|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 2, 2022 13:11:52 GMT
All righty…I’ll have another go then.  ① Does the bottom of page 9 say “… except when part of a conforming group”? No, it does not. The only exception given is that of a WWg mobile tower attacking a City, Fort or Camp. Stop adding words that are not there. All it says is “Cp, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into ANY contact with (the) enemy.” ② What does ‘move’ mean? To me ‘move’ means picking up an element and placing it in a different location. What do you call ‘picking up an element and placing it in a different location’? ③ Realism (a dirty word for some players…
…which is odd considering DBA is supposed to be an historical set of rules based on history). Do you think it is realistic to have horse or oxen drawn WWg or CWg trundling into contact, then calmly unhitching them while currently fighting hand-to-hand in close combat? “Hang on, don’t fight just yet, let us get the animals out of the way first”. “Ok then, but hurry up”. There is a good historical realistic reason why DBA says “…cannot make ANY contact with the enemy.” ④ Gimmicky Positional Trickery. Allowing ‘Static’ elements to ‘move’ into close combat when they are part of a conforming group actively encourages and even rewards such gimmicky positional trickery, by neatly bypassing the “no contact rule”. Having say a CP/Lit/CWg in place of Art-Y in Cgd’s original diagram would allow these ‘Static’ element to ‘move’ into close combat…something they can’t do normally and is expressly forbidden by the “no contact rule”. ⑤ Last of all, Conforming is not imposed by the rules…you have the choice:- * Want to keep your Art/WWg out of the fight?…then don’t conform and fight as if overlapped. * Want to get your CP/Lit/CWg into the fight?…then make the group they are part of conform. Thus you are making ‘V’ shaped formations an advantage…not a disadvantage, by giving players the choice of whether they wish to conform or not. As mentioned above, you are encouraging players use gimmicky positional trickery, something I thought DBA 3.0 prided itself on largely eliminating. Any one of the five items mentioned above should be enough… …but all five of them together!?… |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Jan 2, 2022 14:21:34 GMT
Hi Stevie
I think that you have hit the nail on the head when you ask the question about what ia a move.
Defining a move in the way you have leads in some interesting directions.
I have picked up my pieces and moved them to another position in quite a number of ways.
1 when I have deployed them on the table,
2 when I have put them back in position when the terrain has been jiggled,
3 when I have adjusted their position when allowed to do so having thrown for pips,
4 when they have had to conform to the position of my opponents elements, and
5 (quite frequently) when I have had to remove them from the table when they count as destroyed. (Next time this happens I will tell my opponent that the element has to stay on the table because I haven't the pips to move it - I am anticipating that the umpire won't agree with me though!).
So what actually us a move? If I were asked to adjudicate I would say that only 3 above counts.
If that is right then we needn't worry about WWg etc moving into combat when in fact they are merely conforming.
You will never be able to stop players from being geometric. That is the game.
Anyway Stevie let's try to ensure that we don't have a Command Wagon in our armies when we play each other again. I can guarantee this for Bakewell in January.
All the best
Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 2, 2022 15:41:46 GMT
Hi stevie! As you stated "... a WWg mobile tower can contact an enemy-held city, fort or camp." If it loses the combat but not doubled it will, according to page 11", "(R)ecoil if in close combat against defenders of a city." But what if it bumps into an enemy element during its recoil? I would imagine it stops just like all other elements. So it can contact enemy during an outcome move. Doesn't this demonstrate that the absolute ban on contact isn't absolute? In terms of gimmicky play, well in the original situation described, your interpretation favours the artillery, encouraging this sort of formation for artillery and there is quite a bit of artillery around. Finally, conforming at all is not realistic. I mean 1000 spearmen won't slide off to the right to accommodate the enemy? And there is still trickery. Two LH form a column and contact the tiniest projecting corner of a Ps otherwise in woods, dragging it into the open and away from its protection. It's why we love DBA so much!  Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 2, 2022 15:56:58 GMT
Ho Kay Stephen Finn who deserved to win (…at least at our last meeting  ) I have picked up my pieces and moved them to another position in quite a number of ways. 1 when I have deployed them on the table, ...doesn't count, as they are 'teleported' into position, and not into contact...2 when I have put them back in position when the terrain has been jiggled, ...doesn't count, as they are not moving to a new location, but back to their original position...3 when I have adjusted their position when allowed to do so having thrown for pips, ...ah, now this IS a move...4 when they have had to conform to the position of my opponents elements, ...there is a big difference between turning-on-the-spot and shuffling sideways a bit
when compared to marching them 2 BW or more across the table into close combat,
especially into an enemy they are not already in contact with at the start of the bound!...5 (and quite frequently) when I have had to remove them from the table when they count as destroyed. ...just make sure that your dead pile doesn't touch your opponents dead pile, ha, ha, ha!  You will never be able to stop players from being geometric. That is the game. ...yes, but we shouldn't encourage it by breaking the "no contact" rule should we...
What about the four other things I mentioned?
Don't just pick a single item...refute ALL of them together.
(Oh, and you’ve just reminded me that I forget to e-mail Simon about me coming to the next Bakewell event…
…I’m a very naughty Stevie…)
|
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Jan 3, 2022 15:57:24 GMT
Arent the rules clear? They have "tactical move" (in your own bound) and "outcome move", as a reaction to combat. The rules dont use the word "move" when talking about conforming. So "conforming" and "to face" are no "move".
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 3, 2022 19:06:40 GMT
Ah, were it that simple Decebalus. Most of the time the word ‘move’ implies ‘a voluntary Tactical Move during your bound, costing PIP’s’. Sometimes it is prefixed by the word ‘outcome’, indicating ‘an involuntary compulsory Combat Outcome’. But there are a few instances where the word ‘move’ is used in a rather vague manner. Perhaps the following will be the clincher:- CLOSE COMBAT [on page 10] “This occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy.” Hang on…if conforming is not really ‘moving’, then ‘Static’ CP/Lit/CWg/Art/WWg cannot claim to be in close combat, since close combat only occurs when you move into or remain in front-edge contact with an enemy. So if you want conforming ‘Static’ elements to be in close combat, then the above rule says they must have moved there… ….but the bottom of page 9 says “CP, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into ANY contact with (the) enemy.” So which is it?…to claim to be in close combat they must have ‘moved’ there…but they cannot ‘move’ into contact… You can’t have it both ways. It all boils down to Contacting The Enemy on page 9:- * Blocked groups that cannot conform force the enemy to either conform or fight as if overlapped. * ‘Static’ elements cannot move into ANY contact with an enemy. Players will have to decide for themselves whether conforming overrides the “no contact” rule, or the “no contact” rule overrides the “non-bounding player must conform instead” rule. ============================================================== Odd isn’t it. Here am I, one of the main supporters of “House Rules” to both improve the game and make it more historically realistic, vehemently defending ‘following-the-rules-as-they-are-written’. Meanwhile other players, that don’t want to change any of Phil Barkers rules, are advocating ignoring the “no contact rule” and actively promote less realism and more gamey positional trickery. Oh, the irony of it all… |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jan 3, 2022 20:16:21 GMT
So if your knights move into combat with my warband and beat them I can always say it was not a combat as my warband did not move into contact with your knights😀
I will always defer to a tourney organiser but in my LGC we will stick to.
If I am forced to conform I will do so even if am conforming with a unit not allowed to instigate a move into contact.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 3, 2022 21:10:07 GMT
Don’t worry Baldie, you are not ‘forced’ to conform… …if the moving bounding group is blocked and cannot conform, your stationary group has a choice:- Stand and fight as if overlapped, or you do the conforming instead (owner’s choice). And if players want to ignore Phil Barker’s “no contact rule”, then so be it. Unrealistic ‘V’ shaped gimmicky gamey formations it is then. Maybe the Contacting The Enemy rules on page 9 should say:- * Blocked groups that cannot conform force the enemy to either conform or fight as if overlapped. * ‘Static’ elements cannot move into ANY contact with an enemy (unless players feel like it). Are there any other of Phil Barker’s rules we would also like to ignore? Oh what the hell…let’s just make it all up as we go along. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jan 3, 2022 21:23:21 GMT
So if your knights move into combat with my warband and beat them I can always say it was not a combat as my warband did not move into contact with your knights😀 I will always defer to a tourney organiser but in my LGC we will stick to. If I am forced to conform I will do so even if am conforming with a unit not allowed to instigate a move into contact. Spot on, Baldie. stevie's construct ignores the possibility - in this case a virtual certainty - that it is the Art's enemy's bound and the enemy elements which have moved in such a way as to bring about combat. stevie - The rules as written say a single element contacted by a group conforms to it unless itself entirely in bad and/or rough going. So if the single element is Art - or CP, Lit etc, - does it conform or not? (Hint: Despite the fact that conforming could bring it into front-corner to front-corner contact with a second enemy element, I think it does.) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 3, 2022 21:28:44 GMT
So which is it?…to claim to be in close combat they must have ‘moved’ there…but they cannot ‘move’ into contact… You can’t have it both ways. Hi stevie. You didn't answer my question previously about WWmob recoiling from Camp/BUA/Fort and contacting an enemy element. Either you can have it both ways or recoiling is not movement. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 4, 2022 1:08:50 GMT
Since Jim has asked me a direct question, it is only polite of me to answer. So which is it?…to claim to be in close combat they must have ‘moved’ there…but they cannot ‘move’ into contact… You can’t have it both ways. Hi stevie. You didn't answer my question previously about WWmob recoiling from Camp/BUA/Fort and contacting an enemy element. Either you can have it both ways or recoiling is not movement.  Yes, because the the WWg Tower recoiling from a City/Fort/Camp is making an ‘accidental’ contact with an enemy, due to a compulsory involuntary recoil move caused by a combat outcome. But that is totally different from the non-bounding player deliberately, DELIBERATELY, choosing to circumvent the “no contact rule” by shifting a ‘Static’ element from a no-contact to a close combat position when they feel like it by claiming it is just ‘conforming’, when the bottom of page 9 explicitly says:- “CP, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into ANY contact with (the) enemy”. (I have taken the liberty of re-posting Cgd’s diagram, and look at Art-Y):-There is no ‘compulsory involuntary recoil move’ involved here. If Art-Y (or a CP/Lit/CWg in the same position) were to end in contact, it is because the owner feels like it, and to hell with Phil Barker’s “no contact rule”. But don’t get me wrong. If this is how the DBA community wants to play it, then I’ll do the same. I’ve already mentioned ways in which I can manipulate the situation so that I can get my ‘Static’ units into contact, bypassing Phil’s “no contact rule”, pretty much when I like (and I’ve also thought of ways of preventing it). Unfortunately it doesn’t make me feel that I’m commanding an ancient army, but just manipulating the rules in a game. Still, if we all play by the same rules, then we are all in the same boat. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 4, 2022 7:58:38 GMT
“Cp, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into ANY contact with (the) enemy.” Now stevie, you quoted the rule above but you accept that WWg(mob) can contact enemy from recoil from Camp/BUA/Fort? I don't see the words "compulsory involuntary" or "accidental". Either the word " ANY" is inaccurate or the definition of "move" is ambiguous. But "move" on its own it isn't defined in the rules. So certainly your strict definition (excluding compulsory involuntary) is as valid as others. But I don't think this will break the game. Art and WWg are by far more common and they are unlikely to choose to conform as they can shoot. In the current example, the general would be unwise to conform to contact and would be better off sacrificing the first Art and taking a shot with the second. CP/Lit/CWg may be happy to conform but they're not that common and only one element. Again, I don't think it will lead to long term success to have a static angled deployment to benefit one element that is only useful if the enemy chooses to attack in a certain way. So perhaps not a common issue for us to adjudicate. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Jan 4, 2022 10:38:20 GMT
... And if players want to ignore Phil Barker’s “no contact rule”, then so be it. Unrealistic ‘V’ shaped gimmicky gamey formations it is then. ... Is it possible, that you are seeing problems were there are none? In the example, if the Art owner wouldnt have used a "gimmicky gamey formation", he would be in combat with his two artiller bases. Now, he used the "gimmicky gamey formation" and is (my and others interpretation) after conforming in combat with his two artillery bases. I dont see, where his "gimmicky gamey formation has given him an advantage. And i would still argue, that we are not ignoring DBAs "no contact rule", because comforming is not starting a combat. And that is, what the rules want to prohibit. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 4, 2022 10:40:23 GMT
You are probably right Jim. At least this trick (for that is what it is…a trick to circumvent an unpopular rule) would make ‘Static’ troops more useful… …at least when they are part of a group that has to conform when it is not their bound. I shall be using CP/Lit/CWg a lot more often now that I can manipulate them into close combat. There is a precedent for ignoring or distorting Phil Barker’s rules…take rivers for example (yes, it’s that old chestnut again!):- “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going...” For movement only the rule says, not combat. But some players (and the FAQ Team) want to distort and misinterpret this so that it DOES apply to combat, even though the rule quite clearly says don’t do this. And the result?…weird effects like standing in a river is better than defending the riverbank as it makes you immune to several types of ‘quick-kill’, leading to broken river rules so they rarely get used…especially if you have Pikes and like me simply refuse to enter the water. Oh well, I’ll just have to add "the no contact rule can be ignored if you like when being forced to conform” to my growing list of rules that say one thing but players prefer to play by their own rules. “We don’t want to change any of Phil Barker’s rules…but we don’t want to play by them either!” |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 4, 2022 13:39:44 GMT
I can't wait to see King stevie carried around on a litter in 15mm scale!
Cheers
Jim
PS You know I agree with you on rivers. Totally broken.
|
|
)
