|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 11, 2017 14:06:20 GMT
Well, dear gentlemen, what about convincing Mr. "My Name is Musashi" and Mr. "Tony Aguilar" to make some more of their splendid YouTube Videos? E.g. the "dos & don'ts of moving into contact, conforming, being lined up"? That would save us all a lot of typing - I suppose.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPbrwPKb2QUwww.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kXhnZ9HngCheers, Ronald. P.S. That would be great for a foreign guy like me |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 11, 2017 19:17:50 GMT
We play a lot at home (plus I run several tournaments) and this question about having to conform as much as possible has started to come up. Some evil "I can break DBX" local gamers have figured this out and so hit at odd angles to screw the non-moving element. Forcing the movers to "try" screws their evil plan but they started quoting DBA 3.0 rules to suggest they didn't have to attempt to conform. So I rewrote the rules to comply with what I thought they said (or should say). This works locally and we are all happily gaming away again but won't work for DBA 3.0 tournaments so I'm trying to get player consensus on this issue.
Understand this only applies in situations where the moving elements has to initially conform. It does not apply when you hit a single element with a group (except for the Bad Going exception) since the single element has to conform. It applies when an element has to "try" and conform but cannot fully do so after contact. (But what if the single element can't conform? Does it have to try and then the moving group has to try etc? Or does it just switch back to the moving group having to conform?)
I think we now have a good working definition of what contact triggers conforming (any except corner to corner/side to side/rear to rear) (you may not in the end be able to conform but "contact" switches on the conforming rules.
Stevie's suggestion re conforming rule is excellent. I think we all get now that the conformers may not be the movers and how this gets triggered.
My own take (and how I wrote it up): first determine who has to conform after contact. They attempt to conform. If they cannot fully conform the contacted element/group must attempt to conform as much as possible. Another thing to keep in mind: it seems only the non-moving element/group can select the no conform/fight as overlapped option, regardless of who has to initially conform.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 12, 2017 21:36:45 GMT
Tom:
This seems reasonable. Could you perhaps however show some of the "evil" tricks. I would be interested in seeing them...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 13, 2017 16:43:39 GMT
As an example in Diagram 13d if you move the group so it only contacts one of the two non-moving groups, a player could then stop and say "see I can't conform so now you have to move one of the non-moving groups so I get an overlap" (or fight as if overlapped) and the other non-moving group just sits. (In the diagram the moving group continues forward and touches both non-moving groups.) If you don't have to "attempt to conform" then no one will move as in 13d, you would always move to just contact one of the non-moving groups so you get an overlap.
So players try and set up non-conforming encounters to snatch away opposing elements (or make them fight as if overlapped - a rule we could have done without).
DBMM has a bunch of rules to prevent this (you have to move only straight forward to make corner contact or something like that to avoid "element snatching" but all that is really needed is a rule that you much attempt to conform as much as possible to prevent this monkey business. The diagrams seem to assume this but its not in the rules (probably because many of them are re-formatted DBMM diagrams).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 13, 2017 22:02:56 GMT
Just checking understanding here, but the non-moving group or element only has to conform under certain conditions as listed in the rules. The moving element/group not having enough movement allowance to make at least partial front edge to front contact (and then free slide) or front corner to corner/front to side edge or full front to rear edge contact are not valid reasons for the non-moving element to conform. Right?
Thanks
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 13, 2017 22:32:02 GMT
Just checking understanding here, but the non-moving group or element only has to conform under certain conditions as listed in the rules. The moving element/group not having enough movement allowance to make at least partial front edge to front contact (and then free slide) or front corner to corner/front to side edge or full front to rear edge contact are not valid reasons for the non-moving element to conform. Right? Thanks Simon Yes Simon, If the conforming troops don't have enough movement to line-up properly as per page 9 paragraph 9, then contact cannot happen (diagram 10). If they do have enough movement, but are physically prevented (i.e it's impossible to line-up no matter how much movement they have), then their opponents must line-up instead as per page 9 paragraph 10 (diagrams 13c & 13d). 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 Oct 13, 2017 22:36:27 GMT
As an example in Diagram 13d if you move the group so it only contacts one of the two non-moving groups, a player could then stop and say "see I can't conform so now you have to move one of the non-moving groups so I get an overlap" (or fight as if overlapped) and the other non-moving group just sits. (In the diagram the moving group continues forward and touches both non-moving groups.) If you don't have to "attempt to conform" then no one will move as in 13d, you would always move to just contact one of the non-moving groups so you get an overlap. Perhaps all that is needed is for the non-moving player to say “prove it”.  If the moving player who should conform claims they cannot line-up due to a lack of space or is physically blocked (as in diagram 13d), then the non-conforming player should say “show me this is true by fully moving your troops and conforming as much as you can”. I’ve had situations where my opponent claimed they couldn’t line-up, only to have me saying “yes you can if you wheel or align first, or if you pivot after making contact”. What is more controversial is when a moving player first deliberately moves some of their troops in order to block a subsequent conforming move by more of their own troops…or when they refuse to spend a PIP to move some of their troops out of the way to allow a subsequent conforming move by more of their own troops. In these situations I have said “conforming is not impossible if you first move that element out of the way or don’t put it in that position in the first place”… …but I must admit, this has caused some rather noisy arguments! 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 Oct 16, 2017 14:28:32 GMT
Diagrams, Figure 13d. Unable to line up.
Move this step further as the defender elects to leave the position as is and accepts the advantage the attacker has for the overlap. This is an option as I read it.
The attacker feels particularly lucky and selects ‘B’ to start the sequence of combat.
Fortuna says – “Not Today” - and Spear B must recoil and Blade Y must purse with Blade Z in tow, as it forms a column.
The front edge of Blade Y contacts the front corner of Spear A.
Pursuing, last paragraph, page 12.
“ 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. “
Spear A conforms, but as Spear B has recoiled ½ BW this leaves little room to conform so only its front corners end in contact with Blade X and Blade Y.
The combat between Spear A and Blade X does not take place
– or does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2017 17:06:26 GMT
Diagrams, Figure 13d. Unable to line up. Move this step further as the defender elects to leave the position as is and accepts the advantage the attacker has for the overlap. This is an option as I read it. The attacker feels particularly lucky and selects ‘B’ to start the sequence of combat. Fortuna says – “Not Today” - and Spear B must recoil and Blade Y must purse with Blade Z in tow, as it forms a column. The front edge of Blade Y contacts the front corner of Spear A. Pursuing, last paragraph, page 12. “ 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. “ Spear A conforms, but as Spear B has recoiled ½ BW this leaves little room to conform so only its front corners end in contact with Blade X and Blade Y. The combat between Spear A and Blade X does not take place – or does it? Ah...but Pursuing (on page 12 paragraph 11) actually says:- “If a pursuing element’s front edge contacts enemy or its front corner contacts an enemy front edge, they (i.e. the pursuers) line-up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.“ So it's not Spear 'A' that lines-up and conforms, but the victorious pursuing 'Y+Z' column. Can the 'Y+Z' column line-up with the front of Spear 'A'?...no, because column 'X+W' is in the way. Can the 'Y+Z' column line-up with the flank of Spear 'A'?...no, because column 'Y+Z' doesn't have enough movement, even if they pursue 1 BW (and this would mean moving out of Spear 'A's' Threat Zone). Can the 'Y+Z' column end the combat phase in such a position?...hmm, nowhere does it say they can't, but combat is resolved next bound. Anyway, whoever has the next bound, somebody will have to conform, because you can't end a movement phase in such a position. (See page 9 paragraph 9) (It might be easier to just assume that the victorious pursuing 'Y+Z' column cannot make contact with Spear 'A' because they cannot conform...and Spear 'A' also cannot conform because column 'Y+W' is in the way.)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 Oct 16, 2017 18:37:39 GMT
Diagrams, Figure 13d. Unable to line up. Move this step further as the defender elects to leave the position as is and accepts the advantage the attacker has for the overlap. This is an option as I read it. The attacker feels particularly lucky and selects ‘B’ to start the sequence of combat. Fortuna says – “Not Today” - and Spear B must recoil and Blade Y must purse with Blade Z in tow, as it forms a column. The front edge of Blade Y contacts the front corner of Spear A. Pursuing, last paragraph, page 12. “ 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. “ Spear A conforms, but as Spear B has recoiled ½ BW this leaves little room to conform so only its front corners end in contact with Blade X and Blade Y. The combat between Spear A and Blade X does not take place – or does it? Ah...but Pursuing (on page 12 paragraph 11) actually says:- “If a pursuing element’s front edge contacts enemy or its front corner contacts an enemy front edge, they (i.e. the pursuers) line-up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.“ So it's not Spear 'A' that lines-up and conforms, but the victorious pursuing 'Y+Z' column. Can the 'Y+Z' column line-up with the front of Spear 'A'?...no, because column 'X+W' is in the way. Can the 'Y+Z' column line-up with the flank of Spear 'A'?...no, because column 'Y+Z' doesn't have enough movement, even if they pursue 1 BW (and this would mean moving out of Spear 'A's' Threat Zone). Can the 'Y+Z' column end the combat phase in such a position?...hmm, nowhere does it say they can't, but combat is resolved next bound. Anyway, whoever has the next bound, somebody will have to conform, because you can't end a movement phase in such a position. (See page 9 paragraph 9) (It might be easier to just assume that the victorious pursuing 'Y+Z' column cannot make contact with Spear 'A' because they cannot conform...and Spear 'A' also cannot conform because column 'Y+W' is in the way.)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
Stevie,
Thank you for the clarification.
I had no doubt that on the subsequent bound, player Blade would need to tidy up the situation, but before completing the previous bound would not Spear A and Blade X need to finish their combat. In that case Spear A would reduce his combat factor by one for being overlapped.
Oddly enough we do not see Blade forming a column to attack, not with the risk of both caught in TZ and risking caught front and flank.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2017 21:43:59 GMT
Diagrams, Figure 13d. Unable to line up. Move this a step further as the defender elects to leave the position as is and accepts the advantage the attacker has for the overlap. ...but before completing the previous bound would not Spear A and Blade X need to finish their combat. In that case Spear A would reduce his combat factor by one for being overlapped. Weeeell...it all depends on if the victorious pursuing Blade 'Y' is actually allowed to contact Spear 'A'. The victorious pursuing Blade 'Y' should conform (Pursuit Contact: rule 12.11), but cannot... Therefore Spear 'A' must conform instead (Conforming Prevented: rule 9.10), but also cannot... Perhaps if nobody can conform, then the victorious pursuing Blade 'Y' should stop short and not make contact. If victorious pursuing Blade 'Y' IS allowed to contact Spear 'A', then yes, Spear 'A' would be overlapped. (It should have conformed, but didn't...again, Conforming Prevented: rule 9.10) But remember that Blade 'X', which has not fought yet, will also be overlapped by Spear 'A'. (It too should have conformed, but decided not too...again, Conforming Prevented: rule 9.10) I presume this invisible overlap penalty would technically be on Blade 'X's' open right flank. (My brain hurts!...)  |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 16, 2017 22:40:17 GMT
Yes... ouch...
Here I think... and I know that I am in the minority... that Phil meant that pursuing troops and anyone they contacted are forced to line up. This is what I think Phil meant by...
"Elements contacted this bound by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary."
Forcing such a conformation would help solve this issue. It rankles me to think of a pursuing element of knights or pike stopped by enemy at a strange angle...
Still, this is a minor issue... and rarely seen on the table... not never seen... but rarely seen.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 17, 2017 15:37:22 GMT
Stevie:
You have missed an essential element (pun) in the "conform as much as possible" question to wit it only applies to elements required to conform that are prevented from doing so by blocking stuff. In you example the singe element contacted by a group is required to conform. The group does is not required to conform at all - so there is no question of "conform as much as possible" BUT what if in your example the single element is partially blocked from conforming? Does it slide over as much as possible and then the group finishes conforming? Or does it say (well its player says), I can't fully conform so now you get to conform by sliding over and creating the super group? That is the question.
I do agree with your three principles laid out a above or as I said earlier: "No contact is illegal until proven otherwise." Except as to (ii), I still think you need "as much as possible".
Rosian: yes that is what I'm saying Phil enforced tight space limitations and we were desperate to determine what stuff to cram in and what we had to do without. But in Knights and Knaves I do not have space limitations so I'm trying to get the final consensus on what players/umpires think MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY means so I can write it up as its actually played.
You are correct re Diagram 13d it slighly creates a whole new contact situation not mentioned in the rules (but needed for game play reasons).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 17, 2017 15:44:43 GMT
The not lining up option is rarely taken, but as a playtest option we decided to insist on being difficult and not lining up but fighting as if overlaped...as people Timuerlak in particular has pointed out the not lined up combats can cause some difficulties with Pursuit etc.
I've found its easier to leave out this option at least in Big Battle games with newbies etc. Fortunately few players seem to pick the option even if available.
If 3.1 ever appears I suggest axing the option and replacing it with "conform as much as possible".
I'm with Joe on Pursuit conforming. In general the more conforming the better.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 17, 2017 23:15:50 GMT
You have missed an essential element (pun) in the "conform as much as possible" question to wit it only applies to elements required to conform that are prevented from doing so by blocking stuff. In you example the singe element contacted by a group is required to conform. The group does is not required to conform at all - so there is no question of "conform as much as possible" BUT what if in your example the single element is partially blocked from conforming? Does it slide over as much as possible and then the group finishes conforming? Or does it say (well its player says), I can't fully conform so now you get to conform by sliding over and creating the super group? That is the question. TomT Good points Tom, but isn't "conforming as much as possible" already covered by the existing rules? Along with the the "prove it!" protocol, perhaps a stricter adherence to the "must!" protocol should also be applied. For example, the existing rules say:- Conforming positions [rule 9.9]: At the end of the bound’s movement phase,…(troops)…, must be lined-up with an enemy element…
If conforming prevented [rule 9.10]: …contacted conforming elements or groups must either conform or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.
When to conform [rule 9.10]: Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact, contacted conforming elements conform at contact (i.e. they must try to conform).
Pursuit contact [rule 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 (i.e. pursuers must try to line-up).
Basically, troops must be lined-up...player 'A' must try as much as they can, but if they can't fully do so, then player 'B' must try to instead. In other words, both parties should contribute to the lining-up process, but only if absolutely necessary. Mind you, I do agree with you that the "...either conform or fight as if in full contact and overlapped" is not really needed. Make 'em conform! (If I was writing the contact rules for your "Knights and Knaves" or Joe Collin's DBA 3.01, I would have the following:-
get rid of the "fight as if in full contact and overlapped", get rid of the "waiting until the end of the movement phase to turn and face", change "contacting" and "contacted" to "conforming", make it so that if neither party can conform then the contact cannot happen, make conforming a separate subroutine independent of movement, and get rid of the "free sideways slide if front edges touch" by making all conforming actions free of charge.
That would make things simpler and make the more conforming the better!
However, since this thread is about the existing rules, I won't go into details here but will post these ideas in Joe Collin's "Towards DBA 3.01" thread.) 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
|
|
