|
|
Gen. CP
Feb 11, 2022 9:26:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by jim1973 on Feb 11, 2022 9:26:36 GMT
Forcing Red to break up in order to get front edge to edge contact doesn't help Red. But it is a clear and simple ruling. Also, it's a ruling you would know from the start of the game and you would try to plan for it with your deployment abd movement, PIPs allowing, so you avoid it.
Cheers
Jim
PS Making Red fight one element at a time may also not be in Red's favour. But PB does state the defender chooses to conform or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 11, 2022 2:54:26 GMT
I agree totally that they are mostly designed for 28mm and above. in 15mm, I think a lot will come down to the miniatures themselves. More detailed minis, particularly with sharp, deep detail will probably work better than flatter minis. That's why I'm looking forward to the AB miniatures.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 11, 2022 2:50:36 GMT
Thanks for the clarification Tom. My problem with all of this discussion is the corner only contact between groups. Allowing the choice to not conform means the defender can limit combat to one element at a time, which seems like its rewarding the defender for using angled lines and kinks. This is clearly something PB wants to avoid. Using stevie's example, imagine that Red were all Bd and blue were all Wb except for the CP and the loose element being Ps. Should red have to break it's group up and use two PIPs to contact all and take slightly less advantageous match ups? I just don't like rewarding these angled deployments and placements. Now if combat required front edge to (any) edge contact then there is no debate. Red has to break up its group if it wants to get into combat. At least that would be an unambiguous ruling.
But as you say, we won't find a solution in the rules if it was never considered. So it really comes down to the community. For my part, I think the game is simpler and flows better if corner to edge contact triggers conforming for single elements only and groups v groups need front edge to edge contact. At least it's clear. It also stops discussion about how far various elements are able to move etc. as these two long angled lines don't exist.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2022 13:32:05 GMT
I'm looking at your example from Feb 9 with four blue elements with a CP at the end contacted by five red elements. Red is blocked by a single blue element from conforming as a group. What happens to the long blue line of elements? Does the whole group not conform because of the CP even if the Red elements and the remaining blue elements would have the movement allowances to conform? How would you umpire that?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2022 12:14:37 GMT
Just had my very first try with these and ... hmmm... Here are my thoughts after some 15mm Essex Immortals.
The minis were primed before I had any intention to use speed paints. Though good enough to provide some tooth for regular painting, they were not a smooth uniform white. These dulled the colours. So if your looking at these paints, a uniform solid white will be your friend, particularly for bright colours.
They work as intended. They flow amazing well. Block colours are applied really quickly. They show why you should thin your paints. But they bleed over detail. So you need to be strategic about them. I don't see them useful for details (e.g. belts) and probably are overkill for flat surfaces (e.g shields). You'll still need your standard paints
They provide shading but this is subtle at 15mm unless the figures are particularly detailed. Highlights are even more subtle.
The colour palette will be limited. But should include most basics. However, I'm still wary of the skin tone.
In summary I'm not sure about them for Ancients. But I think more uniform armies (e.g. Napoleonic, ACW, WW2, etc) will be better suited as you can block out the basic colours very quickly. My next tests will be with 18mm AB British Napoleonics and 32mm Zombicide miniatures.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2022 12:02:29 GMT
Regarding the first point, without the stress of imminent attack, the Art/WWg stay away from Bad Going. But in the chaos of battle they make a mistake and end up mired in mud (or whatever). Seems reasonable and quite likely something that humans would have done over the centuries.
Regarding the movement distance, it's the kinked lines that become a problem. Your example above, where the CP would have to move 3BW or more, if it didn't conform, would it fight as if overlapped? If so, how is it fighting close combat almost out of bow range? If combat isn't allowed then are we not fulfilling the basic principle that combat should occur if front edge contact is made?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2022 9:05:02 GMT
This thread seems to segue into the other current thread on oblique movement. On that thread the FAQ was quoted regarding the need for some front edge (not corner) to contact in order to trigger conforming. If you play the FAQ way then many of these issues seem to disappear. But as discussed on the other thread, you need corner contact to trigger single element conforming otherwise things get gimmicky. May be we need a true DBA solution where edges are required for groups and corners for single elements in the open? This would be similar to the far edge of the TZ counts but not the side edge.
As for WWg and Art being dragged into Bad Going, well, bad luck! Military history is strewn with examples of troops and equipment becoming bogged down, etc. If you put your elements in that position then woe is you.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2022 1:58:03 GMT
Do you have to show the conforming was possible but for the blocking Elements to trigger the forced conform by the non-moving Group? Another dread corollary: I'm going to say tediously you must show the conforming was at least possible to trigger a forced conform. (But give feedback...) But this has nothing to do with a front corner of a Group contacting a single Element front edge. Because this triggers the conforming rules and the single Element must conform. This is not a forced conform but a required conform. Despite this it requires no expenditure of MA. Knotty problem: what if the single Element can't normally make front edge contact? Here I'm OK with the conforming by the Art/WWg/CP because its the moving Group that made contact and we are just lining stuff up to fight. TomT
Feedback as requested Tom. I agree with point one. You must be able to show that you had enough movement to make legal contact if the impediments were not present and that your contacting group doesn't include Art/WWg/CP that will end up in contact. Otherwise you cannot contact. This is sensible and stops gimmicky play. I also agree with point two. The single element contacted by the group conforms on contact, even by a corner, even if you don't have enough tactical movement available to make front edge to front edge contact. This includes single Art/WWg/CP because, as you say it's just lining stuff up to fight, but lining them up in a way to ensure PB's desire to stop "geometrical ploys" as written in the Introduction. So there you have it. Positive feedback on both. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 9, 2022 7:45:37 GMT
Definitely on the list for HOTT/D3H2. I have lots of 10mm figures from GW and Copplestone.
These two posts are fabulous for those of us interested. You can play as the book or as the films. Both are likely to be great fun! I think I still have Luke Ueda-Sarson's HOTT army lists somewhere...
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 7, 2022 13:24:42 GMT
I agree with Ronald. I think the FAQ didn't put enough emphasis on the phrase "... contacted elements conform at contact." The Sp group has enough move the contact the single Cav. The Cav must conform on contact. This leads to a legal front edge to rear edge contact. No need for the Sp to have any further tactical movement up its sleeve. This makes the game flow better as well.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 5, 2022 21:49:07 GMT
Syracusans? As a matter of fact... 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 5, 2022 10:04:18 GMT
Wish me luck as I'm about to start Early Achaemenid Persians.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 5, 2022 9:57:13 GMT
These Tin Soldier minis have been around for a while but needed a little touch up as well as some buildings before going on to the finished pile.  Persians next on the list. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 5, 2022 1:17:38 GMT
How do 12 pages cause so much hassle? We all agree that corner-to-corner and side-to-side contact is allowed via outcome moves and triggers nothing. But there is a definite split as to whether these contacts are allowed to occur through tactical movement. Some (like myself) think they can because they consider p9 Moving into Contact with Enemy, point d) "with no enemy to its front, but in overlap" as an independent and legal contact either by corner-to-corner or side-to-side. Others think overlap only occurs if front edge contact has simultaneously or previously occurred. Both sides point out various sentences from the text to support their point of view as well as practical examples such as penetrating the battleline if the element in front was destroyed. Given the inconsistencies in the text you can pretty much find evidence for almost any point of view. Clarification of this one point would certainly help the contact/conforming discussion.
But I have to thank medievalthomas for his reply confirming that single elements cannot avoid combat from groups by using strange angles unless entirely within bad/rough going. IMHO this is the best way to manage these situations. I do hope that the FAQ team feels inclined to add that to the list at some point in the future.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 5, 2022 0:31:34 GMT
This is why I look on DBA 3.0 as a piece of software, a piece of software that has been prematurely rushed into production and still has a few bugs and flaws in it. (However, my ongoing guerilla war against the utterly stupid River Rule miss-interpretation continues…🤪 )So DBA 3 was made by Microsoft?  Jim PS Viva la (river-rule) revolucion! |
|
