|
Post by diades on Nov 5, 2016 10:01:26 GMT
David, there will be plenty of armies to hand. Some are of your own origin and foot heavy! Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Nov 6, 2016 14:39:33 GMT
Thanks Martin, but I am deliberately not reading DBA3, so very limited ability.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by martini on Nov 10, 2016 13:50:55 GMT
What is a 'phantom overlap'? Mentioned in cgothicus's posting.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Nov 11, 2016 15:31:35 GMT
What is a 'phantom overlap'? Mentioned in cgothicus's posting. It's a shorthand way of referring to the way that elements other than LH or Cv count as overlapped if they didn't move this bound and have a front corner less than 1BW from the flank. (Final sentence of the third paragraph in the section headed CLOSE COMBAT on page 10.)
And, if I recall correctly, it's mainly Scott's fault.
|
|
|
Post by martini on Nov 11, 2016 18:38:57 GMT
Thanks menacussecundus.
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 11, 2016 21:57:42 GMT
What is a 'phantom overlap'? Mentioned in cgothicus's posting. It's a shorthand way of referring to the way that elements other than LH or Cv count as overlapped if they didn't move this bound and have a front corner less than 1BW from the flank. (Final sentence of the third paragraph in the section headed CLOSE COMBAT on page 10.)
And, if I recall correctly, it's mainly Scott's fault.
Fair cop. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 13, 2016 8:55:16 GMT
To expand on the above, under 2.2, a carefully placed and angled element could block off one side of the board to a width of almost 2 BW's and not be overlapped due to ZOC considerations. I suggested in discussion amongst the 3.0 group that possibly this element could automatically count as overlapped if there was nothing between it and the board edge. For some reason, PB liked this idea and it survived in the next twenty or so play test editions and nobody seemed to understand it sufficiently well to complain. Subsequent experience suggests that the problem is better addressed by simply using a larger board. Scott
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 14, 2016 20:29:01 GMT
Scott, it was a great solution to preserve the standard DBA size board – – 2 ft.².
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 14, 2016 22:14:10 GMT
Bob, I must confess that when I suggested it I imagined an element on the end of the battle line being "edgy" about having no support on one flank, but had failed to appreciate that BOTH elements in contact must be within 1 BW of the edge, or whatever. Phil modified this by making it only apply to stationary elements and not to Cavalry or Light horse, but I must say it now makes it seem fiendishly complex. Scott
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 15, 2016 7:46:20 GMT
Bob, I must confess that when I suggested it I imagined an element on the end of the battle line being "edgy" about having no support on one flank, but had failed to appreciate that BOTH elements in contact must be within 1 BW of the edge, or whatever. Phil modified this by making it only apply to stationary elements and not to Cavalry or Light horse, but I must say it now makes it seem fiendishly complex. Scott Not an easy one to remember, but it does seem to address the 'clinging to the edge of the board' issue quite well. Guess it's better than nowt......certainly better than any rule I could dream up. Well done for suggesting it.🙂 Martin
|
|