -> 1. Well - no problem ... Tactical move without contacting. -> 2. Well - no problem ... Tactical move without contacting. -> 3. Well - no problem ... Tactical move into contact with enemy (the case d) of page 9 moving into overlap) ... the Ps will ignore the -1 overlap, but your Sp in front edge contact will get a +1 flank support by the second Sp. Easy, isn't it? Cheers Ronald. Not really, Ronald. You assume that it is possible to achieve both 1 & 2 without contacting the enemy. However, there will also be cases where this is not possible. And 3 breaks your own condition that an overlapping element has to be supporting the close combat of the adjacent friendly element. Your argument was that it didn't make sense to contact an enemy element and not initiate combat. My contention is that there are times when it may make perfect sense - although I am also conscious of Phil's dictum that if one's opponent does something stupid, one shouldn't try to prevent him. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2021 15:02:10 GMT
Hi folks, It could be sooooo easy …
1. Tactical moves without contacting (staying slightly away from) enemy (using PIPs). These moves get restricted as soon as you enter enemy thread zones! 2. Tactical moves into contact with enemy (using PIPs). The idea of contacting an enemy element is … getting into fighting action (Close combat). The rules say:
MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY
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.
Any overlapping element is supporting the close combat (front edge in contact) of the adjacent friendly element, which is taking the part of the fighting action! It doesn’t make sense to me, contacting an enemy element and then doing nothing … not starting any action? 3. Outcome moves as results of shooting and close combat (PIP free). Everything can happen here … corner contacting edge … edge contacting corner. No problem - that will be solved as soon as somebody moves in a future bound. Cheers Ronald …or, page 9 “Contacting The Enemy” position ‘d’ is nothing more than a legal end-of-move-phase position, that will have no effect if the enemy is not being frontally engaged, but is still a legitimate end-of-move-phase contact position nonetheless. Especially as DBA 3.0 has deliberately removed the old DBA 2.2 wording which used to say:- "Other troops can move into contact with enemy elements only if a single element or at least one element of a group
ends in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge contact with an enemy element
or overlaps enemy already in close combat.”
(Yep…the underlined section has now been totally removed, and is no longer there)If you want to keep it simple, how about playing by the DBA 3.0 rules as they are currently written, instead of trying to add words that are not there and turn DBA 3.0 back into the obsolete DBA 2.2 rules. There is always House Rules of course…  |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 18:39:08 GMT
@ menacussecundus
I‘m sorry ... I don‘t understand your last post ... or I‘ve misunderstood your examples (1. - 3.)?
@ Stevie
Well - I‘m just playing DBA 3.0 rules as they are written.
And ... No - I‘m not the one who‘s adding words that are not there, Mr. Hard-contact / soft-contact Stevie ;-)
Cheers
Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 15, 2021 18:51:33 GMT
I am not sure if I understand any of you I just keep nodding and smiling looking like I am taking it all in.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2021 19:10:09 GMT
@ Stevie Well - I‘m just playing DBA 3.0 rules as they are written. (Your copy must be a different version to the one I have)And ... No - I‘m not the one who‘s adding words that are not there, Mr. Hard-contact/soft-contact Stevie ;-) Cheers Ronald Ha!…good point 👍  …although I only used the terms ‘Hard & Soft Contact’ to help describe their different effects…one triggers conforming and prevents breaking off, while the other does not. If two things have different effects, calling them by different names helps understanding. And you still haven’t acknowledged that the old DBA 2.2 wording that used to say:- “or overlaps enemy already in close combat” is no longer in the new DBA 3.0 rules, yet you insist on acting as if it still were. Perhaps you could try writing to Phil Barker asking for your money back, on the grounds that DBA 3.0 is not exactly the same as DBA 2.2 and some of the rules have been changed… |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 19:27:13 GMT
@ Stevie
Hi Stevie,
I‘ll definitely keep the DBA 3.0 rulebook because the rules bring so much fun and are sooooo elegant and simple. ;-)
Bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2021 20:05:29 GMT
Hi ronisan,
You said you couldn't see the sense in moving into contact and its not resulting in combat. I gave three examples where I felt it would - or could or might - make sense.
It doesn't advance the argument for you then to say "Ah but one doesn't have to do it that way". (You could, of course, say that, on your reading of the rules, those moves are not allowed. However, that is a circular argument which does nothing to advance matters.) Nor is it a complete response to imply that a player will never need to do either 1 or 2 because in some cases they can achieve the same end a different way, that is to conveniently ignore the inconvenient cases where it can only be done by moving into overlap.
My third example overlooked the fact that Sp can claim side support against Ps. (I think I may have confused side and rear support here.) Change the example then and say the player is confident his Bd can see off the enemy Ps, but is concerned about the block of three double ranked Wb immediately behind the Ps and would like to move a couple of other elements alongside the Bd to form a solid line.
Menacus S
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 15, 2021 20:16:57 GMT
Hi Menacussecundus,
I think the reason for our misunderstanding is my talking about „moving into contact“ instead of calling it „moving into enemy contact“ - right?
Of course you as a general are free to contact your own elements and forming groups, etc.
Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2021 20:23:55 GMT
But, if you also contact an enemy when forming a group, that contact has to be allowed under (a, (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 9 does it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2021 20:33:41 GMT
Quite by chance I have just come across the following in a Facebook post by Bob Beattie (one of the v3 play testers).
"I for one, asked that overlap be allowed without frontal contact. This was changed from 2.2."
I'm happy to take that as conclusive as to what (d) was intended to mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrishumphreys on Jun 15, 2021 21:04:03 GMT
Dear Ronald, Thanks for your posts, I'll write for Stevie. This really should have been sorted out by the FAQ people in January, perhaps Co-Vid got in the way, I don't know, but we are all using up a lot of time on this. Here with three points for you to consider (my opinions only, I am new to the forum): 1 Ronald, the bit I have quoted from you is one of four ways (way (d)) an element can sit after moving into contact with its front edge (contacting with a front edge for a group, with a corner for a single element not in bad going (figs 10 and 12c)). It applies when a group of N+1 moves into a group on N elements frontally, all of them making front edge contact and hence legally making contact with a front edge so one of (a) to (d) must happen. N of the elements line up as (a) front edge in contact, the last one slides sideways out of contact into an overlap position (d), this is what (d) is for. 2 Moving into front corner to front corner contact is not moving into contact as established in the FAQ, it does not initiate combat. It is a tactical move, so (a) to (d) don't apply. 3 The definition of overlap on page 10 does not require close combat as a prerequisite as suggest in the quote, in fact the opposite, it says enemies in mutual side contact are in overlap whether in close combat or not. Indeed in the first line it says that left front corner to right front contact with any element constitutes an overlap (stress on any) as long as the element doing the overlapping is not in close combat and this is the way it has been played for years. IMHO I think that, (unlike 2.2 where it was expressly not allowed), the rules do not stop a move to such an overlap position (flank overlap or front corners contact) as a tactical move. By the way in one of Tony's recent videos where an element could not move straight back in a tactical move because it would come into mutual flank contact with another element shows some of the problems that arise with your interpretation. Youtube: Book 1 DBA 3.0 - Tony and Mitch Live play! around 40 mins in. Regards Chris Hi Chris, -> 1 Here you describe a group making front edge contact with the enemy front edge. That's "case a)" ... not d)! -> 2 Moving into front corner to front corner contact ... you can't do this with a "tactical move" (using PIPs) ... it can only happen by an outcome move! -> 3 Page 10 explains 1.) corner to corner and 2.) mutual flank edge overlap ... it refers to the overlapping element ( not the overlapped!) -> in the first case the overlap will cease if the element gets into frontal close combat by itself ... in the second the overlap will continue to exist "whether in close combat or not"! Cheers Ronald Hi Ronald, Firstly I should not have said I am speaking for Stevie, I meant "Team Stevie". I hope that my views are compatible with Stevie's but should not assume that is the case, sorry Stevie. Thanks for your response, you raise some good points that I shall try to counter. Of course in 1 they are offset hence the need to slide, I forgot to mention that. Before conforming they are neither (a) nor (d), after there will be n x (a) and 1 x (d), hence the need for (d) to be included in the list. In 2 it actually says moving a front edge into contact always results in combat (with the exception that moving a front edge to contact a corner with out the extra move required to conform to an edge is cancelled and must stop short). That extra little word makes a big difference. In 3 by symmetry it refers to any element, overlapping or overlapped, side edge contact always overlaps and corner contact overlaps only if the element overlapping or overlapped has no close combat element in close combat to its front. Regards Chris |
|
…although I only used the terms ‘Hard & Soft Contact’ to help