|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 2, 2017 19:59:33 GMT
Leaving the text of DBA 3.0 aside (which we can't change anyway), would this rule clarify and solve the "contacting enemy while Pursuing" problem? "If a Pursuing Stand’s front edge contacts an enemy, the Pursing Stand must attempt to conform to the enemy Stand. If the Pursuing Stand cannot conform, the contacted enemy Stand must attempt to conform. If neither can conform, cancel the Pursuit." TomT I like this. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 2, 2017 22:33:40 GMT
I have some more observations that I’d like to share…well, they are more like perceptions really. There has been much talk about ‘making legal contact’. However, this is not the real issue. Making contact is only midway through the process…it’s ‘conforming legally’ that is the real end point. This may seem to be a trivial distinction, but it can have profound effects when viewed in this way. Some time ago in a different thread I posted a contact and conforming flowchart to describe the procedure. I’d like to re-post it here for clarity:- See fanaticus.boards.net/post/10469/Personally, I think it’s the wording on page 9 paragraph 9 that is muddying clarity:- “ Conforming positions [9.9]: At the end of the bound’s movement phase, the contacting element, or at least one element of a contacting group, must be lined-up with an enemy element…” There would be much less confusion if this sentence told the real truth:- “ Conforming positions [9.9]: At the end of the bound’s movement phase, the conforming element, or at least one element of a conforming group, must be lined-up with an enemy element…” After all, it’s not always the moving contacting troops that have to conform. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 3, 2017 10:34:52 GMT
I have a few more thoughts about pursuit, and I can foresee a couple of awkward questions that may be asked. It might be best to discus these here rather than in the middle of a game. Here is the rule from page 12 paragraph 11:- “ Pursuit contact [12.11]: If a pursuing element’s front edge contacts enemy or its front corner contacts an enemy front edge, they line up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.” Awkward Question #1: Front-corner contactIf the pursuing front-edge makes contact, the pursuers must try to conform (if there is enough space to do so). If the pursuing front-corner contacts an enemy front-edge, again the pursuers must try to conform (if there is space). But what happens when a pursuing front corner would contact an enemy’s side or rear edge? The above Pursuit contact rule does not say. The words describing this situation are not there. This would not be the first time that a rule was found to be incomplete or missing. The FAQ Team have done excellent work in filling in these missing rules for us…this appears to be another instance. Now you could say that in this case the pursuers must still surge forwards, but will stop short (how short?…say 1mm from the enemy?), as described under diagram 10 on page 20:- “...the move must be either cancelled or ended short, prior to contact.” But would it not be better to keep things as simple as possible, and be more realistic, if the rule was as follows:- “ Pursuit contact [12.11]: If a pursuing element’s front edge or its front corner contacts an enemy, they line up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.” Awkward Question #2: Pursuit distanceThe rule above says that the pursuers must line-up immediately (i.e. conform, if they have the room to do so). But is this conforming free of charge, and in addition to the pursuit move? Again the above Pursuit contact rule does not say. Once more the words describing this situation are not there. With a pursuit move of only 1 BW, even mounted will have a struggle to conform. And those foot that pursue a mere 1/2 BW will find it impossible to do so! Should we not take it upon ourselves to add the missing words, and say that pursuit conforming is free and independent of the pursuit movement? After all, troops conducting a wild uncontrolled pursuit are likely to move a bit faster than when they are just plodding forwards in strict formation. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 3, 2017 15:23:56 GMT
I have a few more thoughts about pursuit, and I can foresee a couple of awkward questions that may be asked. It might be best to discus these here rather than in the middle of a game. Here is the rule from page 12 paragraph 11:- “ Pursuit contact [12.11]: If a pursuing element’s front edge contacts enemy or its front corner contacts an enemy front edge, they line up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.” Awkward Question #1: Front-corner contactIf the pursuing front-edge makes contact, the pursuers must try to conform (if there is enough space to do so). If the pursuing front-corner contacts an enemy front-edge, again the pursuers must try to conform (if there is space). But what happens when a pursuing front corner would contact an enemy’s side or rear edge? The above Pursuit contact rule does not say. The words describing this situation are not there. This would not be the first time that a rule was found to be incomplete or missing. The FAQ Team have done excellent work in filling in these missing rules for us…this appears to be another instance. Now you could say that in this case the pursuers must still surge forwards, but will stop short (how short?…say 1mm from the enemy?), as described under diagram 10 on page 20:- “...the move must be either cancelled or ended short, prior to contact.” But would it not be better to keep things as simple as possible, and be more realistic, if the rule was as follows:- “ Pursuit contact [12.11]: If a pursuing element’s front edge or its front corner contacts an enemy, they line up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.” Awkward Question #2: Pursuit distanceThe rule above says that the pursuers must line-up immediately (i.e. conform, if they have the room to do so). But is this conforming free of charge, and in addition to the pursuit move? Again the above Pursuit contact rule does not say. Once more the words describing this situation are not there. With a pursuit move of only 1 BW, even mounted will have a struggle to conform. And those foot that pursue a mere 1/2 BW will find it impossible to do so! Should we not take it upon ourselves to add the missing words, and say that pursuit conforming is free and independent of the pursuit movement? After all, troops conducting a wild uncontrolled pursuit are likely to move a bit faster than when they are just plodding forwards in strict formation. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Looking at the actual text, the last paragraph, p. 12 – Pursuing:
“If a pursuing element’s front edge contacts enemy {1} or its front corner contacts an enemy’s front edge, they line up immediately as it contact was by a tactical move {2}, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.”
{1} I believe we can agree there is no requirement that contact must be made on an enemy’s front, side or rear edge.
{2} Further, in paragraph two, page 9 – Moving Into Contact With Enemy.
“Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p. 10), contacted elements conform at contact”.
If the contacted enemy is part of a group, then the pursuing element conforms unless restricted by available space.
In response to your second question, we never viewed this as an ‘additional movement’ but the tidying up of compulsory moves so as to continue close combat on the following bound.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 4, 2017 7:19:48 GMT
So I think we are getting somewhere and I am not unhappy with the results - lets see if I can summarise them correctly
In order to initiate combat the contacting element must make legal contact (clauses 2a-2d) with the two exceptions
a) Where such contact is prevented by part element spacing between enemy or physically blocked by elements or a table edge; or
b) Where a group moves into contact with a single element.
Note that I have left out Terrain as a blocking factor here and will pose another question at the end.
Once contact is made the hierarchy of conformance is followed.
If there is no correct conformance in the hierarchy and the contact is allowed then the contacted element must either conform or fight as if overlapped
In all other cases - eg insufficient move distance or a group unable to make legal contact with another group - then the move does not happen. This also includes the final contact being front corner to front corner. (Can we confirm that this does not constitute contact and allow the free slide?)
When I was starting to summarise the finding I realised that the clause 10 is much more restrictive than I thought, because it concerns contactors conforming to a front edge, not what is possible for making contact, but that has been dealt with in the original question and the current body of opinion is that if you can't make legal contact because of blocking elements, you can then make non-legal contact and follow the conforming hierarchy.
Questions
Can we confirm that a group need not make legal contact with a single element?
Take this example.
The Ax is able to make legal contact with the element of LH but in doing so, the LH when conforming would turn to face and be more than 1BW from the table edge. On the other hand, if the Ax group were to hit the flank of the LH towards the back then the LH when conforming would be pulled closer to the board edge and therefore be subject to an overlap.
Can we confirm that Terrain is not a blocking factor for making legal contact?
In this example
The red 4Bd cannot make legal contact with the flank of the blue 4Bd in a single move because they would exceed their 1BW bad going move. Their options are to move up to 1BW and hope to contact next turn or if allowed, to make non-legal contact on the grounds that the terrain is blocking them.
My first instinct is to opt for not allowing contact until they move closer - I don't see this as any different to the move distance example in my first post to this thread, but I can see the "real world argument" might come out.
Thanks again
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 4, 2017 14:40:55 GMT
Here is my take...
In the first example... the single element must confirm to the group.
In the second... Your example lacks a small amount of info. I am going to assume that the Red Blade doesn't have enough movement to make any front to front contact.
Terrain is blocking factor. The Blue element will either conform or fight as overlapped... with an enemy in flank contact.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 4, 2017 16:04:54 GMT
Are you sure Joe? In the second example, if the blue element were rotated through 90 degrees, then yes, the red element could make a partial front edge to front edge contact and then slide to conform, but it can't make an illegal front to side edge contact (without front corner to front corner contact), can it?
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 4, 2017 16:45:33 GMT
Are you sure Joe? In the second example, if the blue element were rotated through 90 degrees, then yes, the red element could make a partial front edge to front edge contact and then slide to conform, but it can't make an illegal front to side edge contact (without front corner to front corner contact), can it? Scott Yes, Scott...pretty sure... My take is that the woods constitutes "blocking" terrain. I can't think of other "blocking" terrain. Now the weird thing is that had the move distance been exactly 2 Base Widths and the woods not existed... the move couldn't be made. Lack of movement would prevent the contact. This of course is an extreme case... and we all know about extreme cases making bad law. Once again, Phil's terse rules and a lack of a diagram to give an example forces us to make judgments... what is "blocked by terrain"? Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 4, 2017 21:10:22 GMT
But I don't think the terrain is "blocking" as such. It just slows the blades so they don"t have the movement distance to make a legal contact. Legal contact can be made, just not this bound. If the blue element had been placed by a waterway such that legal contact was not possible, then I would have sympathy with the red element but even then I don't think the rules allow illegal contact to be made. They must be front edge to front edge or front to side with front corner to front corner.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 5, 2017 8:57:26 GMT
I agree with Scott. The woods aren't so much 'blocking' as 'inconvenient'.
And as an aside, further back, in Macbeth's pic example of a group contacting a LH, I believe the LH don't suffer the minus 1 for board edge proximity, as Cav and LH are the two types which ignore this (without rules to hand, I'm guessing rather than quoting.) If the example had used a Hd or Kn (eg) the query holds up.
Not sure how I view that situation, where the group mover actively chooses to force the single element nearer to the board edge and thus into a -1 combat modifier, especially when the group mover had the option of corner contact. I suppose it's not illegal, and would remove the advantage for the single element owner of blocking that edge of the board up. Is it gamesmanship or clever manoeuvre?
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 5, 2017 9:19:12 GMT
Just an additional point. Turning to face a flank or rear contact does not occur during the movement phase (see right at the top of P 10). At least one element must be in legal contact (definitions (a) to (d) at the bottom of p9) at the end of the movement phase or the move doesn't happen. So you can't have an illegal contact at the end of the movement phase and then turn to face "immediately after the movement phase" (p10).
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 5, 2017 13:28:14 GMT
Scott:
Oops on my part....the problems with posting while on break at work...
The sentence from the rules:
"If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented by part-element spacing between enemy or physically blocked by elements, terrain or a table edge; contacted elements or groups must either conform or fight as if in full contact and overlapped."
So in answer to MacBeth... the contact is now allowed as it is a flank edge being contacted.
If however the woods were blocking a frontal contact... then defender would either conform or fight as if overlapped.
Sorry for the confusion.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 5, 2017 13:31:25 GMT
I agree with Scott. The woods aren't so much 'blocking' as 'inconvenient'. And as an aside, further back, in Macbeth's pic example of a group contacting a LH, I believe the LH don't suffer the minus 1 for board edge proximity, as Cav and LH are the two types which ignore this (without rules to hand, I'm guessing rather than quoting.) If the example had used a Hd or Kn (eg) the query holds up. Not sure how I view that situation, where the group mover actively chooses to force the single element nearer to the board edge and thus into a -1 combat modifier, especially when the group mover had the option of corner contact. I suppose it's not illegal, and would remove the advantage for the single element owner of blocking that edge of the board up. Is it gamesmanship or clever manoeuvre? You left a third option in your question... Is it gamesmanship, clever maneuver, or is the board edge rule just silly? Just sayin... Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 5, 2017 13:36:58 GMT
But I don't think the terrain is "blocking" as such. It just slows the blades so they don"t have the movement distance to make a legal contact. Legal contact can be made, just not this bound. If the blue element had been placed by a waterway such that legal contact was not possible, then I would have sympathy with the red element but even then I don't think the rules allow illegal contact to be made. They must be front edge to front edge or front to side with front corner to front corner. Scott What then constitutes being blocked by terrain? Just a board edge? A waterway? A camp or BUA? Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 5, 2017 19:40:18 GMT
Joe,
Yes, I think a waterway, camp or BUA. I suppose artillery or war wagons can't slide into bad going to conform if contacted by a group? perhaps there are others.
Scott
|
|
