|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 16, 2017 22:00:46 GMT
The following thread is an extension of the former Moving into Contract thread and an attempt to get a full understanding of how DBX players think and want Contact & Conforming (C&C for short) to work.
I would like to eventually finish rule writing on this subject which would resolve all issues completely with rigor and brevity.
Please refer to Figure 13d for this discussion.
1: Do you think this diagram correctly reflects DBA 3.0 rules?
2. If Spear Group A-C had moved its full MA prior to corner contact (so could not have made front edge contact in any case), Do the Blades still conform?
3. Would your answer be different if only Blade Group X-W existed? In other words edge contact was prevented only by lack of MA not also intervening elements.
4. Would your answer be different if only Blade X existed (so was a single element) - is conforming triggered for a single element even if the moving element does not have enough MA for front edge contact?
In general:
1. Do you think/prefer that any front edge contact (even corner) by a moving element triggers the conforming rule? (Note that in Figure 13b corner only contact triggers conforming rules and makes the non-moving elements conform).
2. In Figures 13a & 13b & 13e, it appears that the moving elements have conformed as much as possible before compelling the non-moving element to conform (though the DBA3.0 rules say one party moves to conform). Do you think/prefer moving element conforming as much as possible before non-moving element must conform (this doesn't appear in the DBA 3.0 rules but does solve some problems)?
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 17, 2017 0:51:25 GMT
Hard to follow as I do not know what MA is.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 17, 2017 4:21:17 GMT
Hard to follow as I do not know what MA is. Probably 'Movement Allowance', at a guess, Bob. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 17, 2017 15:45:50 GMT
Yes of course MA = Movement Allowance.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 17, 2017 16:50:38 GMT
The following thread is an extension of the former Moving into Contract thread and an attempt to get a full understanding of how DBX players think and want Contact & Conforming (C&C for short) to work. I would like to eventually finish rule writing on this subject which would resolve all issues completely with rigor and brevity. Please refer to Figure 13d for this discussion. 1: Do you think this diagram correctly reflects DBA 3.0 rules? 2. If Spear Group A-C had moved its full MA prior to corner contact (so could not have made front edge contact in any case), Do the Blades still conform? 3. Would your answer be different if only Blade Group X-W existed? In other words edge contact was prevented only by lack of MA not also intervening elements. 4. Would your answer be different if only Blade X existed (so was a single element) - is conforming triggered for a single element even if the moving element does not have enough MA for front edge contact?In general: 1. Do you think/prefer that any front edge contact (even corner) by a moving element triggers the conforming rule? (Note that in Figure 13b corner only contact triggers conforming rules and makes the non-moving elements conform). 2. In Figures 13a & 13b & 13e, it appears that the moving elements have conformed as much as possible before compelling the non-moving element to conform (though the DBA3.0 rules say one party moves to conform). Do you think/prefer moving element conforming as much as possible before non-moving element must conform (this doesn't appear in the DBA 3.0 rules but does solve some problems)? TomT Part A 1. Diagram 13d and all the diagrams are part of the DBA 3 rules. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes... the moving group must make frontal contact. It must have the movement. 4. Yes... single elements must conform to a group. Part B 1. No. I think front edge, not corner, contact should be required except in the cases of groups contacting single elements, and contact blocked by other elements, terrain, etc. 2. Yes. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 17, 2017 21:08:06 GMT
Joe:
Thanks for the response. The central question is what form of Contact triggers Conforming.
Your advocating two different forms of Contact triggering Conforming. Your saying corner contact (with enemy front edge - not just corner) triggers Conforming IF the non-moving Element has to Conform BUT not if the moving Element has to Conform in which case you must have front edge Contact (to trigger the free slide if front contact).
In addition as a corrallary your saying that insufficient MA does NOT count as unable to Conform so does not trigger Conforming UNLESS some other reason prevents Conforming.
These are extremely subtle (and very non-intuative) distinctions (certainly not spelled out in the rules). Different forms of contact triggering Conforming rules will be an interesting rule write up.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 17, 2017 21:41:11 GMT
Tom,
Personally I feel that one of the major reasons why Phil embarked on DBA 3.0 was the realisation that it was possible to place elements in such a way that it was impossible to contact them legally under DBA 2.2. For example if blade X and blade Y were angled at greater than 90 degrees and this pattern was repeated a couple more times. Now while this is not an issue with blades, it would be with bows as they could still shoot but not be contacted. Things then grew from there with the results which we all know. However, since the whole affair was at least in part to address the "unable to contact" problem, it had to be resolved in the definitive edition, and this particular diagram is the result.
So:
1. Yes
2. Yes.
3. Yes, the contacting group must have the movement to make front edge contact if not prevented by, in this case, other elements. If it doesn't, then the contact doesn't happen.
4. The group must have the movement to make front edge contract (or full front edge to rear edge, or specific types of edge to side, or as an overlap) or the move doesn't happen. I think this is different from 2.2 where a front edge to front corner contact by a group to a single element would force the contacted element to conform (but I may be wrong about this!).
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 21, 2017 20:34:00 GMT
Scott:
Yes you are correct that was Phil's intent (which we spent the better part of two years trying to realize). We now move from asperation to execution. Phil had orginally phrased the rules expressing an intention translating that into inforceable and comprehensiable rules has proven more difficult.
It seems we have a three step process:
1) Moving to contact. 2) After contact we need to determine which element/group must conform. 3) Conforming: if the moving element/group must conform it needs to continue to expend MA (so now we are back to step 1) in order to get into edge contact; but if the stationary element/group (and where only guessing about groups) must conform then no MA is expended. As illustrated above this can lead to dramatically different results which are not intuative but may be necessary to avoid the tricky formations that blocked contact/conforming in 2.2.
As to the diagrams Phil stated many times that the rules control the diagrams merely illustrate but to maintain our sanity most of us consider the diagrams to be rules as many important concepts appear only in the diagrams. But for first time readers its rather difficult to understand the need to jump from text to the diagram section to get a complete understanding of what to do. Better to integrate the diagram and the text.
For all:
The prior discussion re contact & conforming seemed rather muddled. But now we seem to have reached general clarity. If, however, you disagree please do so as I am hoping for general agreement before committing to rule writing/tournament ruling.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Aug 21, 2017 22:04:14 GMT
I must admit that I frequently (just the other week actually) went to the diagrams before the rules. They are more clear in presentation and writing...
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 22, 2017 0:24:08 GMT
Tom,
I think you are right - we are approaching clarity but there are still a few bones of contention.
At this point I would like to state that I am not comfortable with the concept of allowing contact on only a corner to force an element to conform. Current work pressure prevents me from preparing the long post justifying my position with numerous diagrams. Hopefully I can do that soon.
In short though
1) There was a statement in the previous thread that this was crucial to preventing "geometric tricks" - I do not believe that said geometric tricks have been nullified. If I wish to do some of the stated tricks I just need to commit more elements to ensure that the jagged lines or angles towards the table edge are made up of groups not single elements. Secondly in the previous thread, when I touched on the implications of a group dragging a single element into a disadvantageous situation by forcing it to conform, some people suggested that this in itself was a geometric trick.
2) It has been stated that there is no "free pivot" to conform in DBA (compared to DBMM). In that case I would argue that we are talking about a case where the contact with a corner only represents there not being sufficient move to contact. This is not contact being prevented, it is contact being delayed - and there are a number of examples of this in the previous thread. If you are 0.01 BW too far to contact an element then you don't contact, you move closer and contact in a later bound. Similarly, if all you can do is just touch a corner, you are in the same position.
3) After all we talk a lot about how troops do not occupy all of their base area at all times - this is the fundamental concept of how we allow partial rear corner interpenetration so that tricky turns to the side can be made in battle lines. I would argue that if the front centre of an enemy was bearing down on the corner area of my unit, the troops there would probably be hanging back.
I think I set out how I would like to see things work in the previous thread, but two of the important concepts I see as being
1) There must be front edge contact with an edge, not just a corner, to be the first principle
2) Legal contact must occur UNLESS it is Blocked not just delayed - that is, if your approach is slowed down but you could make legal contact over more than one move, this is not grounds for making non legal contact and claim the "troops that would contact in real life" provision.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 22, 2017 16:54:32 GMT
MacBeth:
I respectfully disagree. I used geometric ploys in all my tournament games in 2.2. I use none now as they aren't worth the pip expenditure. I haven't noticed anybody using them in the 3.0 tournaments I have organized. I think the new contact and conforming rules work well. I would hate to go back the point where I could kink a single element and keep an entire line from advancing or a pike block from ever making contact.
Have you seen a lot of folks using geometric ploys? There was tons of talk during development by folks outside the development team about how the contact and conforming rules could easily be hacked and abused. I have yet to see this surface.
Further, single elements contacted by groups conforming has been around even longer in the HoTT community. I think it was instituted in HoTT 1.1... though someone can correct me. It hasn't in its long history created problems that I can remember.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 22, 2017 21:57:57 GMT
Macbeth:
Thank you for your response. The corner only contact triggering conforming is the heart of the question - and I would like to get as much of the DBX community involved as possible (particularly game masters).
Diagram 13d clearly shows corner only contact triggering the conforming rules. Many feel this applies even if the moving elements could not have made edge contact even if the obstruction was removed. It also applies in the single element example where a group could touch just a corner (it doesn't matter whose corner) and trigger the conforming rules.
This issue needs to be resolved (the rules are not clear). Exactly when and by what amount of contact do we trigger the conforming rules?
I think the serias of questions I set out in the original post makes these issues clear (depending on your answers) and could make the next FAQ. But I would like to get as many answers as possible (and everyone to think through the consequences of their answers).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 22, 2017 22:54:37 GMT
Tom,
Really good questions. [The answers below to the original question at the top of the thread]
1. I see the diagrams as part of the rules, and yes I believe they reflect the rules. That diagrams tend to represent only certain examples however.
2. Yes, [my answer would be different], because additional movement is not possible to the Sp to align with the enemy group.
3. Yes. If X-W didn't exist the moving group of Spare must make frontal contact. If they don't have the movement the contact would not occur. Refer also to 12a.
4. That's an interesting question. I have always played that contact with a single element by a moving group front edge requires the single element to conform.
Other Points:
Having found the diagrams...
1. I don't understand your comment around 13b. In my diagrams 13b looks to be front edge. Did you mean 12a?
2. I have never considered the elements in 13a, 13b or 13e have partly moved to align. I'm not sure they have. Obviously those in 13d have as the original position is marked.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 23, 2017 20:34:11 GMT
Twrnz:
Thanks for your comments.
As to your first point 2.: the tricky part of the question is that even without the blocking elements frontal contact is impossible (not enough MA). To make this work we must resolve who has to conform at the instant of contact - if the movers than we have to measure whether they can make it but it its the non-movers this doesn't matter (as the non-moving element/group have to move and that's always "free").
Re: second point 2. and diagrams 13a, 13b etc. I agree there is no indication that they have moved as much into contact as possible only that in every diagram that is how its drawn. I suspect this is a matter that neither Phil nor the diagram creator (Chris) considered. But we do need a consistent rule about whether a "blocked" element must attempt to conform as much as possible or whether it can "drag" the non-moving element as far as it can. This situation can be exploited by trying to make as little contact as possible to drag the other element as far as possible.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 23, 2017 21:18:51 GMT
Twrnz: As to your first point 2.: the tricky part of the question is that even without the blocking elements frontal contact is impossible (not enough MA). To make this work we must resolve who has to conform at the instant of contact - if the movers than we have to measure whether they can make it but it its the non-movers this doesn't matter (as the non-moving element/group have to move and that's always "free"). Tom, in my view the is no legal contact, so it doesn't happen. The Spear have to align with the Bd. If they don't have the movement to do this, the contact can't occur. Corner contact isn't sufficient. |
|
