IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16 
|
Post by IanC on Jan 15, 2017 5:23:53 GMT
In a game today, this situation came up. Carthaginian turn:  The Roman Cv were locked locked in combat with a Numidian LH element. A Numidian LH group moved into contact with a flank contact. Combat:  The Roman Cv prevailed in its close combat, and the Numidian LH in frontal combat and that to its flank, were pushed back. Roman Turn:  The Roman Cv advanced to contact the Numidian LH whose threat zone it was in. Question. Is this move allowed? Figure 10 on page 20 suggests that this would not be allowed if the Numidian LH were trying to contact the Roman flank because it's not also in front corner to corner contact. But, is this allowed the other way round? If it is, we assume the Roman Cv is overlapped, but if it loses by more than 1/2, is it destroyed if this is not a legitimate flank contact? We assumed it was, but not sure we've interpreted this correctly. Thanks Ian |
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 15, 2017 14:17:25 GMT
Is the solution, after the Roman Cav hits the LH to its front, to move the flanking LH 1/4 BW to its own right, so that the contacts are all legitimate? (On the basis that wrinkles in the way that the non-mover is set up can't prevent the mover from moving to contact.)
|
|
Fab
Munifex
Posts: 12
|
Post by Fab on Jan 15, 2017 18:06:55 GMT
The move is allowed because the Roman Cv reaches a perfectly legal front contact. The Roman Cv does not suffer an overlap by the flanking LH because the LH is not in a "right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact" (page 10 Close Combat 3rd para). But it is destroyed if it loses by more than 1/2 because it "has an enemy front edge in contact with its side or rear edge" (page 12, Destroyed Elements). hodsopa : the flanking LH cannot be moved because it belongs to the non-phasing player and it doesn't block any move (as seen above) |
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 15, 2017 18:14:25 GMT
If the flanking LH was facing in the same direction as the contacted LH in the same current position the Roman element would count as overlapped with a -1 on combat, but would not be lost on a recoil. Is this not the same type of situation? Clearly if the LH had closed the door and was in front left hand corner with the front LH corner of the Roman element (and facing in the current direction) then a Roman recoil = a lost element. By moving into contact the Roman element is making the most of non perfect placement by the Numidian elements, and should not be penalised by a shift in the flanking Numidians as well....?
|
|
Fab
Munifex
Posts: 12
|
Post by Fab on Jan 15, 2017 22:14:23 GMT
If the flanking LH was facing in the same direction as the contacted LH in the same current position the Roman element would count as overlapped with a -1 on combat, but would not be lost on a recoil. Is this not the same type of situation? ..... No it isn't. To overlap the enemy the possibilities (page 10 Close Combat third para) are : 1- mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact 2- any mutual flank edge contact. If the flanking LH is facing in the same direction as the contacted LH we have case 1. In the original post and picture we don't have neither case 1 nor case 2. My two cents Fab |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 16, 2017 2:04:27 GMT
To overlap the enemy the possibilities (page 10 Close Combat third para) are : 1- mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact 2- any mutual flank edge contact. If the flanking LH is facing in the same direction as the contacted LH we have case 1. In the original post and picture we don't have neither case 1 nor case 2. My two cents Fab I can see what Fab is saying, but I think some other mentions in the DBA 3.0 rule book have to be taken into consideration. “ 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.” (1st sentence, page 9, paragraph 9). Now, admittedly, in Ian’s case it is the Roman cavalry that has moved its flank into contact with the Numidian’s front-edge. Nonetheless, the Numidians are in front-edge contact with the Roman flank (no matter who made that move). And this results in combat, just as it would in reality. Also, as it’s not the Carthaginian bound, it’s not they who must abide by the “(c) in front edge to side edge contact with front corners in contact”. This applies to the moving troops, not the stationary ones. So I think the Roman cavalry fight at -1 and will be destroyed if they recoil, because they are being attacked in the flank. Remember, DBA 3.0 uses the ‘My-Go-Your-Go’ movement system. In the real world everyone would be moving simultaneously...and in reality I’m pretty sure that the Numidians would not be so gentlemanly as to say “hold on chaps, it’s not our turn, so we will just sit here and do nothing”.  Anyway, it would be a bit daft if mutual side contact caused a -1 while having an enemy actually attacking a flank by being in front-edge contact with it did not! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 16, 2017 17:40:30 GMT
Additional Information....
I think I may have found a solution to this situation.
The last sentence on page 9 paragraph 10 says:-
“Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p.10), contacted elements conform at contact.”
Well, the Roman cavalry has charged into mutual front-edge contact with the Numidian light horse that is pining them with a Threat Zone.
This has caused the Roman cavalry left flank to make contact with the front-edge of another Numidian light horse element.
And as “contacted elements conform at contact”, this causes the flanking Numidians to conform by shuffling sideways so that their left front corner contacts the Roman cavalry left front corner.
The flanking Numidians are now in full front-edge contact to side-edge contact, with opposing front corners touching, fulfilling both the legal contact rules and the overlap rules.
So the Roman cavalry fights at -1 and will be destroyed if it recoils because it is also being attacked in the flank.
How does that sound? 
|
|
Fab
Munifex
Posts: 12
|
Post by Fab on Jan 16, 2017 20:40:01 GMT
The situation depicted by IanC has been clarified in the past, at the time of DBA 2.2.
An extensive commentary was issued (2005 ?) for tournament play to clarify a lot of different situations and my interpretation of the situation follows that commentary.
As nothing has changed from 2.2 to 3.0 about "Legal contacts" and "Overlaps" we (I mean my community of players - Italian players) stick to that.
Obviously the right answer(s) can only be given by Phil Barker (and nobody else), so a compromise on all the difficult situations should be reached by the players (before the battles !!!).
My two cents
Cheers
Fab
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 16, 2017 21:41:09 GMT
This question is difficult to understand because of the difficulty in identifying which elements are which. One of the problems of using more figures on an element than suggested. This however is a small penalty for the good looks of extra figure elements. Are these 15 mm figures on 60 mm wide bases? By the way when an element loses combat whether in the front or on the flank it is not pushed back, it recoils I spent quite a bit of time trying to find some element that was being pushed back then I realized it was recording. That all being said what I am troubled by one aspect of the situation. It is true that an element in D BA can move to or turned to face any element whose threat zone it is in. It is in the TZ of the lower LH, and the LH that recoiled from the flank. However, it is not in the threat zone of the light horse in the lower center that is facing left. If I were the umpire for this game I would rule that the Roman cavalry may not advance across the front of that left facing Light horse because it is passing through it's threat zone. An element cannot move through the TZ of one element to reach another element, if it does not start in the threat zone of both elements. The cavalry has two move options: turn to face or move toward the light horse element that was on its flank and recoiled or it may hit the front of that lower left facing LH, causing that element to conform by sliding upward. It cannot move toward the lower upward facing LH. |
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 16, 2017 22:44:05 GMT
The bases are basically double the width and double the depth with 4 times the figures.
As to the TZ issue, the Roman Cv cannot turn to their left and hit the LH to their left, as they are in the TZ of the LH to their front limiting how they can move.
Can you quote the rule that prevents them crossing a TZ to hit another unit whose TZ they are also in. I canot find that.
Thanks
Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 17, 2017 8:11:52 GMT
An element cannot move through the TZ of one element to reach another element, if it does not start in the threat zone of both elements. The cavalry has two move options: turn to face or move toward the light horse element that was on its flank and recoiled or it may hit the front of that lower left facing LH, causing that element to conform by sliding upward. It cannot move toward the lower upward facing LH. I’m not sure that is correct Bob. See diagram 7b, which says:- “If Spear A was to move towards or into contact with Blade X and leave sufficient space, Spear B can move straight towards and/or slide sideways to line up with Blade Y without making contact, or to move into front edge contact with Blade Y”. But to “move into front edge contact with Blade Y”, Spear B (which is already in Blade Y’s threat zone) must enter and then pass through the threat zone of Blade X...in effect, moving across the front of Blade X, which this diagram dialog says is allowed. So what do the actual rules say? The threat zone rule on page 9 paragraph 8 says:- “An element or group which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance towards or into contact with such an enemy, or (c) move straight back....” So the instant that a moving element that is already within a threat zone enters another threat zone, it has the choice of which of the threatening enemy elements to attack. And if it moves into contact with one of them, it must pass across the front of the other. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 17, 2017 19:12:17 GMT
Yes I'm wrong that the cavalry cannot turn and face the light horse facing left just ahead of it. In trying to view the elements, I thought the cavalry would contact that element when it turned to face the light horse that had recoiled from its flank. It's difficult to visualize these little pictures.
Indeed an element already in the threat zone of more than one element can move through either zone to contact any of those elements. However, an element may not enter a NEW threat zone to contact an enemy. So The cavalry cannot leave the threat zone of the flank recoiled LH to enter the TZ of the lower LH. It's only options are move to its rear, turned to face and or contact the light horse to it's right, or stand.
Your comment "The instant that a moving element that is already with in a threat zone enters another threat zone ..." is only valid if it started in the threat zone of both elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 17, 2017 20:11:36 GMT
However, an element may not enter a NEW threat zone to contact an enemy. Are you saying that diagram 7b is wrong then?
And that (once Spear A has got out of the way) Spear B cannot move into contact with Blade Y... ...even though diagram 7b says it can?
Actually, I quite like your idea that an element in a threat zone may not enter a NEW threat zone to contact an enemy.
It means that not only can you ‘pin’ an enemy with a threat zone (thus limiting their move options), you can even ‘paralyze’ them so that they cannot advance at all! Just get them in a threat zone, then arrange another threat zone so that they cannot advance or move into contact with the element generating the first threat zone.
Their only choice would be to either stay where they are or move straight back.
It would be as if they were paralyzed with fear.
This could be a good tactic for light horse armies such as Numidians, Scythians, Huns and Mongols.
Unfortunately, it is not what diagram 7b or the threat zone rules say....(shame). 
Philip Barker probably worded the threat zone rules as he did, and diagram 7b gives an example of those rules, in order to prevent elements becoming ‘paralyzed’ in this way.
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 17, 2017 23:49:20 GMT
. It's difficult to visualize these little pictures. I think if you click on the pictures - you will get a larger view. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 18, 2017 3:49:02 GMT
I have studied diagram 7b very careful which I guess I have not done in the past. I believe it is wrong.
Spear B is in the TZ of Blade Y BUT NOT X, thus it cannot pass-through the TZ of blade X to move into contact with blade Y. Previously I just assumed that spear B was in the TZ of both blades.
|
|
