|
|
Post by Roland on Dec 16, 2021 15:24:56 GMT
Totes forgot about the immobility of Art and WW! ( Thank you for mentioning that, Stevie.)
|
|
|
|
Post by haywire on Dec 31, 2021 10:31:59 GMT
"The very last paragraph at the bottom of page 9 says:-
“CP, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into any contact with (an) enemy…”
I therefore assume that the Artillery group consisting of Art-Y & Art-Z cannot
conform as a group to the moving Elephants, as that would bring Art-Y into
contact with El-C…which is not allowed."
I guess the depends on whether you count conforming as a move or not.
Stevie, please would you clarify...you are not happy for Art Y to conform as it has to move, but are happy for Art Z to conform?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2021 11:30:07 GMT
"The very last paragraph at the bottom of page 9 says:- “CP, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into any contact with (an) enemy…” I therefore assume that the Artillery group consisting of Art-Y & Art-Z cannot conform as a group to the moving Elephants, as that would bring Art-Y into contact with El-C…which is not allowed." I guess the depends on whether you count conforming as a move or not. Stevie, please would you clarify...you are not happy for Art Y to conform as it has to move, but are happy for Art Z to conform? Well…when the rules are a little unclear (such as what does ‘move’ actually mean), I always revert to imagining myself in that situation in real life and use simple ‘common sense’. When an Artillery unit is attacked in the flank, it turns-to-face to conform… ...which is merely an artificial DBA effect caused by our figures and models being on fixed bases. (In reality the artillerymen would be forced to fight hand-to-hand, whether they liked it or not) But would I as part of a small artillery crew really trundle our heavy cumbersome engines forward into contact just because a friendly unit next to us has to fight a melee?…no, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t. Allowing ‘Static’ elements (such as CP, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg) to physically move into close combat just because they are part of a conforming group seems to break the spirit of the ‘no contact rule’, and is northing more than a way of exploiting the rules:- Want to get your Command Post Blades into the fight?…then just have them as part of a conforming group. This appears to be yet another situation that was never conceived of nor tested by the playtesters. One for the FAQ Team I think.  |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Dec 31, 2021 18:22:05 GMT
I find myself in disagreement with Stevie here... whilst I understand completely his take about the issues of Art moving into contact, if you don't get them to conform in this situation, you're opening a whole can of worms here. The 'spirit' of the ruling is that groups should conform to groups when hit legally and thus allow them to fight. If they decide not to conform, they then they still fight, but now at a disadvantage.
If you follow Stevie's interpretation, then be prepared for some pretty funky alignments of Art, WWg, etc. to allow them to stave off frontal combat - something which blighted 2.2 and 3.0 was dead set on resolving.
P.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2021 23:01:34 GMT
The 'spirit' of the ruling is that groups should conform to groups when hit legally and thus allow them to fight. If they decide not to conform, they then they still fight, but now at a disadvantage. And what is wrong with that? In Cgd’s original diagram at the top of this thread, Art-Z has to turn-to-face Ele-D, ---OR---- fight in its present position, but count as being overlapped (owner’s choice). If Art-Y were a WWg, do you think would it be realistic if they hitched up their oxen, trundled their heavy cumbersome wagons forwards, then unhitched these oxen just before engaging in close combat…and the enemy would just stand there and watch? I happen to think that Phil Barker has already thought of this… …”CP, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into any contact with (an) enemy.” It’s simple, straightforward, and realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 31, 2021 23:18:41 GMT
I think that I agree with paulisper on this one. Here's my 2c worth. In terms of the "spirit" of DBA3 I think it is well described in the introduction on p1 regarding changes in DBA3 "...Others eliminate geometrical ploys beloved of some gamesmen...". So by that principle, the defender in this situation should be disadvantaged by any rules interpretations as the positioning is...unorthodox. The next point is whether conforming is "movement". A little trickier, as it is certainly movement for the attacker as you use your tactical move plus the 1/2BW sidestep. But I don't consider it movement for the defender but rather a game mechanic to allow fixed rectangles to line up and achieve the "spirit" outlined above. If it is movement then it would be a very small separate category of movement, outside of tactical and outcome movement. stevie makes the good point that this could allow people to create these formations to allow contact from certain types of elements but as it is triggered by the attacking player then I think that it may be a moot point. You don't have to fall into the trap, after all.  Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2021 23:59:22 GMT
Hang on people…aren’t we missing the point here?
Nobody likes these ‘geometric ploys’ in DBA.
But aren’t you allowing these ‘geometric ploys’?
If I have ‘Static’ elements (CP, Lit, CWg, Art, WWg) in a group in Cgd’s original formation,
and the bounding player’s moving group cannot physically conform to this formation,
then I have to conform instead…allowing me to move ‘my Static’ elements into close combat,
which they cannot do normally.
What a great way of getting these ‘Static’ elements into the fight!
You are actually encouraging such ‘geometric ploys’…not discouraging them!
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 1, 2022 0:09:26 GMT
I don't know stevie. Half the time you'd want them to come on and not shoot at you. But I made the point that you don't have to attack them in the way that will improve their situation. As you said, they are static.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jan 2, 2022 9:14:19 GMT
This is making my brain hurt!
If I were umpiring a game and this occurred I would be sorely tempted to accidentally stumble, giving the whole board a mighty shove, thereby displacing troops and scenery.
Following up with "Super sorry chaps, what a clumsy oaf I am. We will have to start the battle again now! Oh dear, how sad, what a pity, never mind!"
Then hope the same situation did not arise again!
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 2, 2022 9:22:54 GMT
This is making my brain hurt! If I were umpiring a game and this occurred I would be sorely tempted to accidentally stumble, giving the whole board a mighty shove, thereby displacing troops and scenery. Following up with "Super sorry chaps, what a clumsy oaf I am. We will have to start the battle again now! Oh dear, how sad, what a pity, never mind!" Then hope the same situation did not arise again! Cromwell, That was worth a Sunday morning chuckle.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 2, 2022 9:49:42 GMT
Oh it’s really quite simple Cromwell… …just follow the rules. “Cp, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into ANY contact with (the) enemy.” (If we are going to ignore this rule, then what other rules shall we ignore when it suits us?)  |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Jan 2, 2022 9:57:58 GMT
Oh it’s really quite simple Cromwell… …just follow the rules. “Cp, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into ANY contact with (the) enemy.” (If we are going to ignore this rule, then what other rules shall we ignore when it suits us?) |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Jan 2, 2022 10:04:09 GMT
Stevie
Is there not a difference between (1) actively moving into contact and (2) passively being moved into contact?
I suspect that you cannot move your warwagon into contact with my element but that I can cause your warwagon to move into contact with a group of my elements.
I would further suggest that this does comply with the rules as written.
What have I misunderstood?
Regards
Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jan 2, 2022 10:24:00 GMT
Stevie Is there not a difference between (1) actively moving into contact and (2) passively being moved into contact? I suspect that you cannot move your warwagon into contact with my element but that I can cause your warwagon to move into contact with a group of my elements. I would further suggest that this does comply with the rules as written. What have I misunderstood? Regards Stephen Sounds like a clear, sensible and concise understanding of the application of the rules to me 👍🏼👍🏼 . Spot on, Stephen. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jan 2, 2022 11:21:58 GMT
Stevie Is there not a difference between (1) actively moving into contact and (2) passively being moved into contact? I suspect that you cannot move your warwagon into contact with my element but that I can cause your warwagon to move into contact with a group of my elements. I would further suggest that this does comply with the rules as written. What have I misunderstood? Regards Stephen I agree. Movement is voluntary; other positional changes - conforming, turning to face, pursuit, recoil, fleeing - are involuntary and "imposed" by the rules. |
|
