|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 24, 2017 21:25:31 GMT
Twrnz:
Yes but in Diagram 13d corner only contact is sufficient to trigger the conforming rules (that's why I asked whether players think this is actually the rule).
I also asked even if the moving elements had insufficient MA to actually make front edge contact would the non-moving elements still have to conform.
Most have answered that corner only is enough to trigger conforming rules even where the moving elements could not have actually gotten into "legal" contact. (There is no definition of "legal contact" in the rules). To clarify all this I need to get consensus on these issues. If diagram 13d is correct than corner only contact does trigger confroming, we then need to determine how to handle this "trigger".
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 24, 2017 23:03:26 GMT
Tom,
My impression is that you are focussing too much on 13d, though I may be misinterpreting your posts. Diagram 12a clearly illustrates how conforming is handled, 13d provide examples when this can not be completed.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 24, 2017 23:21:05 GMT
Tom, whilst the term "legal contact" is not defined in the rules I would respectfully argue that it is defined in the "moving into contact rules" across the two paragraphs The first defines how contact must be achieved. The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge into contact with the enemy always results in combat. (1) 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, either; a) Full mutual front edge contact, (2a) b) In full front edge to rear edge contact (2b) or, c) In front edge to side edge contact with front corners in contact, (2c) or, d) With no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap (see p10). (2d) If this is not possible, the move does not happen. (3) One party moves the minimum distance to conform. (4) Contactors conform using their tactical move, but an extra sideways slide of up to 1BW is allowed if this is necessary to conform after contacting an enemy front edge. (5) Elements contacted this bound by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary. (6) The second sets out the rules for conforming A single element contacting a single element conforms to it. (7) A single element or group contacting a group conforms to that group (8) A single element contacted by a group conforms to it unless entirely in bad and/or rough going in which case the group conforms. (9) 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. (10) Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p10), contacted elements conform at contact. (11) What is important to take away from this is that contact and subsequent combat is not an "anything goes free for all". You have to meet certain conditions to be in contact in such a way that drives conformance so that combat takes place. The general consensus seems to be that clauses 1, 6 and 10 only apply in cases where meeting the definition of contact is blocked, or otherwise stopped, rather than delayed by movement distance or similar issues. I had not fully digested diagram 13d but what we have here is a specific case that deals with potential "geometric tricks". I apologise that in my earlier post I suggested that geometric tricks were still possible, they just required the commitment of a group rather than a single element. It seems that diagram 13d is written to specifically counter the angled element by groups trick. The spear group does not meet any of the contact definitions in clauses 2a - 2d; nor can if force conformance under clauses 7 through 9. You could (and probably should) argue that the broadest definition of part element spacing triggers clause 10 so that the blade groups can choose to conform or fight as overlapped. This is because it is not physically possible to make the contact. I do not believe that any other corner only contact is sufficient. Diagram 10 specifically states that corner only contact is insufficient.  Here we see the major issue, front corner to front corner contact - after an element has been destroyed or forced to flee. It has already been determined that there is no "free slide" for the moving player in the subsequent bound to line up here. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 25, 2017 18:15:29 GMT
I'm focusing on diagram 13d because it covers the hard case. Diagram 12 covers the easy cases. Its the hard cases that make hard (and sometimes bad) rules.
Macbeth: It seems only at the end of your post do you realize that Diagram 13d blows up your discussion of "legal contact". Here a corner contact only forces conforming by the two groups contacted. If the contact were "illegal" in couldn't happen and would not trigger conforming. Your "legal contacts" are all post conforming. We are dealing with contact that triggers conforming which appears to be any contact except corner to corner and side to side. Its also vital to know who has to conform once triggered because if its the non-movers (and this happens for single elements BUT ALSO for situations where the mover can't conform) then the move is free but if its the movers than they have to spend MA to conform and if they don't have enough the triggering contact becomes illegal and the move gets canceled.
Its also unclear that if the movers cannot ultimately conform do they need to attempt to conform as much as possible? But what if they don't have any more MA and so can't even "try" to conform? Is the fact that its ultimately impossible to conform still trigger the non-mover conform rule?
No matter how much we parse the rules these essential questions are not answered by the rules to DBA 3.0. I'm looking for consensus on how we think things should work and that's how I'll write it up for Knights and Knaves and rule in DBA 3.0 tournaments.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 26, 2017 15:45:13 GMT
Just to add to the information. In HoTT... a single element must conform to a group... even when contacted on the corner. The restriction takes effect only when a conformation would result in the single element not having the space to recoil.
In 2.2 single elements of LH and PS are forced to conform to groups. No extra explanation is given.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 27, 2017 23:54:07 GMT
I'm focusing on diagram 13d because it covers the hard case. Diagram 12 covers the easy cases. Its the hard cases that make hard (and sometimes bad) rules. Macbeth: It seems only at the end of your post do you realize that Diagram 13d blows up your discussion of "legal contact". Here a corner contact only forces conforming by the two groups contacted. If the contact were "illegal" in couldn't happen and would not trigger conforming. Your "legal contacts" are all post conforming. We are dealing with contact that triggers conforming which appears to be any contact except corner to corner and side to side. Its also vital to know who has to conform once triggered because if its the non-movers (and this happens for single elements BUT ALSO for situations where the mover can't conform) then the move is free but if its the movers than they have to spend MA to conform and if they don't have enough the triggering contact becomes illegal and the move gets canceled. Its also unclear that if the movers cannot ultimately conform do they need to attempt to conform as much as possible? But what if they don't have any more MA and so can't even "try" to conform? Is the fact that its ultimately impossible to conform still trigger the non-mover conform rule? No matter how much we parse the rules these essential questions are not answered by the rules to DBA 3.0. I'm looking for consensus on how we think things should work and that's how I'll write it up for Knights and Knaves and rule in DBA 3.0 tournaments. TomT Fair comment Tom but I thought that I was arguing that diagram 13d was demonstrating an example of when and why clauses 1 and 10 should be invoked. It shows a position where positioning or spacing of elements prevents legal contact and does not allow for the standard conforming hierarchy to apply. In cases such as these the rules still give the contacted elements the option to continue to fight (but as overlapped) in their current position - I assume that this is because there may be situations where it is more advantageous to do so (for example if conforming brings an element out of bad going so would be destroyed if beaten whereas if still in bad going they have to be doubled to be destroyed).
To my mind the combination of Clause 1 and 10 is inconsistent with Clause 3. If any form of contact drives conformance, then why is there a rule that says if you can't make legal contact then the move does not happen?
In respect to how many participants move the rules are perfectly clear
Clause 4 - "One party moves the minimum distance to conform".
So rightly or wrongly there is not a two way shuffle to meet in legal contact somewhere in the middle.
You are looking for consensus which is admirable. I have offered up my opinion and also a plausible (at least to my mind) set of options. If this is not to the liking of the broader community then you have several options 1) Convince me that I am wrong. 2) Find some middle ground between your position and mine and see if that is acceptable to the broader community. 3) Hang consensus - you and Joe are the movers and shakers of DBA with the best chance of getting a direct line to the author. Make the rulings that suit your taste and publish them in the FAQ.
All of these options have problems 1) It was determined during the playtest period that I am an idiot for owning 100+ armies. So the chances are that I am stubborn and difficult. And you know the adage - "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"   2) Meeting me halfway may not be to the taste of others in the community - consensus is hard and a good compromise usually leaves everyone equally unhappy. 3) Taking the high ground may lead to fracturing the community as can be seen by the discussions around tournament format - some have the opinion that any departure from RAW in terms of army lists at tournaments will drive players away and fracture the community. We are a fractious bunch but in the end we want consistency (usually OUR consistency).
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 28, 2017 0:12:47 GMT
Just to add to the information. In HoTT... a single element must conform to a group... even when contacted on the corner. The restriction takes effect only when a conformation would result in the single element not having the space to recoil. In 2.2 single elements of LH and PS are forced to conform to groups. No extra explanation is given. Joe Collins Thanks Joe.
If this really is the case then put it in the FAQ specifically.
Make the ruling so that we have the ruling consistently across the board.
I don't like it but I am happy to run it that way if it is the proper way to do so.
However what do we do about situations like this
The red player initiated contact and after combat lost two elements. At the start of the Blue player's bound there is a group in corner to corner contact with the remaining red element. Does it have to conform to the group?
Or this 
Here the Blue group has destroyed it's opponent and pursued to end up in corner to corner contact with the red element. Must it immediately conform to the group before the red player's bound begins?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 28, 2017 3:49:59 GMT
1. No
2. No
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 28, 2017 4:23:27 GMT
Joe,
thanks for the prompt reply - but I have just realised that I didn't fully detail my question
The issue was that in both the cases above we have a Blue group in contact with a single Red element.
So the question needed to be more clearly stated
1) At the start of the Blue player's bound there is a group in corner to corner contact with the remaining red element. Does the Red Element have to conform to the Blue group?
2) Must the Red element immediately conform to the Blue group before the red player's bound begins? If not must the Red element conform to the Blue group the Red movement phase? If not must the Red element conform to the Blue group if it remains in corner to corner contact with the Blue group at the end of the Red movement phase?
In short, if an outcome move leaves a single element in front corner to front corner only contact with an enemy group - must it conform? If so when?
Now if the answer is no to outcome moves of this type forcing conformance well and good.
But then we come to the next phase of the question - what if the Blue group moves into front corner only contact with the red element during the movement phase. Does that count as contact and trigger conformance?
The consensus shortly after DBA3 was published was a resounding no - I remember getting a serious lashing from the Fanaticus community for suggesting that at my first DBA3 tournament that I would consider it contact and allow the free slide.
But if the answer is now Yes then I will have to explain WHY moving up during movement constitutes contact forcing conformance and yet discovering that you are in position when the combat haze clears does not.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 28, 2017 18:18:33 GMT
Macbeth:
We greatly value your input (as well as everyone else of course).
Contact tricky and not well explained (or explained at all). A starting point:
1. Any contact is legal until proven other wise.
2. Any front edge contact triggers the conforming rules (even corner to front edge by either party) BUT NOT corner to corner - this is legal but does not trigger conforming rules.
3. After any front edge contact we have to decide who conforms.
4. Once we decide the conformer trys to conform. IF its the moving element/group AND it does not have sufficient MA to conform (because it can't get its front edge in contact or its a side contact) THEN (and only then) it becomes an illegal contact and must be "taken back". (Yes I used to code.) Note a non-moving element/group or single element will always conform because its essentially "free".
Re: "conforming as much as possible". I agree its not in the rules but not having this corrallary creates problems. For instance in diagram 13d suppose Group Spear A-C hits the corner of Blade Group X-W just before it hits Group Y-Z. So Spear player says I can't conform so Group X-W must conform (leaving out Group Y-Z). If Spear had to conform as much as possible it would continue to advance and strike Y-Z forcing both to conform as diagram 13d. The latter seems the more natural (and less subject to tricky play) result.
Again it all comes down to whether people believe diagram 13d is correct as per the letter of the rules (its a perfectly reasonable position to say it isn't). I think we need this diagram to be correct but it essentially introduces a whole new conforming rule (or at least greatly expands).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 25, 2017 16:40:07 GMT
Hello medievalthomas, I don't understand the figure 13d) on page 23 also. For me, it's not a legal contact. The attacker would need to spend two PIPs instead of just one! Either (see attachment): 1. Spear "A" moves for one PIP as a single element in mutual front edge contact with "X". With a second PIP Spears-group "B(+C)" move in front edge contact with "Y" and slide as much as possible to the left. Leaving "A" unable to recoil. or 2. Spear "B(+C)" move for one PIP as a group in mutual front edge contact with "Y". With a second PIP Spears "A" moves in front edge contact with "X" and slides as much as possible to the right. Leaving "B" unable to recoil. Why and where is it written in the rules, that contacting an enemy corner is sufficient for Close Combat? On page 9: "If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented ..." - it doesn't read "If contact to a front edge is prevented ..."!?!?! So, there is a need to get into (even partial) front edge to front edge contact before conforming! All the figures from 12a) - 12d), 13a) - 13c) and 13e) ... they all need/show a front edge to front edge contact first! Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 25, 2017 18:08:19 GMT
Ronald:
Thanks for your response. You are correct that the rules and Diagram 13d) do not conform (get it?) I had expected this to be the most common response (and to get more responses). While I don't think Diagram 13 d) is covered by the written rules- I think it should be and it should be how we play such contacts. So I'm writing up the rules to Knights and Knaves so that this is clearly the case.
I want to continue to rule this way in DBA 3.0 tournaments but I don't like to rule contrary to the written rules (though as Joe Collins has pointed out this is not possible regarding several important points including TZs). Alert players such as your self may present a well reasoned arguement, as you have, based on the rule text that contradicts Diagram 13 d). Your not wrong in doing so as Phil has said the rules control, the diagrams only illustrate (but I generally ignore this and treat the Diagrams as rules).
In development I specially asked whether corner to front edge triggered conforming after I saw an early draft of the diagrams and was told no it didn't (the consesus of the playtesters). But in Diagram 13 d) it clearly does.
At this point I would like to get some consesus from DBA 3.0 players and GMs whether Diagram 13 d) should stand and the written rules interpted very liberally to make this happen. Understand that allowing corner to front edge to trigger conforming has consequences beyond that illustrated in 13 d).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 25, 2017 18:45:45 GMT
Yes, in this case it certainly triggers conformation. I disagree with your statement that front to corner doesn't trigger conformation. It does in many situations including this one. Certainly it does when an group contacts a single element. This is not new to DBA 3. The same rule existed in 2.2 for groups contacting single elements of LH or Ps. It also exists in HoTT for groups contacting single elements.
In answering Ronald's question directly....
It is written here.
"If conforming to a front edge by contractors 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."
This includes "contractors" both as individual elements and as groups.
In this situation... conforming to a front edge by the group is prevented by elements.
It is of course also "written" in the diagram itself... which is part of the rules.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 26, 2017 7:53:20 GMT
Hello lkmjbc,
thanks for your input.
1. You said: front to corner does trigger conformation?
But figure 10 explains, that front to corner is not enough to trigger conformation!
You have to get the friendly front edge into contact with the enemy front, flank or rear edge!
Even if your group contacts a single element, you have to get your front edge into contact with the enemy front, flank or rear edge!
A single element contacted just at his front corner does not conform ... that's not a legal contact.
2. "If conforming to a front edge by contractors 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."
This situation is illustrated exactly in figure 13c)! Making contact (front edge to front edge) but conforming is prevented.
But in figure 13d) even making contact is prevented!
For english being not my first language - I apologize in advance for any obscurities.
Cheers,
Ronald.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Sept 26, 2017 8:11:53 GMT
medievalthomas: "Your not wrong in doing so as Phil has said the rules control, the diagrams only illustrate (but I generally ignore this and treat the Diagrams as rules)."Hi, thanks for your reply. Well, "what rules" ... the rules or the diagrams? That's interesting. Please take a look at my sketch attached (I know it's under the wrong topic here, but I'm curious). Q: Is the LH part of the group of Psiloi? A: (according to the rules): Yes. A: (according to the diagrams): No. Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
