|
|
Post by bob on Oct 24, 2021 20:04:13 GMT
Recently reading HOTT for the Nth time, now comparing 2.0 with 2.1. Noticed in 2.1 Close Combat Example 2. Last line of the box text on page 36 (soft back edition). "As they are war band. E and G pursue, meeting in the middle of B's previous position." E is in frontal contact with destroyed enemy, and G is in rear contact. MEET IN THE MIDDLE??? This must be a major mistake in the editing. 2.0 text reads (p. 76), "G does not pursue, as it fought only as a rear contact."
Note that the rule in the text reads, "An element ... pursues ... unless any of the following apply: ...It fought only as an ... rear contact ."
page 26 in 2.0 and same on page 26 of 2.1 (soft back)
I have just now found my 2.1 Hardback. It has the same diagram text as the soft back edition. To further complicate the situation, the rule text on page 41, reads: "pursues ... unless... It fought only as an overlap or flank contact." Reference to REAR CONTACT is gone?
So 2.1 soft back text differs from 2.0 and likewise, 2.1 hard back differs from 2.1 soft back.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 25, 2021 6:43:33 GMT
Very well spotted Bob.
I only have the HoTT 2.1 soft back edition.
It looks like the diagram example was in error in 2.0,
and the very same diagram text was included in 2.1.
I’m going to stick with the rule wording and not have rear pursuit,
as that is more practical and follows the DBA 3.0 practise.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 25, 2021 15:33:18 GMT
I actually think this has been spotted and pointed out before.
If memory serves... there are a few other mistakes in HoTT as well...
Though I don't remember them now.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 25, 2021 20:44:58 GMT
Good memory on this one Joe. I should have noted it in my book, but now we have the hardback edition. fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2627/hott-example-on-page-correctStevie. Note that in 2.0 the rules agree with the diagram. In the 2.1 Soft back, the diagram does not agree with the rules, and then in 2.1 hardback, the diagram agrees with softback AND the rules are changed to agree with the diagram. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 26, 2021 8:27:59 GMT
Now I’m REALLY confused, and my brain hurts. 🤪
Good grief…if the authors can’t decide what the rule should be,
then what chance do we poor players have!
So I’m still gonna stick to the 2.1 soft book rule wording,
i.e. no pursuit when attacking an enemy rear.
It’s simpler, it doesn’t require any awkward micro-measuring,
and it’s how DBA handles the situation.
And if you need a justification, assume that troops recoiling
when attacked simultaneously in both front and rear will
surrender, so there’ll be no pursuit anyway.
(So much for those who say the HoTT rules are clearer
and more ‘elegant’ than those of DBA…)
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 26, 2021 8:31:03 GMT
Now I’m REALLY confused, and my brain hurts. 🤪 Good grief…if the authors can’t decide what the rule should be, then what chance do we poor players have! So I’m still gonna stick to the 2.1 soft book rule wording, i.e. no pursuit when attacking an enemy rear. It’s simpler, it doesn’t require any awkward micro-measuring, and it’s how DBA handles the situation. And if you need a justification, assume that troops recoiling when attacked simultaneously in both front and rear will surrender, so there’ll be no pursuit anyway. (So much for those who say the HoTT rules are clearer
and more ‘elegant’ than those of DBA…)This ‘misprint’ had been pored over in the past…someone (?Joe Collins?) confirmed it was an incorrect addition…ie rear contacts do NOT pursue….see Bob’s previous post |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 26, 2021 17:50:36 GMT
I think that it was perhaps a diagram misprint in 2.1 soft back that had the rear contact pursue. But now the actual rule is changed! Rear contacts are NOT exempt from pursuit. See 2.1, hard back edition, page 41.
Good point by Stevie about the measurement issue of "meeting in the middle" but what about the case of a non-pursuer in frontal contact and a pursuing element in rear contact. Blade in front of Spear, Warband in rear. Spear loses so Wb pursues into front of Blade.
Nobody has "confirmed" that the hard back edition is incorrect, it does agree with the diagram, so here is consistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 27, 2021 7:37:11 GMT
Perhaps time to try D3H2 rules!
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 27, 2021 21:57:07 GMT
Such a small glitch is hardly reason to drop the otherwise excellent rules. But, each to his/her own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 28, 2021 11:59:58 GMT
I agree not a real reason! Having said that the "keep things simple" in me does quite like the the idea of HoTT being more aligned with DBA v3!
Cheers
Simon
|
|
