|
|
Post by Antoine on Oct 15, 2017 18:52:40 GMT
Hi lads, a question in today's last game: are the following flank contacts valid ? N°1  N°2  |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 15, 2017 19:00:18 GMT
I'd say no.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 15, 2017 19:10:32 GMT
I would also say no. It needs to be front corner to front corner. But if the contact has come about in some way other than a tactical move (let us say in 2 a destroy and follow up) then the flanking element stays in that position but does not cause a -1 tactical factor. If the red element is recoiled, however, it is destroyed as it has an enemy element in flank contact.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by Antoine on Oct 15, 2017 20:00:34 GMT
Ok thanks they did not seem valid to me either, but I wanted to be sure  |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 15, 2017 21:57:18 GMT
I concur with Simon...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 16, 2017 6:44:29 GMT
Hello Antoine,
you should mark the front edges of the elements. Without that - it's hard to tell.
Cheers,
Ronald.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 16, 2017 17:57:40 GMT
Ditto to all those who say no. Ronald, does it make a difference which way the front is facing in any of the examples? Number 2 is only valid if blue are enemies.
Scott, how could the blue element end up as an outcome move in number 2? I'm thinking that if the blue element on the flank were fleeing or pursuing, it would lineup as though it were a tactical move--front corner of the front corner. But there may be other options, I'm just wondering what they are? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 18:35:01 GMT
Bob,
I think we have discussed this at length in another thread. I am assuming that the destroyed red element was where the vertical blue element ended up. The blue element destroyed it and followed up. My impression is that pursuing elements pursue directly forwards and hit what they hit and then stop. If they make an illegal contact with a flank then there is no free movement to line up anyway.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by Antoine on Oct 16, 2017 20:04:57 GMT
In fact in example 2, the flanking element didn't have enough movement to flank properly. I said it couldn't flank and my friend wasn't convinced : that's why I posted it I was sure but I wanted my friend to bend the knee in the face of the whole DBA community saying he was wrong ! |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 16, 2017 20:17:09 GMT
In fact in example 2, the flanking element didn't have enough movement to flank properly. I said it couldn't flank and my friend wasn't convinced : that's why I posted it I was sure but I wanted my friend to bend the knee in the face of the whole DBA community saying he was wrong !
Is not 'passing under the yoke' done anymore in France?
www.studenthandouts.com/photo_gallery/Pics1/AncientRome-2.jpg
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 17, 2017 0:33:49 GMT
Bob, I think we have discussed this at length in another thread. I am assuming that the destroyed red element was where the vertical blue element ended up. The blue element destroyed it and followed up. My impression is that pursuing elements pursue directly forwards and hit what they hit and then stop. If they make an illegal contact with a flank then there is no free movement to line up anyway. Scott I don't recall what we discussed earlier. Here is the rule about pursuing, clearly indicating the move is like a tactical move. If the red element were already in contact to the blue element in front (on top), then the pursuing element would conform to the flank. Single elements conform to the contracted element. "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." |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 17, 2017 15:18:30 GMT
Bob,
The thread is called "pike block pursues into enemy, how does it conform" by Tony Aguilar. You express an opinion in the penultimate post that the element had to stop short of illegal contact, but that it had to make some movement (although you don't say how much or why), and express regret that this was not spotted during play testing.
There is certainly an opinion around here that the element does exactly as I suggest above (which is why I suggested it), and doesn't conform on the basis of an illegal contact, but I can see that this view is far from universal.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 17, 2017 16:00:39 GMT
The Pursuit crap is a knotty problem made worse if players exercise the "don't conform and fight as if overlapped option".
Too late to fix anything in 3.0 but what do players think the rule should be? The wording in 3.0 is obscure so we can read into it anything we like - but what should that be?
If we had just said, "if the Pursuing element contacts opponents, the elements conform as per the normal conforming rules" would that be sufficient (and at least consistent)?
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 17, 2017 16:42:23 GMT
I would prefer:
"if the Pursuing element contacts opponents, the attacking element must conform, if conformation is blocked by terrain or other elements, the contacted element must conform or fight as if overlapped"
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by glanders on Oct 17, 2017 16:48:54 GMT
I love DBA but the one problem to me has always been flank contact.
It is not logical at all
in the diagram number 2 if blue side contacts red and the top blue is not present does red turn to face value in 3.0?
If the answer is no due to an illegal contact then the game has a serious flaw.
|
|
