|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 6, 2017 23:30:35 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 Okay,
happy to accept the ruling for case 1 - not actually happy with the ruling itself because it means that a group can do whatever it wants to a single element - but I guess it falls in with other statements by Phil during playtesting "If you are foolish enough to finish up in <insert generic bad situation> then you deserve what you get".
You can argue that a group is more resilient than a single element and that constitutes the reasoning for this ruling but it now includes 2 elements of Ps pulling an element of solid Bd or 8Sp wherever they wish or a column of two LCm pulling an element of Kn into the dunes where they can polish them off.
In the second example, yes I was assuming that however it worked the Red Bd could not contact the Blue Bd frontally, whether it was due to TZ or movement.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 6, 2017 23:36:46 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? Sorry about that Scott - like you I did not have the rules to hand to check my example and was cutting and pasting from previous diagrams to cobble the thing together - my bad
But yes, the question I am asking is, do groups have carte-blanche when attacking a single element to pull them into conforming in however they choose.
Joe, I apologise for extreme cases making bad law, but whether it is a tournament or just a bunch of guys in the corner of the club playing a multi player campaign - there needs to be some consistency. Simply falling back to common sense and the real world is a cop out. My idea of how the real world works and what constitutes common sense will not necessarily be the same as the person to whom I am pulling a "brilliant manoeuvre" on.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 6, 2017 23:47:03 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 And yet there is an alternative interpretation given that the above text about blocking terrain is all about conforming to a front edge.
The rules state that at the end of the bound's movement phase the contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be line up with an enemy element either (a) in full mutual front edge contact, (b) in full front edge to rear edge contact, or (c) in front edge to side edge contact with front corners in contact, or (d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap. If this is not possible the move does not happen.
So as with two elements being in the clear but 0.1 of a BW outside of contact range and with turning to face a flank or rear taking place immediately after the movement phase it is also possible that the move does not happen.
Nothing is stopping the red element from closing in to attack in a subsequent bound.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 6, 2017 23:54:31 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? Martin as with me, as with us all
If I do it, it is a clever manoeuvre. If it is done to me it is cheesy gamesmanship. 
cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 7, 2017 12:15:45 GMT
For the sake of clarity. The contact is "not" allowed.
Stupid autocorrect.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 9, 2017 20:20:54 GMT
Few thoughts about contact/conforming:
Just played a demo game of RuneWars - uses similar contact/conforming rules but much clearer and easier to use than the DBX variety.
So: should we have it that a conforming element must conform as much as possible BUT if not fully "conformed" the opposing element must then "finish" the conform or fight as if overlapped (I favor this approach but it is not really in the rules per se).
How close do we wish to get to "touch conform" in other words do we wish to insist that it be possible to at least get in front edge (as opposed to corner contact) to compel the opposing Element to conform or fight as if overlapped (we really need a phrase for this concept).
Some examples: my Group just manages to touch your single Element on the corner but not enough MA to "close" but as the single Element has to conform - does it do so anyway. What if the "single" element had a companion (hence was in a Group). Does my moving Group now get to conform? I've assumed not but should the rule be consistent?
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 9, 2017 23:43:13 GMT
Few thoughts about contact/conforming: Just played a demo game of RuneWars - uses similar contact/conforming rules but much clearer and easier to use than the DBX variety. So: should we have it that a conforming element must conform as much as possible BUT if not fully "conformed" the opposing element must then "finish" the conform or fight as if overlapped (I favor this approach but it is not really in the rules per se). How close do we wish to get to "touch conform" in other words do we wish to insist that it be possible to at least get in front edge (as opposed to corner contact) to compel the opposing Element to conform or fight as if overlapped (we really need a phrase for this concept). Some examples: my Group just manages to touch your single Element on the corner but not enough MA to "close" but as the single Element has to conform - does it do so anyway. What if the "single" element had a companion (hence was in a Group). Does my moving Group now get to conform? I've assumed not but should the rule be consistent? TomT Tom,
my take on the concept is that the clause - "If this is not possible then the move does not happen" (clause 3 in my original parsing of the rules) should carry some weight. The instances where a contacting group or element cannot make legal contact in any way shape or form are generally the extreme examples that give us the trouble.
More often than not it is possible for the moving element/group to make contact, but just not in one move. We do not advocate allowing an extra frontal move to allow a near contact to become a contact so ideally the same concept should follow through for the rest of the contact examples.
1) In order to initiate contact the moving group or element must contact an enemy element edge not just a corner. 2) Unless restricted by other elements (the table edge or impassable terrain - waterways, occupied camps, forts, cities) or the case of a group contacting a single element, this contact must be legal (clauses 2a-2d). 3) After contact ONE party moves the minimum distance to conform (clause 4) according to the hierarchy of a) a single element contacting a single element conforms (clause 7) b) a single element or group contacting a group conforms to it (clause 8) c) a single element unless entirely in bat and/or rough going in which case the group conforms (clause 9) d) if conforming by contactors is 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 (clause 10) e) any contacts left over after this fall under Elements contacted this bound by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary (clause 6) 4) If this is not possible then the move does not happen (clause 3)
I think this covers off just about everything and the only departure I have made from the rules as written is the first point. In adding this I have cut out the any contact with an enemy corner only.
This shuts down the issue of front corner to front corner contact only - which has already been deemed to be not contact AND it shuts down a group or element front edge contacting just the corner of an enemy element and drawing it into conformance (the two examples in my second post on this subject).
This is how I would like to play it but I would also like to think that I am in line with the whole community so that if any of the international brigade find themselves at Landwaster or DBA with a Twist then there will be no rude surprises. Likewise, I hope to be able to take my Sung Chinese, Christian Nubians or Siamese further afield at some time when the (not so) little warbands are completely off my hands and would really enjoy knowing that I am playing the game the way it should be.
cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 10, 2017 5:13:15 GMT
Few thoughts about contact/conforming: Just played a demo game of RuneWars - uses similar contact/conforming rules but much clearer and easier to use than the DBX variety. So: should we have it that a conforming element must conform as much as possible BUT if not fully "conformed" the opposing element must then "finish" the conform or fight as if overlapped (I favor this approach but it is not really in the rules per se). How close do we wish to get to "touch conform" in other words do we wish to insist that it be possible to at least get in front edge (as opposed to corner contact) to compel the opposing Element to conform or fight as if overlapped (we really need a phrase for this concept). Some examples: my Group just manages to touch your single Element on the corner but not enough MA to "close" but as the single Element has to conform - does it do so anyway. What if the "single" element had a companion (hence was in a Group). Does my moving Group now get to conform? I've assumed not but should the rule be consistent? TomT Tom,
my take on the concept is that the clause - "If this is not possible then the move does not happen" (clause 3 in my original parsing of the rules) should carry some weight. The instances where a contacting group or element cannot make legal contact in any way shape or form are generally the extreme examples that give us the trouble.
More often than not it is possible for the moving element/group to make contact, but just not in one move. We do not advocate allowing an extra frontal move to allow a near contact to become a contact so ideally the same concept should follow through for the rest of the contact examples.
1) In order to initiate contact the moving group or element must contact an enemy element edge not just a corner. 2) Unless restricted by other elements (the table edge or impassable terrain - waterways, occupied camps, forts, cities) or the case of a group contacting a single element, this contact must be legal (clauses 2a-2d). 3) After contact ONE party moves the minimum distance to conform (clause 4) according to the hierarchy of a) a single element contacting a single element conforms (clause 7) b) a single element or group contacting a group conforms to it (clause 8) c) a single element unless entirely in bat and/or rough going in which case the group conforms (clause 9) d) if conforming by contactors is 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 (clause 10) e) any contacts left over after this fall under Elements contacted this bound by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary (clause 6) 4) If this is not possible then the move does not happen (clause 3)
I think this covers off just about everything and the only departure I have made from the rules as written is the first point. In adding this I have cut out the any contact with an enemy corner only.
This shuts down the issue of front corner to front corner contact only - which has already been deemed to be not contact AND it shuts down a group or element front edge contacting just the corner of an enemy element and drawing it into conformance (the two examples in my second post on this subject).
This is how I would like to play it but I would also like to think that I am in line with the whole community so that if any of the international brigade find themselves at Landwaster or DBA with a Twist then there will be no rude surprises. Likewise, I hope to be able to take my Sung Chinese, Christian Nubians or Siamese further afield at some time when the (not so) little warbands are completely off my hands and would really enjoy knowing that I am playing the game the way it should be.
cheers
This would be a fine subject for a video; movement (including flank and rear contact), subsequent moves, conforming, compulsory movement. 
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 11, 2017 0:30:14 GMT
MacBeth:
I would disagree with your point about making contact with an enemy corner. A group contacting a single element forces that single element to conform. Where that single element is contacted is not relevant. This is the rule explicitly shown by diagram in HoTT. This was the intention for DBA 3. Any less than this allows geometric ploys.
Now that being said... the contacting group must contact the corner of the single element with their front.
So...
1) In order to initiate contact the element must contact an enemy element edge not just a corner. A moving group may contact an enemy element's corner.
Your #2 probably would be better if you dropped the parentheses and went with a list...
a. Other elements
b. Table edge
etc...
I would probably move 3. E. to last and label it #5... just a suggestion.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Aug 11, 2017 14:47:17 GMT
Thank you all guys! So much interesting thoughts and opinions concerning these situations. I would like just to clarify this list from Macbeth, which looks more or less as a conclusion of the discussion (at least for this moment). So... 1) In order to initiate contact the moving group or element must contact an enemy element edge not just a corner. 2) Unless restricted by other elements (the table edge or impassable terrain - waterways, occupied camps, forts, cities) or the case of a group contacting a single element, this contact must be legal (clauses 2a-2d). 3) After contact ONE party moves the minimum distance to conform (clause 4) according to the hierarchy of a) a single element contacting a single element conforms (clause 7) b) a single element or group contacting a group conforms to it (clause 8) c) a single element unless entirely in bat and/or rough going in which case the group conforms (clause 9) d) if conforming by contactors is 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 (clause 10) e) any contacts left over after this fall under Elements contacted this bound by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary (clause 6) 4) If this is not possible then the move does not happen (clause 3)
I think this covers off just about everything and the only departure I have made from the rules as written is the first point. In adding this I have cut out the any contact with an enemy corner only.
This shuts down the issue of front corner to front corner contact only - which has already been deemed to be not contact AND it shuts down a group or element front edge contacting just the corner of an enemy element and drawing it into conformance (the two examples in my second post on this subject).
This is how I would like to play it but I would also like to think that I am in line with the whole community so that if any of the international brigade find themselves at Landwaster or DBA with a Twist then there will be no rude surprises. Likewise, I hope to be able to take my Sung Chinese, Christian Nubians or Siamese further afield at some time when the (not so) little warbands are completely off my hands and would really enjoy knowing that I am playing the game the way it should be.
cheers Maybe I'm wrong, but I think, that verification of compliance clauses 2a-2d (which provide us a legal contact) should be carried out at the end of the bound's movement phase, after all conformations have been made. So first we move our element, then we try to conform it (or force an enemy to conform) and only then we check clauses 2a-2d.. No? I try to say, the conformation itself is needed to correspond clauses 2a-2d (if these clauses have not been met at the very beginning of contact) Therefore, it seems to me that in this list the order of the points #2 and #3 need to be changed. (#3 should right after #1, and then #2). Okey, anyway, I hope the logic of this list seems quite clear to me. And if we apply this scheme to my original example #1 then the contact of A2 to the flank of B1 is possible, isn't it? Cos it falls under point 3)+d). Am I right? I'll go through the whole procedure: my element A2 has enough movement distance to make full flank contact with B1 and I try to move it to that contact. But element B2 physically blocks this full flank contact and also it doesn't allow me to conform. I reflect this way: my element still has enough movement distance to conform, and if I have a chance I would definitely conform, but I have no such opportunity, so, I force my opponent to conform his B1 element. But his element B1 can't conform cos it is in a full front edge contact already. So, we have a situation where B1 will be in full flank contact. (with all bonuses which flank contact gives). (Please, sorry for my English, I tried my best to explain) For convenience I insert here my original diagram:  |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 13, 2017 10:01:38 GMT
Zendor,
I disagree. Your element A2 cannot contact the flank of element B1. The free slide of up to 1BW to conform is only allowed when contacting an enemy front edge (P9, moving into contact with enemy, paragraph 1, line 6-7) so your contact is illegal and a slide is not allowed. A2 is not part of a group, so the part spacing consideration when at least one element of a group is in legal contact does not apply. Note also para 2, line 3: if conforming TO A FRONT EDGE by contactors is prevented by part element spacing between enemy or physically blocked by elements, terrain or table edge etc.etc.
The A2/B2 contact is also illegal. It could occur if it were an overlap, but it is not, as B2 is not in frontal contact.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Aug 13, 2017 13:43:54 GMT
Zendor, I disagree. Your element A2 cannot contact the flank of element B1. The free slide of up to 1BW to conform is only allowed when contacting an enemy front edge (P9, moving into contact with enemy, paragraph 1, line 6-7) so your contact is illegal and a slide is not allowed. A2 is not part of a group, so the part spacing consideration when at least one element of a group is in legal contact does not apply. Note also para 2, line 3: if conforming TO A FRONT EDGE by contactors is prevented by part element spacing between enemy or physically blocked by elements, terrain or table edge etc.etc. The A2/B2 contact is also illegal. It could occur if it were an overlap, but it is not, as B2 is not in frontal contact. Scott Thank you Scott. But why is the slide not allowed? I can understand, that A2 has no free 1BW slide, it's right, cos it's not a front to front contact, but it can slide using its own movement, no? I read this: "Contactors conform using their tactical move, but an extra sideways slide of up to 1 BW is allowed if this is necessary to conform after contacting an enemy front edge".So, this free 1BW slide, is like a nice addition to the base movement, in case of front to front contacts. But your second argument is weighty. Now I see, that you can force your opponent to conform only in case of a front to front contact. In truth, I just followed Macbeth's list to went through... So, we should add to the d) point: "If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented...". What do you mean by "The A2/B2 contact is also illegal"? There is no contact between them (it only could be an overlap by B2 if we imagine such illegal A2 flack contact). |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 13, 2017 17:01:18 GMT
Zendor,
The slide is not allowed as it will not bring about a legal contact. A2 cannot contact B1 because it is not in legal contact at the end of the movement phase, as the front corners are not in contact (para 1, line 5, "if this is not possible, the move does not happen"), and no slide will make this legal contact happen. One confusing question, occurring throughout this thread, is what happens if the contacting element is prevented from making a legal contact by an enemy element, as is the case here. In front edge to front edge contact, where a slide would otherwise allow legal contact, then the contacted element can conform or fight as if overlapped, but that is not the case here as the slide is not allowed.
Regarding your second point, the diagram as I see it shows A2 and B2 in side edge to side edge contact. Is this misleading? Rather confusingly, if there were a blue element in front edge contact with B2, then the A2 move would be perfectly legal. It would not exert a tactical factor on the A1/B1 combat, but would destroy B1 due to flank contact, were B1 to be recoiled.
Scott
|
|
