PDA

View Full Version : Zoc


David Constable
01-23-2011, 03:22 PM
Following on from another thread I would like to ask all the following question.

Being a heretic I shall be burnt at the stake.

I notice in some games that an element cannot make a move against an opposing element that is in its ZOC, that it would have historically, simple because it is a second enemy elements ZOC.

Should a player have a choice if their element has an enemy element in a ZOC to engage that element as the players first choice.
Only secondly reacting to being in an enemy ZOC.

David Constable

Rich Gause
01-23-2011, 03:25 PM
I think not. It makes sense that a unit would not ignore a threat in order to do something offensive. Players would all the time but I think real guys wouldn't be so willing to do so in general.

David Constable
01-23-2011, 05:51 PM
I think not. It makes sense that a unit would not ignore a threat in order to do something offensive. Players would all the time but I think real guys wouldn't be so willing to do so in general.

Historically you are probably correct, but would in work in a DBA game, would it help?

David Constable

pawsBill
01-23-2011, 06:34 PM
I notice in some games that an element cannot make a move against an opposing element that is in its ZOC, that it would have historically, simple because it is a second enemy elements ZOC.


Why would it have done so historically?

If I had a bunch of cavalry ready to charge my flank, would I really ignore them to charge the flank of the someone else?

david kuijt
01-23-2011, 06:44 PM
Historically you are probably correct, but would in work in a DBA game, would it help?

David Constable

Help who? Help the commander who is unhappy about getting outmaneuvered? Sure, it would. That doesn't mean it is a good thing. It would help the commander to ignore ZOC entirely.

David Constable
01-24-2011, 05:43 AM
Ignoring the ZOC rule might be simpler, however I think it is basically a good idea, just needs tweaking.

Consider the following that occurred in a game this year.

A Sp element was about 25mm from the flank of an enemy, able to contact it, however it could not do so because it was just about in the corner of a ZOC.
Now if the Sp moved forward it would have been able to close the door, and the enemy element in whose ZOC it was could not have reached it.
Now I consider that wrong.

Possibly reducing ZOC to 20mm might help?

David Constable

Martyn
01-24-2011, 06:41 AM
Ignoring the ZOC rule might be simpler, however I think it is basically a good idea, just needs tweaking.

Consider the following that occurred in a game this year.

A Sp element was about 25mm from the flank of an enemy, able to contact it, however it could not do so because it was just about in the corner of a ZOC.
Now if the Sp moved forward it would have been able to close the door, and the enemy element in whose ZOC it was could not have reached it.
Now I consider that wrong.

Surely the point of the ZoC is the threat that one element imposes on another.

If unit A is threatening unit B but is also under threat from unit C, what is the more likely response. To me (I know I am going to regret saying this) the unit B is more likely to be concerned with the threat imposed upon itself from C, the natural preservation instinct.

I know we are talking of bodies of men in the thousand, but the leaders of that unit are no more suicidal than anybody else. There may be a greater tactical advantage for that unit to ignore the threat, but those on the ground are not necessarily going to know that.


Possibly reducing ZOC to 20mm might help?

If anything there is an argument for increasing the ZoC to the length of move of the controlling element. No, I am NOT suggesting this as a rule change. I like it as it is thank you very much.

david kuijt
01-24-2011, 09:38 AM
Now I consider that wrong.


Okay. But the example you gave was an extreme outlier. Lots of people have had similar emotional reactions to cases where Psiloi ZOC from BGo stops Kn movement in GGo, or where an element with its back toenail in BGo counts as being entirely in BGo (for purposes of fighting Kn), or ...

If you want to quantify the threat, are we to ignore ZOC of Psiloi against Cav/Kn in GGo? What about Psiloi vs. Bd? Kn. vs El? Adding that, plus Martyn's "ZOC length equals move", plus I'm sure other fillips, might make a "more accurate" threat zone in some sense. But I would never support it -- it would not be an improvement in the game. What you are suggesting is that the ZOC should reflect variable threats. That is a precedent which will lead to different ZOC based upon enemy element type, distance, terrain of either element or between the two, etc. etc. and a bag of worms which will most definitely not improve the game.

IMO, of course.

David Constable
01-24-2011, 11:40 AM
Hello DK

Yes, you tend not to notice the Ps in wood type because it is very common, it is the other occasions that interest me.

David Constable

Bobgnar
01-24-2011, 12:07 PM
This rule needs considerable work. Note that it has changed in every edition of the game, a concept in search of a good rule. The name of the rule is Crossing an Enemy Front" and originally dealt with elements moving past an enemy. Now the text is about what happens to an element in the base width distance area.

What Phil needs to do is first give a general principle of what he is trying to achieve so that when strange situations arise, immediate interps can be made in terms of the general principle.

Second, the rule needs better explanation of details, the HOTT text is so much better. "even partially between" needs to be explained, with some examples.

"To Contact" certainly needs to clarified as to whether it is "into" or "toward."

Or delete the rule altogether.

Martyn
01-24-2011, 01:12 PM
This rule needs considerable work. Note that it has changed in every edition of the game, a concept in search of a good rule. The name of the rule is Crossing an Enemy Front" and originally dealt with elements moving past an enemy. Now the text is about what happens to an element in the base width distance area.

What Phil needs to do is first give a general principle of what he is trying to achieve so that when strange situations arise, immediate interps can be made in terms of the general principle.

Second, the rule needs better explanation of details, the HOTT text is so much better. "even partially between" needs to be explained, with some examples.

"To Contact" certainly needs to clarified as to whether it is "into" or "toward."

Or delete the rule altogether.


Bob, taking your comments in reverse order;

I think we need a rule limiting movement in close proximity to an enemy element, otherwise there is nothing to stop bizarre manoeuvres across the front of elements which would never have happened.

Retain the rule but certainly better explanation of the terms would be a major step forwards.

In DBMM Phil labels this as the ĎThreat Zoneí. There is a bit more meat to the descriptions but it is still basically the same. Although it does away with the intervening element blocking (no more arguments on whether you need a flashlight to lay a carpet, or what ever it is).

I would not want to see anything too complicated being added, it would ruin the simplicity of the game, and certainly not variable depth zones. How well the DBMM method works I donít know, there are some on this forum who are better placed to comment. As it has been suggested that Phil would like to bring DBA more in line with DBMM we may soon get a better chance to see how it works. :eek

David Constable
01-24-2011, 01:34 PM
Bob, taking your comments in reverse order;
As it has been suggested that Phil would like to bring DBA more in line with DBMM we may soon get a better chance to see how it works. :eek

It needs change one way or another.

As far as I am aware it is the DBMM players who are pushing PB to change DBA so it is more like DBMM.

David Constable

Rich Gause
01-24-2011, 02:44 PM
I think the current rule as interpreted by the Wadbag guide is about perfect. It should be written a little more clearly in the DBA 3.0 rules and the name of the concept should also be changed to zone of control abreviated to ZOC. The rule should very much not be changed to intervening elements not blocking ZOC or that would greatly impact the game in a bad way. I really don't care how DBMM does it if DBA is turned into DBMM light that would be a big turnoff.

elsyr
01-24-2011, 08:19 PM
Okay. But the example you gave was an extreme outlier. Lots of people have had similar emotional reactions to cases where Psiloi ZOC from BGo stops Kn movement in GGo, or where an element with its back toenail in BGo counts as being entirely in BGo (for purposes of fighting Kn), or ...

If you want to quantify the threat, are we to ignore ZOC of Psiloi against Cav/Kn in GGo? What about Psiloi vs. Bd? Kn. vs El? Adding that, plus Martyn's "ZOC length equals move", plus I'm sure other fillips, might make a "more accurate" threat zone in some sense. But I would never support it -- it would not be an improvement in the game. What you are suggesting is that the ZOC should reflect variable threats. That is a precedent which will lead to different ZOC based upon enemy element type, distance, terrain of either element or between the two, etc. etc. and a bag of worms which will most definitely not improve the game.

IMO, of course.

About the only way I can see to feasibly quantify the level of threat presented by a ZOCing element would be to piggyback on a mechanism already explicitly written into the rules and internalized by players. Perhaps something along the lines of "an element only need respect the ZOC of an enemy element that could conceivably QK it." Even then you'd have to consider the vagaries of the terrain (i.e. where would the combat occur in the ZOC, what if the ZOC contains both good and bad going, etc.).

Then, of course, that might also lead you to consider opportunity fire ... :eek

It's probably best left as is. The only good thing I can see coming of it would be the opportunity to tell your opponent that your troops are dissing his troops' ZOC. ;)

Doug

david kuijt
01-24-2011, 09:33 PM
About the only way I can see to feasibly quantify the level of threat presented by a ZOCing element would be to piggyback on a mechanism already explicitly written into the rules and internalized by players. Perhaps something along the lines of "an element only need respect the ZOC of an enemy element that could conceivably QK it." Even then you'd have to consider the vagaries of the terrain (i.e. where would the combat occur in the ZOC, what if the ZOC contains both good and bad going, etc.).


No way. The QK is just a mechanism, not a miracle. So you're saying that Blade would exert no ZOC on Wb, but Wb would on Blade? That Elephants would exert no ZOC on LH, but LH would on Elephants? Or worst of all -- that doubled pike would exert no ZOC on Knights (who they can totally SLAUGHTER), but Knights (who are nearly helpless at +3 to +7) would exert ZOC on double pike?

Further, Cav wouldn't exert ZOC on Cav, and so on.


It's probably best left as is.


Yes.

elsyr
01-24-2011, 11:24 PM
There are perhaps other matrices of element type interactions that already exist in the game that could be used ... you'll note that I said "perhaps something along the lines of ...," rather than suggesting the QK results as an ultimate solution. My point, which seems to have gotten lost in the minutiae, was that the only practical way to modify the ZOC rules in such a way may be to utilize some mechanism that already exists within the game. Otherwise, it might be necessary to create an entirely new matrix of element interactions, perhaps with ancillary dimensions for other factors such as terrain, to handle who must respect whose ZOC. In my opinion, adding another table to reference (or memorize) would do nothing to enhance play. Alternatively, one could swing towards the ultra-simple side and simply say that a tactical move by an element within an enemy element's ZOC costs an additional pip if it does not satisfy the existing ZOC restrictions - perhaps +1 per enemy ZOC in which the moving element is situated. It might work. It might even make sense. However, even something that simple might have significant unintended consequences. Leaving it as it is allows some oddities to remain, but other oddities - perhap more of them and/or more serious - would likely result from "fixing" it.

Oh - and the idea of removing the blocking of ZOC by intervening elements seems a terrible idea to me. Is that really in DBMM? If so, I can't imagine why - it's not that hard to roll out a carpet.

Doug

Doug
01-25-2011, 04:00 AM
It needs change one way or another.

As far as I am aware it is the DBMM players who are pushing PB to change DBA so it is more like DBMM.

David Constable

Rubbish, it is Phil who wants to change DBA so that it conflicts less with DBMM.

DBMM resolves some of the Threat Zone Issue by (essentially) not having it blocked by anything other than water. It extends through both friendly and enemy elements. This has some interesting effects (for example, a second line can't slide sideways out of a TZ to cover a gap in the line.) Whether this is a 'good' thing, I leave for other people to decide.

David Constable
01-25-2011, 05:19 AM
Rubbish, it is Phil who wants to change DBA so that it conflicts less with DBMM.

Hello Doug

It is a case that having spoken to Phil and Sue last year at Wolverhampton, and some DBMM players in the UK, the impression I got is that it is the DBMM players pushing for changes to DBA to bring it more in line with DBMM.
The impression I got from Phil was that in the main he was happy with DBA.

The main comments where base sizes and common basic mechanisms.

It will be interesting to see what we get in the end.

David Constable

Martyn
01-25-2011, 05:38 AM
Hello Doug

It is a case that having spoken to Phil and Sue last year at Wolverhampton, and some DBMM players in the UK, the impression I got is that it is the DBMM players pushing for changes to DBA to bring it more in line with DBMM.
The impression I got from Phil was that in the main he was happy with DBA.

The main comments where base sizes and common basic mechanisms.

It will be interesting to see what we get in the end.

David Constable

David, interesting feed back, thanks.

It would be good to know for certain if the changes to DBA were being pushed by the DBMM community or Phil.

I would be more concerned if it were the former, after all DBMM has its own light versions with the 100 and 200 point formats.

We don't want DBA to become DBMM extra light/sugar free/decaf. :eek

Tony Aguilar
01-25-2011, 06:53 AM
We don't want DBA to become DBMM extra light/sugar free/decaf. :eek

I see no point in ANYTHING decaf. :)

Doug
01-25-2011, 07:53 AM
as I said in an earlier post, there is no major push from DBMM players here to change DBA. There is a perfectly good DBMM 100.

From my perspective, as someone who plays a lot of DBA and a fair amount of DBMM, I would like the basic mechanisms of things like measuring moves, base sizes, TZ etc to be basically the same, and as simple and clearly written as possible. DBA doesn't need additional complexity.

And please don't misunderstand me, I love DBA, I wouldn't want to ruin a fantastic game.

winterbadger
01-25-2011, 09:01 AM
DBMM resolves some of the Threat Zone Issue by (essentially) not having it blocked by anything other than water. It extends through both friendly and enemy elements.

That sounds, on the face of it, absolutely ridiculous. My element of pike that's in contact (or nearly in contact) with an element of enemy cavalry exerts a ZOC out the other side of the cavalry? Preposterous.

Doug
01-25-2011, 09:42 AM
Why ridiculous? It can be rationalised as the Pike having the potential to blow through the cavalry, certainly risky enough you either are in the fight (with multiple ranks) or you choose not to pull any fancy manouevres directly behind an existing melee. As a benefit, you don't have the complexity of the rules about elements intervening in the ZoC.

In any case, until it is actually in DBM 3.0, it is all idle speculation.

winterbadger
01-25-2011, 10:02 AM
Why ridiculous? It can be rationalised as the Pike having the potential to blow through the cavalry,

That doesn't seem rational to me at all.

certainly risky enough you either are in the fight (with multiple ranks) or you choose not to pull any fancy manouevres directly behind an existing melee.

But the same is true if they're not even in combat, as you describe it.

As a benefit, you don't have the complexity of the rules about elements intervening in the ZoC.

That seems a dubious "benefit" for a rule that to me makes no sense at all. And that would throw the establish dynamics of playing DBA completely overboard.

In any case, until it is actually in DBM 3.0, it is all idle speculation.

Was that a freudian slip, or intentional? ;)

Of course it's speculation, and speculation is fairly idle, but that's what around 90% of this forum is.

No point in throwing a grenade into a crowded room and then saying "Oh, it's just going to fizz for a bit and then go bang--don't pay it any mind." :silly

Doug
01-25-2011, 11:16 AM
I have no problem with the idea that TZ/ZoC extend through other elements.

At first in DBMM I had difficulty with the concept, but as I have played a few more games, it makes a lot of sense. Generally speaking, DBMM severely limits the moves of elements - this makes sense in a 60-100 element game, in DBA it would be a different matter altogether. For example, it would seriously reduce the effectiveness of elements used to deploying together such as Pike and Wb.

So whether this should be the same in DBA is another matter entirely. And I never throw grenades.. I stuff them down people's pants and run away...

One thing I did notice over the weekend was the number of situations where DBMM allowed me to get into combat, and DBA didn't - for example the element moved over to cover a flank, projecting 10mm into the gap, which couldn't be contacted at all. Making deliberate tactics of that nature illegal/impossible would be a major advance IMO.

regards

david kuijt
01-25-2011, 11:27 AM
I have no problem with the idea that TZ/ZoC extend through other elements.

At first in DBMM I had difficulty with the concept, but as I have played a few more games, it makes a lot of sense. Generally speaking, DBMM severely limits the moves of elements - this makes sense in a 60-100 element game, in DBA it would be a different matter altogether.

It is an issue of scale. Four or more DBM/DBMM elements make up a single DBA one. DBMx has ten thousand "rear support" rules, and a zone of death which means that the rear element is usually destroyed along with the front one. In essence, then, the DBMx ZOC doesn't go very far out -- because all the elements it penetrates through are thematically part of a single element in DBA.

But the idea that a DBA Psiloi or Kn ZOC would penetrate through an enemy pike formation? Absurd.

Rich Gause
01-25-2011, 11:29 AM
I have no problem with the idea that TZ/ZoC extend through other elements.

At first in DBMM I had difficulty with the concept, but as I have played a few more games, it makes a lot of sense. Generally speaking, DBMM severely limits the moves of elements - this makes sense in a 60-100 element game, in DBA it would be a different matter altogether. For example, it would seriously reduce the effectiveness of elements used to deploying together such as Pike and Wb.

So whether this should be the same in DBA is another matter entirely. And I never throw grenades.. I stuff them down people's pants and run away...

One thing I did notice over the weekend was the number of situations where DBMM allowed me to get into combat, and DBA didn't - for example the element moved over to cover a flank, projecting 10mm into the gap, which couldn't be contacted at all. Making deliberate tactics of that nature illegal/impossible would be a major advance IMO.

regards

Threat Zones extending through units in a game with 60-100 elements where there is usually a reason to have a second line backing up your first line probably makes some sense. In a 12 eleement game where there is usually no reason to have a second line backing up your first they make no sense. Every DBA ploy that I have heard about that makes it hard to contact usually makes things worse for the person trying it and can usually be exploited in a different way.....................

winterbadger
01-25-2011, 11:42 AM
One thing I did notice over the weekend was the number of situations where DBMM allowed me to get into combat, and DBA didn't - for example the element moved over to cover a flank, projecting 10mm into the gap, which couldn't be contacted at all. Making deliberate tactics of that nature illegal/impossible would be a major advance IMO.

I'm not quite sure I understand the situation you're describing. If an element is "covering a flank" by projecting 10mmto the side of the unit in front of it, it is protecting the flank of that element, yes, but it's hardly the case that that element itself can't be contacted. It's flank is wide open. Unless there's an element covering its flank, and so on and so on, and at some point that echelon attack has to end, and the further it extends on one edge the more open it leaves itself on another. Unless that's covered by terrain in some way... All of which sounds like sound tactics, and none of which sounds broken.

So presumably you're referring to some other situation that I'm not envisioning. :D

Doug
01-25-2011, 11:44 AM
It is an issue of scale. Four or more DBM/DBMM elements make up a single DBA one. DBMx has ten thousand "rear support" rules, and a zone of death which means that the rear element is usually destroyed along with the front one. In essence, then, the DBMx ZOC doesn't go very far out -- because all the elements it penetrates through are thematically part of a single element in DBA.

But the idea that a DBA Psiloi or Kn ZOC would penetrate through an enemy pike formation? Absurd.

Nice piece of selective quoting David. I already pointed out that it might not be appropriate for DBA, I was simply saying how it is in DBMM. Personally I could live with it, but I would change my tactics accordingly. I really do like the idea of clarifying or removing the 'intervening element' tactic, which IMO really makes for cheese... Would be on my wish list for 3.0 along with some way to contact elements deliberately positioned to be impossible or very difficult to contact.

Doug
01-25-2011, 11:49 AM
I'm not quite sure I understand the situation you're describing. If an element is "covering a flank" by projecting 10mmto the side of the unit in front of it, it is protecting the flank of that element, yes, but it's hardly the case that that element itself can't be contacted. It's flank is wide open. Unless there's an element covering its flank, and so on and so on, and at some point that echelon attack has to end, and the further it extends on one edge the more open it leaves itself on another. Unless that's covered by terrain in some way... All of which sounds like sound tactics, and none of which sounds broken.

So presumably you're referring to some other situation that I'm not envisioning. :D

There are a lot of situations that can be created in DBA that prevent contact. What if the element in question projected 39mm into the gap between two friendly elements. Impossible to contact.

As is a formation where (for example) elements are positioned in a triangular formation with the flank edge of each in contact with the front of the next element. You could deploy with your army into a corner and move into this position in the first bound, and never be contacted.

The above to me seems far more ridiculous than any of the TZ questions posed to date. In the historical reality - there would be no way to prevent contact.

david kuijt
01-25-2011, 11:58 AM
Nice piece of selective quoting David. I already pointed out that it might not be appropriate for DBA, I was simply saying how it is in DBMM.

Defensive much? I was agreeing with you, that it was not appropriate for DBA.

Personally I could live with it, but I would change my tactics accordingly. I really do like the idea of clarifying or removing the 'intervening element' tactic, which IMO really makes for cheese... Would be on my wish list for 3.0 along with some way to contact elements deliberately positioned to be impossible or very difficult to contact.

Nobody is arguing with you about preventing impossible-contact-positioning.

But the idea that X-ray ZOC prevents impossible contact positioning is simply incorrect. The most egregious examples of impossible-contact-positioning get set up before ZOC hits them, and involve the FRONT elements, not rear dudes.

kontos
01-25-2011, 12:04 PM
There are a lot of situations that can be created in DBA that prevent contact. What if the element in question projected 39mm into the gap between two friendly elements. Impossible to contact.

As is a formation where (for example) elements are positioned in a triangular formation with the flank edge of each in contact with the front of the next element. You could deploy with your army into a corner and move into this position in the first bound, and never be contacted.

The above to me seems far more ridiculous than any of the TZ questions posed to date. In the historical reality - there would be no way to prevent contact.

At first read, that sounds more like the "geometry" situations Phil wants to clean up; not TZ. In DBA extending a control zone past the front line is contray to the game and would dramatically change it for the worst. The ONLY instances I may consider are when there is rear support given a unit by a friendly. Then, maybe, controlling the front unit should extend to the supporting unit. If support is not allowed by the troop mix, the controlling zone reverts back to the front unit only. Simple and makes some sense without a dramatic change in DBA play philosophy. (Ducking the return fire) :D

Frank

david kuijt
01-25-2011, 12:15 PM
The ONLY instances I may consider are when there is rear support given a unit by a friendly. Then, maybe, controlling the front unit should extend to the supporting unit. If support is not allowed by the troop mix, the controlling zone reverts back to the front unit only. Simple and makes some sense without a dramatic change in DBA play philosophy. (Ducking the return fire) :D



Gag, Frank. Not worth the additional complexity. Insufficient value added.

winterbadger
01-25-2011, 12:15 PM
There are a lot of situations that can be created in DBA that prevent contact. What if the element in question projected 39mm into the gap between two friendly elements. Impossible to contact.

You're talking about an *enemy* element that is inserted sideways into a gap between two friendly elements? How is this impossible to contact? Contact its flank, it conforms to the contacting element, and *bampf*--combat. *Really* not sure how you got it there in the first place, but strange things can happen...

As is a formation where (for example) elements are positioned in a triangular formation with the flank edge of each in contact with the front of the next element. You could deploy with your army into a corner and move into this position in the first bound, and never be contacted.

Um. You need to diagram this. I'm unable to imagine how three elements can be in mutual edge to edge contact and form a triangle. You're doing something very nonEuclidean. :)

And even if I could get my brain around that, I can't see how you can set up elements in such a way that none of them can be contacted, and if contacted will not, on recoiling, be destroyed by the oddly positioned friends.

Your hypotheticals seem impossible, improbable, and self-defeating all at once. I expect Yog-Sothoth to appear at any moment. :silly

kontos
01-25-2011, 12:35 PM
Gag, Frank. Not worth the additional complexity. Insufficient value added.

Why's that DK? As much as I love DBA, sometimes the flexibilty of maneuver goes against the "historic" feel of ancient battle management. Setting up your phalanx double deep to break through the enemy (pike and spear rear support) sacrifices the flexibility of that formation on the battlefield. For a commander to realize he's made a mistake is often to realize it too late. Our current system simply allows this formation to undo itself when needed. My suggestion addresses this in a simple way. It will change some battlefield tactics and, I feel, ADD to the game. It is just my opinion for a gameplay issue I would like to see addressed. A quick rebuff of "insufficient value added" is opinion as well. And do remember I said may consider. ;)

Frank

elsyr
01-25-2011, 01:13 PM
At first read, that sounds more like the "geometry" situations Phil wants to clean up; not TZ. In DBA extending a control zone past the front line is contray to the game and would dramatically change it for the worst. The ONLY instances I may consider are when there is rear support given a unit by a friendly. Then, maybe, controlling the front unit should extend to the supporting unit. If support is not allowed by the troop mix, the controlling zone reverts back to the front unit only. Simple and makes some sense without a dramatic change in DBA play philosophy. (Ducking the return fire) :D

Frank

The main problem I see with that is that during movement support is not actually happening. The elements might be in front-to-rear edge and corner-to-corner contact, but that's coincidental unless they're in close combat with enemy to their front (in which case ZOC does not matter much anyway). You'd end up applying a distinction from melee resolution to tactical movement, and I'm not certain it belongs there. It might serve, in practice, to inhibit support by putting restrictions on group moves, though. If the goal is to make it harder to get supporting pairs of elements into position, then this might work.

Doug

Martyn
01-25-2011, 01:30 PM
It might serve, in practice, to inhibit support by putting restrictions on group moves, though. If the goal is to make it harder to get supporting pairs of elements into position, then this might work.

I did not think that the suggestion for x-ray ZoC was to make support more difficult but to make the removal of support more difficult.

The change would not have a great effect on group moves but would mean that, letís say, a Pk element supporting another Pk in combat would have its movement restricted. However I donít think that has any great impact on the game. If you wished to break off the support you would want to reverse it out first, the same as if it were ZoCed because the alternative which is to pivot directly behind the front element in combat is asking for trouble.

winterbadger
01-25-2011, 01:39 PM
As much as I love DBA, sometimes the flexibility of maneuver goes against the "historic" feel of ancient battle management.

As a general observation, be wary of applying a solution that keys on one historic situation to all periods and regions.

Setting up your phalanx double deep to break through the enemy (pike and spear rear support) sacrifices the flexibility of that formation on the battlefield. For a commander to realize he's made a mistake is often to realize it too late. Our current system simply allows this formation to undo itself when needed. My suggestion addresses this in a simple way.

You describe the phalanx as a single unit. But DBA assumes that elements are independent formations that can support each other, not subcomponents of a large unit. Your example posits an irreversible connection between elements being created by the supporting of one by another. Can you substantiate that with historical examples? Ones that come from all the different times and places that have armies where the direct support rules come into play? I'm not sure I buy it even just for the Hellenistic period.

Rich Gause
01-25-2011, 01:43 PM
The biggest problem I see with ZOC extending through units in DBA is that it would become much more difficult to plug holes in a battleline. I think it would heavily tilt the game towards whoever got the first kill or flee on an opponent. Not good for the game IMO. Not to mention that it would also be a big pain to measure, what with having to deal with the intervening unit. Anything good about the idea is outweighed heavily by the bad IMO.

david kuijt
01-25-2011, 01:55 PM
Why's that DK?

[...]

My suggestion addresses this in a simple way. It will change some battlefield tactics and, I feel, ADD to the game. It is just my opinion for a gameplay issue I would like to see addressed. A quick rebuff of "insufficient value added" is opinion as well.

Certainly -- just my opinion. Stated with authority, but I usually do, and I thought it went without saying that it was my opinion.

As for why -- in my opinion :) -- it won't add much.


X-ray-ZOCing rear-rank pike won't reduce their flexibility in play, because you rarely see a second rank that can give support pulled out to make wider anyway. So for pike, you're fixing an occurrence that is very rare -- nobody wants to unpack pike if they've got something meaty in front of them, and anything where you get the +3 for support is meaty enough.
Further, the X-ray ZOC on Pike would be LESS realistic -- because it would allow the rear rank to ignore flank threats (since the rear rank would be in both ZOC now, and if you're in two ZOC, you can react to either of them). That is unhistorical, and would encourage unhistorical behavior.
X-ray ZOC on psiloi support will have all sorts of unintended consequences, and be a limitation on psiloi movement in the back rank that will look really peculiar -- if the psiloi is 1mm back it won't be supporting, so won't be ZOC'd; if it is flush with the back rank and not aligned it won't be supporting, so won't be ZOC'd; but if it is aligned and flush it will be locked in place? That isn't going to make sense to anyone.
Then we've got Wb double-rank support. Wb live pretty dangerously as is, and are supposed to represent wild crazies -- it doesn't feel right to me that they would be unable to 'flow' out of their double-ranked formation to form an overlap -- that's what I envision a Wb formation doing! Envelop and surround as each warrior tries to find his own personal victim to kill, rather than waiting in serried ranks like some pansy-ass Greek. So I don't think X-ray ZOC on Wb would do the right thing (create the right effect).
So we're left with Spear double-rank support. Since Spear are only double-rank supporting against enemy Sp or Kn, which is rare enough, do you really think the purported advantage (limitatation of unrealistic (in your opinion) flexibility with Theban deep formations fighting other spear) is worth the additional rules complexity?


That's the long version of my short opinion earlier -- it didn't seem to me that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages and the additional complexity of adding a rule for a very special case.

But hey, YMMV.

winterbadger
01-25-2011, 02:10 PM
The biggest problem I see with ZOC extending through units in DBA is that it would become much more difficult to plug holes in a battleline. I think it would heavily tilt the game towards whoever got the first kill or flee on an opponent.

DBA becomes Tactica.. no thanks! :(

kontos
01-25-2011, 02:17 PM
Certainly -- just my opinion. Stated with authority, but I usually do, and I thought it went without saying that it was my opinion.

As for why -- in my opinion :) -- it won't add much.


X-ray-ZOCing rear-rank pike won't reduce their flexibility in play, because you rarely see a second rank that can give support pulled out to make wider anyway. So for pike, you're fixing an occurrence that is very rare -- nobody wants to unpack pike if they've got something meaty in front of them, and anything where you get the +3 for support is meaty enough.
Further, the X-ray ZOC on Pike would be LESS realistic -- because it would allow the rear rank to ignore flank threats (since the rear rank would be in both ZOC now, and if you're in two ZOC, you can react to either of them). That is unhistorical, and would encourage unhistorical behavior.
X-ray ZOC on psiloi support will have all sorts of unintended consequences, and be a limitation on psiloi movement in the back rank that will look really peculiar -- if the psiloi is 1mm back it won't be supporting, so won't be ZOC'd; if it is flush with the back rank and not aligned it won't be supporting, so won't be ZOC'd; but if it is aligned and flush it will be locked in place? That isn't going to make sense to anyone.
Then we've got Wb double-rank support. Wb live pretty dangerously as is, and are supposed to represent wild crazies -- it doesn't feel right to me that they would be unable to 'flow' out of their double-ranked formation to form an overlap -- that's what I envision a Wb formation doing! Envelop and surround as each warrior tries to find his own personal victim to kill, rather than waiting in serried ranks like some pansy-ass Greek. So I don't think X-ray ZOC on Wb would do the right thing (create the right effect).
So we're left with Spear double-rank support. Since Spear are only double-rank supporting against enemy Sp or Kn, which is rare enough, do you really think the purported advantage (limitatation of unrealistic (in your opinion) flexibility with Theban deep formations fighting other spear) is worth the additional rules complexity?


That's the long version of my short opinion earlier -- it didn't seem to me that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages and the additional complexity of adding a rule for a very special case.

But hey, YMMV.

Some very valid points, DK. I'm glad I made you state them. :up

Frank

Redwilde
01-25-2011, 02:20 PM
X-Ray ZOC = bad for DBA.

I'm happy with the interpretation that any unit fully or partially blocking ZOC is providing physical and/or morale support to allow the moving unit to proceed.

And in terms of pure game mechanics, even a partially intervening unit fully prevents the threatening unit from actually advancing onto the exposed flank of the moving unit, and therefore that opposing unit is in no way a real threat at the moment of the move. I would not want to be required to act like it's a threat when it is not.

Doug
01-25-2011, 08:36 PM
Defensive much? I was agreeing with you, that it was not appropriate for DBA.

Nobody is arguing with you about preventing impossible-contact-positioning.

But the idea that X-ray ZOC prevents impossible contact positioning is simply incorrect. The most egregious examples of impossible-contact-positioning get set up before ZOC hits them, and involve the FRONT elements, not rear dudes.

Also agree, but there are multiple issues here that you are conflating. 1 is the positioning to avoid contact, which the 'x-ray' ZOC doesn't solve, and needs some other mechanism. In DBMM it is essentially, 'shuffle things till they do get into legal contact by moving elements aside or back'. The second issue, which IS addressed, is what constitutes an intervening element.

Doug
01-25-2011, 08:46 PM
X-Ray ZOC = bad for DBA.

I'm happy with the interpretation that any unit fully or partially blocking ZOC is providing physical and/or morale support to allow the moving unit to proceed.

And in terms of pure game mechanics, even a partially intervening unit fully prevents the threatening unit from actually advancing onto the exposed flank of the moving unit, and therefore that opposing unit is in no way a real threat at the moment of the move. I would not want to be required to act like it's a threat when it is not.

If you go back in the thread, you will find a link to a very nice webpage about the multiple ways in which 'intervening' can be interpreted. This kind of vagueness or uncertainty causes half the problems when umpiring. Resolving it with a better definition would IMHO be unequivocally a good thing. DBMM solves it one way, whether this is appropriate for DBA is up to Phil to decide.

Personally I am not sure this 'cure' is better than the uncertainty it is trying to correct.

winterbadger
01-25-2011, 09:00 PM
If you go back in the thread, you will find a link to a very nice webpage about the multiple ways in which 'intervening' can be interpreted. This kind of vagueness or uncertainty causes half the problems when umpiring. Resolving it with a better definition would IMHO be unequivocally a good thing. DBMM solves it one way, whether this is appropriate for DBA is up to Phil to decide.

Personally I am not sure this 'cure' is better than the uncertainty it is trying to correct.

I think there's a quite adequate definition/interp in place already that doesn't have any uncertainty attached to it. Not liking it is one thing, but I don't think the problem is that there isn't one.

ETA: I see nowhere in this thread where anyone has linked to a page with examples of multiple interpretations. Perhaps I have missed it; could you point it out?

Could you also provide diagrams of the multiple instances you've described of ways to supposedly create uncontactable elements in the current DBA rules? I've pointed out, given what I understood of your descriptions, how these elements were not uncontactable and asked for clarification in case I was misunderstanding something, and you've skipped on to make other assertions (which then also got questioned...) without ever clarifying.

Thanks! :)

Doug
01-25-2011, 09:46 PM
I think there's a quite adequate definition/interp in place already that doesn't have any uncertainty attached to it. Not liking it is one thing, but I don't think the problem is that there isn't one.

I think there are multiple interpretations, I assume you are referring to the WADBAG one, which has no official status?

ETA: I see nowhere in this thread where anyone has linked to a page with examples of multiple interpretations. Perhaps I have missed it; could you point it out?

Ok, it must have been another thread, IIRC, David Kujit posted one with multiple examples of how it could be interpreted, Daviod, could you post the link again?

Could you also provide diagrams of the multiple instances you've described of ways to supposedly create uncontactable elements in the current DBA rules? I've pointed out, given what I understood of your descriptions,

I actually can't as I don't have a graphics program on this PC that will let me do partial rotations, but I will try and describe it.

Take one element, place at an approximately 45-60 degree angle and right next the table edge, facing the table edge, make sure the corner closest to the edge is sufficiently close that it can never be contacted because any contacting element would be hanging over the table edge. Take the next element and place it so it is at an angle such that it is angled back from the first at roughly 89 degrees, facing in from the table edge. It covers the flank of the first element with the ZoC so element 1 can never be contacted. Now take element 3 and place is at roughly the same angle as element 1, so that element 2 can never be contacted, as you can't get an element into that space as the angle between elements 2 & 3 is less than 90. And so on until you reach your base edge. You eventually end up with a /VVVVV\ formation where the inner faces can never be contacted because the angle is too acute to allow an attacker to get an element in, and the flank edges can never be attacked because the TZ of the neighbouring element prevents it.

Now this is very unlikely, but possible, and is is a completely passive formation. You guarantee a draw as you can never be attacked.

Much more common is the hanging flank overlap, where you can place an element behind another such that it can't be attacked frontally, and for whatever reason, (another element, table edge, etc) it can't be attacked from the flank despite having 39.99999mm exposed. Or is angled such it can never be contacted legally as the only exposed area is a corner or partial edge.

This is the real challenge to find a cure for. I can tell you how DBMM does it, but I immediately get jumped on, and anything from another set immediately poo-poo'd.

And for those who want to pigeonhole me as a DBMM player, I will be arrogant enough to point out I am current ACT Open Champion over the four tournaments for the year, and current Australian DBA Open Champion 2011 with last Monday's Cancon competition. So I can assure you, I play a bit of DBA as well.

Doug
01-25-2011, 09:56 PM
Found the link, it was on another one of those interminable threads about moving/contacting etc the ZoC (indication enough to my mind that there is a problem that needs addressing.)

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/ZOC/ZOCheuristics.htm

Have a look at that and tell me the ZoC is clear and doesn't cause queries or problems of interpretation. Whether any proposed solution is better than the problem is another question altogether.

Rich Gause
01-25-2011, 10:09 PM
I think there are multiple interpretations, I assume you are referring to the WADBAG one, which has no official status?



Ok, it must have been another thread, IIRC, David Kujit posted one with multiple examples of how it could be interpreted, Daviod, could you post the link again?



I actually can't as I don't have a graphics program on this PC that will let me do partial rotations, but I will try and describe it.

Take one element, place at an approximately 45-60 degree angle and right next the table edge, facing the table edge, make sure the corner closest to the edge is sufficiently close that it can never be contacted because any contacting element would be hanging over the table edge. Take the next element and place it so it is at an angle such that it is angled back from the first at roughly 89 degrees, facing in from the table edge. It covers the flank of the first element with the ZoC so element 1 can never be contacted. Now take element 3 and place is at roughly the same angle as element 1, so that element 2 can never be contacted, as you can't get an element into that space as the angle between elements 2 & 3 is less than 90. And so on until you reach your base edge. You eventually end up with a /VVVVV\ formation where the inner faces can never be contacted because the angle is too acute to allow an attacker to get an element in, and the flank edges can never be attacked because the TZ of the neighbouring element prevents it.

Now this is very unlikely, but possible, and is is a completely passive formation. You guarantee a draw as you can never be attacked.

Much more common is the hanging flank overlap, where you can place an element behind another such that it can't be attacked frontally, and for whatever reason, (another element, table edge, etc) it can't be attacked from the flank despite having 39.99999mm exposed. Or is angled such it can never be contacted legally as the only exposed area is a corner or partial edge.

This is the real challenge to find a cure for. I can tell you how DBMM does it, but I immediately get jumped on, and anything from another set immediately poo-poo'd.

And for those who want to pigeonhole me as a DBMM player, I will be arrogant enough to point out I am current ACT Open Champion over the four tournaments for the year, and current Australian DBA Open Champion 2011 with last Monday's Cancon competition. So I can assure you, I play a bit of DBA as well.

Sounds like a problem with somebody's tournament scoring rules and the fix is pretty simple. Score a draw the same as a loss. In HMGS South and East competitions we use the NASMW scoring rules and I have never seen anybody do any of these silly play for a draw ploys. You wouldn't play to deliberately lose and if thats what it amounts to a lot of sillyness goes away. The you can't contact ploys I have seen invariably seem to involve putting your army in a position that you will never have the pips to get it out of. If a broken scoring system rewards you for draws then that might seem like a good idea I suppose. Why anybody would even bother playing if that was there game plan is sort of baffling.........

Rich Gause
01-25-2011, 10:14 PM
Found the link, it was on another one of those interminable threads about moving/contacting etc the ZoC (indication enough to my mind that there is a problem that needs addressing.)

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/ZOC/ZOCheuristics.htm

Have a look at that and tell me the ZoC is clear and doesn't cause queries or problems of interpretation. Whether any proposed solution is better than the problem is another question altogether.

That is an old problem from before everybody with any sense started playing "rolling carpet" method. If Phil wanted to make it clearer that that is how ZOC works that would be a good idea, but there is no confusion as far as I can tell that that is the way it works. Trying to make it work a different way by changing the rules would not be a good idea IMO.

Rich Gause
01-25-2011, 10:19 PM
I think that it could cause all sorts of problems to try to eliminate silly no-contact ploys, which don't really seem to be a problem, by altering the contact rules. The recoil rules and the small number of elements and the pip system for moving seem to make most of them bad ideas anyway. Do people usually use them to try for a draw? If so that seems simple to fix.

Doug
01-25-2011, 10:41 PM
Sounds like a problem with somebody's tournament scoring rules and the fix is pretty simple. Score a draw the same as a loss. In HMGS South and East competitions we use the NASMW scoring rules and I have never seen anybody do any of these silly play for a draw ploys. You wouldn't play to deliberately lose and if thats what it amounts to a lot of sillyness goes away. The you can't contact ploys I have seen invariably seem to involve putting your army in a position that you will never have the pips to get it out of. If a broken scoring system rewards you for draws then that might seem like a good idea I suppose. Why anybody would even bother playing if that was there game plan is sort of baffling.........

One of the reasons why in the standard scoring system we score a draw less than a loss to encourage players to fight - 8 points for a win, 1 for a loss + casualties up to a maximum of three, draws score 0 plus casualties etc.

And it's not a problem with the scoring system, it's a problem with some players mentality. Only one or two, but for example, if by drawing you deny your opponent the chance of a win, then you can help someone else. Assume two friends are playing a comp, and one has a chance to win the comp, but another player is currently leading, and is playing his friend. A draw in that game might be good enough to allow player 1 to win the comp.

I am not saying it happens, only saying that there are scenarios where it might make sense (of some twisted sort) to play for a draw. For example, I am leading a comp, I am drawn against the only player who can catch me. I set up as above, guarantee the draw and win the comp.

kontos
01-25-2011, 11:42 PM
One of the reasons why in the standard scoring system we score a draw less than a loss to encourage players to fight - 8 points for a win, 1 for a loss + casualties up to a maximum of three, draws score 0 plus casualties etc.

And it's not a problem with the scoring system, it's a problem with some players mentality. Only one or two, but for example, if by drawing you deny your opponent the chance of a win, then you can help someone else. Assume two friends are playing a comp, and one has a chance to win the comp, but another player is currently leading, and is playing his friend. A draw in that game might be good enough to allow player 1 to win the comp.

I am not saying it happens, only saying that there are scenarios where it might make sense (of some twisted sort) to play for a draw. For example, I am leading a comp, I am drawn against the only player who can catch me. I set up as above, guarantee the draw and win the comp.

Enjoy your trophy. I couldn't bring myself to win that way. It's just me and no insult intended. Most DBA players I have encountered in my 3 short years of playing play each game for the win. Even then, for most, again, it is about having fun. I have enough medals, plaques and trophies from competitive sports. This is my hobby. My 2 cents.

Frank

david kuijt
01-25-2011, 11:54 PM
I think that it could cause all sorts of problems to try to eliminate silly no-contact ploys, which don't really seem to be a problem, by altering the contact rules.

If done wrong, yes. But there are several ways to do it right that are quite simple and easy. One example is in the HOTT rules -- if a group contacts a single element, that element must conform unless doing so would prevent its recoil. Works fine to prevent the stupid multi-angled formations and still permit reasonably historical variety of formations.

And there are people who do that stuff -- mostly we mock them mercilessly and otherwise apply social pressure, to which some are subject and some are immune. But it has happened.

There are other solutions, of course. But the X-ray ZOC is not such a solution, and causes all sorts of problems in DBA. Just say No!

Andrew Ford
01-26-2011, 12:12 AM
Enjoy your trophy. I couldn't bring myself to win that way. It's just me and no insult intended. Most DBA players I have encountered in my 3 short years of playing play each game for the win. Even then, for most, again, it is about having fun. I have enough medals, plaques and trophies from competitive sports. This is my hobby. My 2 cents.

Frank

Frank

Doug wasn't talking about his own approach to games, as I can attest from facing and watching him in many battles. However, he and I and many other people here know someone (who doesn't turn up any more) who did things like that quite often. I've also heard of a few others.

Back on topic, I don't like the idea of x-ray ZOC/TZ in DBA, for all the reasons DK and others have brought up.

Cheers

Andrew Ford

Doug
01-26-2011, 12:23 AM
If done wrong, yes. But there are several ways to do it right that are quite simple and easy. One example is in the HOTT rules -- if a group contacts a single element, that element must conform unless doing so would prevent its recoil. Works fine to prevent the stupid multi-angled formations and still permit reasonably historical variety of formations.

Which is another mechanism that works (partially) - I would just like to see an end to the stupid geometrical stuff where players position elements 'just so' - with less than 40mm gaps, where the real historical prototype would just get stuck in.

And there are people who do that stuff -- mostly we mock them mercilessly and otherwise apply social pressure, to which some are subject and some are immune. But it has happened.

Completely agree, but the problem is that cheese is in the perception. As an example, in the last game at Cancon, I was three elements up, had an isolated enemy kn at which I threw my general in the front, another Kn into the rear, and a cavalry into the side - for a 5-2 (no recoil) shot at winning the game, but seeing i had 6 PIPS I also moved a LH front corner just behind an enemy Sp that I could shoot at with overlap.. for a 2-3 (no recoil) shot at winning. The second move is one I dislike intensely, but is legal. (PS. - guess which one came off?)

One of the rules I do like in DBMM is that blocking a recoil doesn't automatically kill. If you have closed the door, yes, but simply sticking a toe behind an opponent doesn't work. An element takes an additional -1 for being unable to recoil, but it's not an automatic kill. I have tried it with DBA as an experiment, and it actually removes some of the cheese, because the pay-off for the move isn't so big, and usually these sort of moves involve a degree of risk to the moving player if they don't come off.

Richard Lee
01-26-2011, 05:05 AM
Sounds like a problem with somebody's tournament scoring rules and the fix is pretty simple. Score a draw the same as a loss.

Some tournaments have a draw score less than a loss (e.g. 3 points for a win, 1 for a loss, nil for a draw).

Richard Lee
01-26-2011, 05:09 AM
One of the reasons why in the standard scoring system we score a draw less than a loss to encourage players to fight - 8 points for a win, 1 for a loss + casualties up to a maximum of three, draws score 0 plus casualties etc.

Sorry, my previous reply was done before I saw Doug's post.:o

winterbadger
01-26-2011, 09:31 AM
Take one element, place at an approximately 45-60 degree angle and right next the table edge, facing the table edge, make sure the corner closest to the edge is sufficiently close that it can never be contacted because any contacting element would be hanging over the table edge...

OK, after a lot of fiddling around, I see what you're talking about. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

But I'm going to agree with some of the others who have posted here. Someone who is going to resort to that sort of tactic in order to achieve a draw is not someone who should be encouraged to play in polite society, and there are ways of dealing with that sort of behaviour, including altering competition scoring rules and outright social pressure, that don't require that the rules of the game be rearranged. Frankly I think a tournament director should be entitled to award a 4-0 win to the opponent of a player who sets up a formation like that.

IMO, the rules should take account of situations that can arise during normal play, and they should strive to portray history through the lens of the game. But people who want to screw with the rules of the game just so as to get their yayas are like hackers--prepared to spend endless amounts of time and imagination on their own twisted little agenda. Why make them the focus of the game by constantly trying to tweak the rules? If there's a simple solution, take it; but let's not make the game harder to play or substantially alter the way it plays only so as to plug a hole in the cheese dike.

Tony Aguilar
01-26-2011, 09:47 AM
But I'm going to agree with some of the others who have posted here. Someone who is going to resort to that sort of tactic in order to achieve a draw is not someone who should be encouraged to play in polite society, and there are ways of dealing with that sort of behaviour, including altering competition scoring rules and outright social pressure, that don't require that the rules of the game be rearranged. Frankly I think a tournament director should be entitled to award a 4-0 win to the opponent of a player who sets up a formation like that.

IMO, the rules should take account of situations that can arise during normal play, and they should strive to portray history through the lens of the game. But people who want to screw with the rules of the game just so as to get their yayas are like hackers--prepared to spend endless amounts of time and imagination on their own twisted little agenda. Why make them the focus of the game by constantly trying to tweak the rules? If there's a simple solution, take it; but let's not make the game harder to play or substantially alter the way it plays only so as to plug a hole in the cheese dike.


I'll take it a step further and say that anyone who plays that way is probably not someone you want to play with anyway because they are a butthole in real life. Playing DBA, for me at least, has been about playing with friends and people that are amicable with each other - more so than any other game. These are folks I look forward to seeing again and again every year to take part with in our favorite hobby.
(Yes, even Larry :))

Martyn
01-26-2011, 11:42 AM
Is this a case of how big is the problem, clearly Doug has had some experience of this sort of gamesmanship, but how widespread is it?

I would agree with the sentiments expressed by Winterbadger that we should not skew the rules in an attempt to solve a problem which hardly exists. Gamesmanship is an inherent part of competition gaming (although limited in DBA circles due to the active community). Any rule or rule set is going to be subject to it no matter how comprehensive. We risk ruining the game, making it more complex, for very little perceivable benefit.

On the previous question of x-ray ZoC I feel that it is not appropriate for DBA, others have expounded the reasons which for me is primarily the difference in scale gives it an affect which is out of proportion.

Rich Gause
01-26-2011, 12:00 PM
If done wrong, yes. But there are several ways to do it right that are quite simple and easy. One example is in the HOTT rules -- if a group contacts a single element, that element must conform unless doing so would prevent its recoil. Works fine to prevent the stupid multi-angled formations and still permit reasonably historical variety of formations.


That is one that should be OK, especially the part about not preventing recoil.

Martyn
01-26-2011, 12:21 PM
In HoTT any single element contacted by a group must conform. The same in DBM (but with additional exceptions)

In DBA only single elements of Ps or LH contacted by a group conform otherwise the moving side conforms.

Why the difference?

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 03:35 PM
Should a player have a choice if their element has an enemy element in a ZOC to engage that element as the players first choice.
Only secondly reacting to being in an enemy ZOC.


I would like to see the end of the ZOC rule all together. It would easily destroy everyone's current understanding of DBA and introduce a different mechanic to the game, but it would also allow for realistic moves.

Why force me not to make a foolish move? Why not let the rules penalize me for making the move, rather than forcing me not to make it? If I want to march my unit across the front of my enemy army and expose my flank, why shouldn't I be able to? Yes, they should trash the element as a consequence.

The ZOC rules easily account for 60% of the insanity that arises from trying to figure it the minute details of how the rules work and frankly I don't think it's worth all the effort.

My solution is to: Not force an element to turn to face an attacking element until their player's bound, thus giving the attacking element a flank bonus during the bound that they came into contact of a +2 or +3 bonus for doing so. That would solve all of the problems: it would make the game go faster, it would still penalize crazy movement, and it would resolve all of the fiddly rules issues involving ZOCs.

Also, it just made me realize that there's really no drawback for being charged to the flank/rear in the current DBA scheme except the troop deployment... How can we justify that really? ;)

Would it turn DBA into something else entirely? I would say no, not completely, but it would change a lot.

n.

winterbadger
01-26-2011, 03:45 PM
Why force me not to make a foolish move? Why not let the rules penalize me for making the move, rather than forcing me not to make it? If I want to march my unit across the front of my enemy army and expose my flank, why shouldn't I be able to? Yes, they should trash the element as a consequence.

In part because you would then also be able to make moves that historically units would not or could not make because the other mechanics of the game do not fully allow for the reactions that would have taken place that caused commanders not to make those moves.

Unless you want to start larding the game with opportunity fire and reaction charge rules. That's a road I'd like *not* to go down, though.

ferrency
01-26-2011, 04:12 PM
I would like to see the end of the ZOC rule all together.

I disagree. I think ZOC contributes to DBA in a positive way, from a tactical perspective.

"Moving across an enemy's front" is not limited to bad ideas, it also includes many unrealistic tactics that convey an advantage to the moving element's side.

The biggest counterexample I can think of is the case of two enemy lines at 39mm apart. Currently they have very few tactical options: charge, move backwards one element at a time, or stand still. Without ZOC, individual elements could slide diagonally to contact elements that aren't directly in front of them, allowing for what I would say is far too much tactical flexibility for two lines that are this close to each other.

Without ZOC, after you recoil a light horse, it can swoop around and contact your flank on its turn. Or a bow can slide sideways out of the way and let the Blade behind it charge at you instead.

The case of using ZOC to protect a flank from enemy attack is minor compared to some of the other things that would change if ZOC were removed.

Maybe you've considered all the implications and decided you'd still prefer to remove ZOC. I've only considered some of the implications, but there's enough tactical change here that I don't think you'd be left with the same game (or a better game) without ZOC.

Alan

nomad
01-26-2011, 04:53 PM
I disagree. I think ZOC contributes to DBA in a positive way, from a tactical perspective.


I agree ... in general, I dislike any massive change to a ruleset, esp. those that have stood the test of time. Individually, people are free to tweak them any way they like, but in the end you're not really playing DBA.

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 05:25 PM
In part because you would then also be able to make moves that historically units would not or could not make because the other mechanics of the game do not fully allow for the reactions that would have taken place that caused commanders not to make those moves..

I would argue that ZOC rules are nefariously un-historic. You mean my unit in real life wouldn't be able to back away and then turn slightly just because I was 150 paces away from them at some point?

There are examples of foolish maneuvers in history that saw units devastated, they were rare because they were foolish. And they would still be rare even without the ZOC rules!

Down with the ZOC rules! ;)

n.

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 05:29 PM
The biggest counterexample I can think of is the case of two enemy lines at 39mm apart. Currently they have very few tactical options: charge, move backwards one element at a time, or stand still. Without ZOC, individual elements could slide diagonally to contact elements that aren't directly in front of them, allowing for what I would say is far too much tactical flexibility for two lines that are this close to each other.


Well, you'd have to have a whole schwack of pips to slide all of your units over diagonally :) More than 6 if it's early in the game. Anything you might gain, you'd lose in deployment as your lines would become disjointed I think.


Without ZOC, after you recoil a light horse, it can swoop around and contact your flank on its turn. Or a bow can slide sideways out of the way and let the Blade behind it charge at you instead.


And why not? It's certainly different from the current DBA reality, but not unrealistic. Removing the ZOC would change a lot, but I don't think it would create infeasible movement. Light horse should be able to swing around everywhere! Bow would have ran away!

I've played all kinds of historical games without ZOC rules... In fact, DBA is the only real ZOC rule game I've ever played... And I am starting to feel like ZOCs are just plain odd :)

Down with the ZOCs!

n.

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 05:31 PM
Down with the ZOC!

All in good, intelectual fun of course :) I agree, it would change DBA. It might not even be DBA anymore... but it would still be a great, fast, decisive and satisfying game. In fact, it would be greater, faster, more decisive and arguably more satisfying without the fiddly ZOC-related movement rules!

n.

winterbadger
01-26-2011, 05:49 PM
I would argue that ZOC rules are nefariously un-historic. You mean my unit in real life wouldn't be able to back away and then turn slightly just because I was 150 paces away from them at some point?

Picking at specific distance is picking at nits. You mean all bows can only shoot at 200 paces? Wait, I can find out about such and such bows that shot at 250 paces--let's change those rules too!

It's not that a unit *couldn't* make a foolish maneuver, but that it wouldn't. And a commander might have gauged a little close or a little far, but he'd have a good idea of what the danger zone was.

There are examples of foolish maneuvers in history that saw units devastated, they were rare because they were foolish. And they would still be rare even without the ZOC rules!

OK, first of all, enshrining rare events in rules that way makes them commonplace. That's very bad design.

Second of all, as I said before, if you really want to give the reactive player the opportunity to punish the active player for foolish moves very close to the enemy, you have to add all sorts of rules for things that are not currently in DBA. Opportunity fire. Opportunity charges. Reaction charges. Countercharges. We can add all that to DBA, but it's going to be much more complex, much more fiddly, and probably much less fun to play, for no appreciable increase in historical fidelity.

Seriously, go play Newbury Ancients or Shock of Impact for a weekend or two and come back and tell me you really want DBA to be more like that.

If what you really want is to see players make foolish moves, you don't need to muck with the rules for ZOCs to do that. Just come over to the DAHGS DBA night on Thursdays--you'll see plenty of foolish moves! :silly

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 06:04 PM
It's not that a unit *couldn't* make a foolish maneuver, but that it wouldn't. And a commander might have gauged a little close or a little far, but he'd have a good idea of what the danger zone was.


I agree completely! But let me, as the general representative of the army decide that instead of fiddly, complex movement rules!


If what you really want is to see players make foolish moves, you don't need to muck with the rules for ZOCs to do that. Just come over to the DAHGS DBA night on Thursdays--you'll see plenty of foolish moves! :silly

I totally relate to that... I don't even have to go anywhere, my own moves certainly fit that bill on a regular basis... :rotfl

But yeah, I agree that making any historical analogy is kidna goofy, since DBA is only inspired by history, but doesn't really emulate it! I vote to strike any historical comparison from the discussion going forward!

Down with the ZOC!

n.

winterbadger
01-26-2011, 06:35 PM
I agree completely! But let me, as the general representative of the army decide that instead of fiddly, complex movement rules!

Except that the only way I can see you're going to get it is by increasing the number of fiddly, complex rules. If you think ZOC rules are bad now, just wait until you bolt all of those reaction rules onto the game. Might as well go play WRG 7...

Rich Gause
01-26-2011, 06:46 PM
I think the ZOC rules are a elegantly simple way of mitigating some of the silly ways people can exploit an IGO UGO game system which while being needed to have a simple playable game is also open to all sorts of silliness because units aren't moving silmultaneously so that you either need a simple mechanism like ZOC or all sorts of hideously complex reaction and oppurtunity charge rules.

Rich Gause
01-26-2011, 06:49 PM
Seriously, go play Newbury Ancients or Shock of Impact for a weekend or two and come back and tell me you really want DBA to be more like that.

:silly


I used to play a lot of Tercio which was the Renaissance version by the Shock of Impact people and tried SoI. I prefer DBA!!!!!!!!

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 07:11 PM
Except that the only way I can see you're going to get it is by increasing the number of fiddly, complex rules. If you think ZOC rules are bad now, just wait until you bolt all of those reaction rules onto the game. Might as well go play WRG 7...

But I already answered this...

Player A's element makes contact with player B's during their bound, then player A's element gets a +2 bonus to its combat factor and player B's element doesn't turn to face until player B's bound. Recoiling takes place as though the element had turned to face.

Same for the rear, except +3 or +4 or something. I'm not solid on the increased combat factors, but you get the gist.

Much, much simpler.

n.

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 07:13 PM
I think the ZOC rules are a elegantly simple way of mitigating some of the silly ways people can exploit an IGO UGO game system which while being needed to have a simple playable game is also open to all sorts of silliness because units aren't moving simultaneously so that you either need a simple mechanism like ZOC or all sorts of hideously complex reaction and oppurtunity charge rules.

I don't think they're simple. They certainly solve the problem, but I feel they introduce many more problems... That's just my opinion of course, developed after being involved in long games that languished due to strange ZOC-created rules lawyering...

There's no need to have opportunity mechanisms either; we're not trying to emulate reality, but produce a fast, interesting, decisive and compelling game!

Down with the ZOC :)

n.

winterbadger
01-26-2011, 07:22 PM
But I already answered this...

Player A's element makes contact with player B's during their bound, then player A's element gets a +2 bonus to its combat factor and player B's element doesn't turn to face until player B's bound. Recoiling takes place as though the element had turned to face.

Same for the rear, except +3 or +4 or something. I'm not solid on the increased combat factors, but you get the gist.

Much, much simpler.

n.

Sorry, didn't see that bit before.

But you're talking about only a very small part of why the ZOC rules are there.

The stop-motion speed of DBA is possible only because you have the ZOC rules. What you're talking about are changes that affect things outside the ZOC rules.

If you don't prohibit movement across the front in close proximity, you have to allow the element that is being moved in front of to interrupt the movement to shoot and/or charge. Because that's what it would do in most cases, historically, which is why the active unit wouldn't move that close except to make contact or to move away. Otherwise you get *really* unhistorical results.

So then you have to have in-phase sequencing and all the things I've pointed out you really don't want to add to the rules.

As I keep saying, try a game where this low-level tactical stuff is abstracted and imagine trying to do the same thing at a smaller table scale (since those tactical games usually use a lot more space to place the same game). Really, you'll see why were a lot better off, at the scale of DBA, using an abstraction.

And, as I said before, even you acknowledge that this rarely if ever happened in battles. Design a game that allows rare events to be common, and players will make them common. And then you have a bad game.

winterbadger
01-26-2011, 07:24 PM
There's no need to have opportunity mechanisms either; we're not trying to emulate reality, but produce a fast, interesting, decisive and compelling game!

Uh, if you;'re not interested in producing a game that's related to reality, could you move over to the HOTT board? I *do* want a game that involves both realism and fun. And I think that's achievable. but not by abolishing ZOCs.

Down with the ZOC :)

That repetition is really annoying, FWIW. Don't know if that's your intent or not.

ferrency
01-26-2011, 07:45 PM
I would argue that ZOC rules are nefariously un-historic. You mean my unit in real life wouldn't be able to back away and then turn slightly just because I was 150 paces away from them at some point?

I think many of the abstract aspects of DBA implicitly disallow ahistorical use of troops. "Elements may not move across an enemy element's front" is one example of this, but not the only case.

As an example, consider skirmishing troops such as Psiloi. Most rule sets deal with skirmishers through the use of special rules for retreating from a charge. In those rules, skirmishers retreat from heavy foot, and thus aren't destroyed.

But what if a general doesn't want to retreat, or forgets the rule exists? In this case, the skirmishers are destroyed by the heavy foot. This is not historically accurate, because any time heavy foot came close to skirmishers, they retreated. Not only was it their job, but they're human, they're not hanging around to see how the sausage is made.

DBA handles this very gracefully: you, as the general, can do whatever you want with your troops, but they will behave the way they behave. You can attempt to take out heavy foot with your skirmishers, but no matter how many times you throw them against a wall of blades, they'll never die for you. Instead, they will act the way skirmishers act, and will run away.

I think ZoC is another similar abstraction. Historically, if you turn and present your flank to the enemy within charge range, or even give up your solid footing, you'll be charged and destroyed.

Within the time frame of one turn in DBA, and without ZoC rules to stop you, an element can move through danger and out the other side. Instead of presenting the enemy an opportunity to attack in the middle of a bad maneuver, the movement distances allow an element to pass through a bad maneuver into a safe position.


In the end, it comes down to personal preference: you either you like ZoC or you don't. Personally I like the ZoC rules and what they add to the game. However, I agree that the rule wording itself could stand some revision for clarification. I just suggest that it is folly to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Alan

ferrency
01-26-2011, 07:48 PM
Well, you'd have to have a whole schwack of pips to slide all of your units over diagonally :) More than 6 if it's early in the game. Anything you might gain, you'd lose in deployment as your lines would become disjointed I think.

I recommend you play out a scenario like this against Larry or Rich without ZoC in effect, before you underestimate the value of swapping even one pair of elements in a surprise last-minute manueuver :)

Alan

ferrency
01-26-2011, 07:51 PM
It's not that a unit *couldn't* make a foolish maneuver, but that it wouldn't.

Yes, this!

DBA doesn't let you be a bad unit commander. You can still be a bad general, but you don't get direct command of the units, you only give orders to their commanders.

Alan

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 07:58 PM
Uh, if you;'re not interested in producing a game that's related to reality, could you move over to the HOTT board? I *do* want a game that involves both realism and fun. And I think that's achievable. but not by abolishing ZOCs.


Interestingly, HotT has the same problem as DBA in regards to ZOCs... Also, I didn't say that it shouldn't *relate* to reality, but that since DBA doesn't currently really *emulate* reality, why should a replacement system bother with it ;) I think the ZOC rule is really just a contrivance to fix the movement issue in DBA 1.0.

Down with the ZOC? I'm not trying to be annoying, just reaffirming my opinion to myself... If I don't it might change unexpectedly ;)

Thanks
n.

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 07:59 PM
Yes, this!

DBA doesn't let you be a bad unit commander. You can still be a bad general, but you don't get direct command of the units, you only give orders to their commanders.

Alan

Wouldn't a bad unit commander be one that refuses to obey the general's orders or that fails to get his troops to follow those same orders?

n.

ferrency
01-26-2011, 08:00 PM
But I already answered this...

Player A's element makes contact with player B's during their bound, then player A's element gets a +2 bonus to its combat factor and player B's element doesn't turn to face until player B's bound. Recoiling takes place as though the element had turned to face.

Same for the rear, except +3 or +4 or something. I'm not solid on the increased combat factors, but you get the gist.

Much, much simpler.

This is not complete. It's only useful in cases where an element moves into what was previously an enemy ZoC, and ends up in a position that the enemy can take advantage of.

- It doesn't handle moving out of an enemy's ZoC to attack a different element
- It doesn't handle moving through or out of an enemy's ZoC far enough away that the enemy can't contact them at the end of the move

Your rule says: the only time a unit should be penalized for moving near the enemy is when they are dumb enough to stop with their flank or rear near the enemy. But walking past an enemy until you're far enough away that you can't be contacted is fine, because they'll just happily wait there until you're finished with your turn?

You need way more "fiddly" in that substitute rule, to make the ZoC-likers happy. Because until you add more "fiddly," it won't work like ZoCs, and therefore we won't like it :) So you might as well just cut to the chase and keep using the ZoC rule instead. Better the "fiddly" you know than the "fiddly" you don't.

Alan

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 08:02 PM
Interstingly, I've played many games without ZOCs... Actually, the only game with ZOC rules that I've ever played is DBA/HotT. Those games without ZOCs don't feel broken at all... Warhammer (I blame the lists, not the mechanics for WAB's failure!), Kigns of War, Black Powder, etc. etc.

But honestly, my light horse can pass through a 30mm gap in your line without hinderance if it wants to... that fact alone seems to undermine all of the arguments about the ZOC rule hindering unrealistic movement... No?

n.

neldoreth
01-26-2011, 08:06 PM
But walking past an enemy until you're far enough away that you can't be contacted is fine, because they'll just happily wait there until you're finished with your turn?

But as with my above light horse example, in that LH can pass through a 30mm gap in your line without trouble, you can in fact do this in DBA already. How do you reconcile that, even though it's quite unrealistic?

Thanks
n.

ferrency
01-26-2011, 08:10 PM
Wouldn't a bad unit commander be one that refuses to obey the general's orders or that fails to get his troops to follow those same orders?

I'm not in the military and never have been, so my attitude may be naive or inaccurate w.r.t. the US military's rules and regulations. However, in the world of business I would call this the attitude of a poor delegator: one who insists on micromanaging, instead of providing high level instructions and trusting minions to carry them out effectively.

I really think you're thinking too low-level for a general in the time period dealt with by DBA. The general can tell units to go wherever they want, but if they won't fit, they won't fit; and hopefully they won't die trying either.


Alan

ferrency
01-26-2011, 08:22 PM
But as with my above light horse example, in that LH can pass through a 30mm gap in your line without trouble, you can in fact do this in DBA already. How do you reconcile that, even though it's quite unrealistic?

I don't reconcile it? :)

Whether that maneuver is unrealistic or not depends on other factors.

What are the two enemies you're passing between doing? Are they engaged, or potentially engaged (in someone's ZoC) frontally? If so, I don't think the LH move would be unrealistic.

Are the two elements that form the gap heavy foot? If so, I doubt they have enough speed or maneuverability to stop a unit of LH without completely destroying their own formation, so that's a realistic move by the LH.

And in this case, the LH move may contain its own penalty: it leaves the LH alone and cut off from supporting elements. Unless it was able to move well clear of the enemy line, it may be dealt with easily in the next turn, or may not.

I think this situation is handled very similarly to your substitute for the ZoC rule: be permissive and let the general hang themselves by choosing to do something dumb. That's even more evident in the case of a unit such as a blade deciding to interpenetrate a gap in the enemy line, rather than a light horse. The blade won't clear the enemy line, so if the surrounding elements are free to move, they can surround and kill it easily.

Alan

Andrew Ford
01-26-2011, 09:32 PM
If you abolish ZOC, a LH can zoom from one end of the line to the other, thumbing its nose at all the troops (including bows) 1 mm off its flank, and be completely safe at the conclusion of its move (perhaps even get onto a flank for combat advantages).

On the other hand, if you have x-ray ZOC, your LH can't zoom along just behind your line.

My preference is to leave ZOC as it is and explain it more clearly.

Andrew Ford

david kuijt
01-26-2011, 11:08 PM
Wouldn't a bad unit commander be one that refuses to obey the general's orders or that fails to get his troops to follow those same orders?


No. That's a very simplistic and unrealistic view.

There is a famous proverb in the military -- never give an order that you know won't be obeyed.

In other words, every effort of the military into making the troops obedient to orders will never prevent situations where there are some things you cannot ask troops to do.

Further, the situation before the rise of systematic professional military (which is way after the end of the DBA period) is so much worse than your concept that it is laughable -- there is no chain of command, there is a chain of loyalty (often dubious) and each link in the chain makes up his own mind about whether he is going to obey orders or do whatever he bloody well pleases.

david kuijt
01-26-2011, 11:16 PM
[LH movement example unrelated to ZOC removed] How do you reconcile that, even though it's quite unrealistic?


Neldoreth, look at what you're saying above. This argument boils down to:

"Here's something else unrealistic -- if this is allowed, then my favorite unrealistic thing should also be allowed."

This is the "if it ain't perfect, it ain't defensible" argument.

That makes no sense. If you went to the Federal government and said "Look, so-and-so got away with violating the law in speeding, so you can't convict me of this other violation of the law (income tax evasion, for example)" what do you think would happen?

Rich Gause
01-27-2011, 01:43 AM
I don't think they're simple. They certainly solve the problem, but I feel they introduce many more problems... That's just my opinion of course, developed after being involved in long games that languished due to strange ZOC-created rules lawyering...

There's no need to have opportunity mechanisms either; we're not trying to emulate reality, but produce a fast, interesting, decisive and compelling game!

Down with the ZOC :)

n.

Could you explain some examples of strange ZOC-created rules lawyering?

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 10:28 AM
Further, the situation before the rise of systematic professional military (which is way after the end of the DBA period) is so much worse than your concept that it is laughable -- there is no chain of command, there is a chain of loyalty (often dubious) and each link in the chain makes up his own mind about whether he is going to obey orders or do whatever he bloody well pleases.

Since the above statement pretty-much invalidates the whole 'hand of god' idea behind gamers controlling armies, we hit a wall... In light of that, on top of pip rolls, perhaps we should introduce random movement rules! I am up for it, it would be entertaining at least!

n.

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 10:41 AM
Neldoreth, look at what you're saying above. This argument boils down to:

"Here's something else unrealistic -- if this is allowed, then my favorite unrealistic thing should also be allowed."

This is the "if it ain't perfect, it ain't defensible" argument.


That's not what I'm saying DK. Please note my comment below:

But yeah, I agree that making any historical analogy is kidna goofy, since DBA is only inspired by history, but doesn't really emulate it! I vote to strike any historical comparison from the discussion going forward!


My point was that I am not convinced of the ZOC concept on any argument that it's realistic since essentially non-realistic aspects of the game abound. So, I proposed that we simply ignore any discussions of the rules based on realism. DBA isn't realistic.

So, I have no interest in perfect defensibility as you suggest.

I have interest in unambiguous, simple and elegant rules. ZOCs seem to me like a hack added in to fix poor movement rules implement in DBA 1.0. At the current time, the ZOC concept dominates DBA games. If you know more details on how ZOCs work, you can typically defeat your enemy easily. So it becomes more about knowing and lawyering the rules than about tactics. Nefarious organizations such as Games Workshop thrive on that concept, and people hate them for it. I also have some guilt... More than a few times I have taken advantage of my opponent's lack of knowledge of the rules to win games, even though tactically they may have been stronger than me!

Simple rules but complex tactical situations are what I prefer! ZOCs don't really fit into that paradigm... I know we've all spent years trying to understand ZOCs well enough to beat anyone who has done the same, but I implore you all to let that go with grace and embrace simplicity!

Thanks
n.

winterbadger
01-27-2011, 11:07 AM
So, I proposed that we simply ignore any discussions of the rules based on realism. DBA isn't realistic.

This is where you lose me. If you don't want the game to be realistic, why have many of your arguments been based on realism? Comments like

There are examples of foolish maneuvers in history that saw units devastated, they were rare because they were foolish.

It's certainly different from the current DBA reality, but not unrealistic.

I've played all kinds of historical games without ZOC rules...

And, on a macro level, if you don't want the game to be based on reality, why are you playing a historical game?

No realism? OK, elephants can fly. Knights melt if they cross water. Bow move faster than LH.

No? Why not? Oh, right, because we're talking about a HISTORICAL game.

But your statement before that nails it for me.

I agree, it would change DBA. It might not even be DBA anymore... but it would still be a great, fast, decisive and satisfying game.

It might be a fast game and a decisive game. I'm not sure whether it would be a fun game or not. But it would not be DBA.

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 11:09 AM
That makes no sense. If you went to the Federal government and said "Look, so-and-so got away with violating the law in speeding, so you can't convict me of this other violation of the law (income tax evasion, for example)" what do you think would happen?

What you describe above is actually very close to the concept of legal precedence, which is used all the time by lawyers and laymen alike to successfully get off the hook.

And I think there is some hyperbole here, since your ZOC and my example of passing directly beside a unit isn't quite as different as speeding and tax evasion.

My example is more closely analogous to corporate vs. personal tax evasion... and since the corps get away with things that people could never get away with, maybe you're right DK!

In any case, let's keep it on topic and forget about tax evasion shall we? My taxes aren't due for another few months! :)

n.

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 11:16 AM
And, on a macro level, if you don't want the game to be based on reality, why are you playing a historical game?.

I said in a previous post that DBA is *inspired* by reality, but doesn't *emulate* it. I like the historical aspect, just not the fiddly little rules bits like ZOCs :)

Also, please, let's not exagerate here... I never suggested that bows should fly! But your idea that elephants should, now that is something there... You are an inspired man!

My question is, why did you choose DBA over more complex, and arguably realistic rules sets like DBMM? FoG? Is it because DBA is much simpler yet still satisfyingly historically inspired? Do you appreciate it's simplicity compared to those games? Are you willing to forgo the detailed and complex mechanisms of those games to keep things simple and enjoyable?

Thanks
n.

Martyn
01-27-2011, 11:22 AM
We are all looking for simplicity of rule systems that is why we play DBA.

The question is - what is the best method of dealing with the interaction of elements when in close proximity to each other.

The way I see it there are two choices;
1. the rule set lays down specific rules that directly control the actions and movements of an element when close to the enemy, or
2. the rule set includes rules that indirectly control the movement by allowing penalties or enemy responses to the move, in other words giving a degree of risk to make that move.

In the first we have the current ZoC rules, if A moves here it has to do X, Y or Z. The advantage being that in an IGO UGO system this keeps the participation in each movement phase to the single phasing player and hence greater simplicity.

In the second the control is dependant on the non phasing player reacting, this requires the rules to include intercept charges, counter charges, etc. This requirement for the active participation of the non phasing player creates more complexity and greater potential shuffling. There are advantages, for example, a general can make a judgement on a possible tactical advantage in encouraging a reactive move.

My concern is that the second option will add considerable complexity and potential for delay as people have to consider their moves in the light of the reactive do I or donít I. Also is DBAís scale such that it is not appropriate to reflect that level of tactical control.

It would be interesting to hear from any who play FOG as I understand that that uses IGO UGO with reactive movement, although on a scale more akin to DBM/M

I suppose I have an inbuilt fear from previous experience with simultaneous movement rule sets where you can end up with a lot of shuffling by half, quarter or smaller move segments to identify when a combat takes place.

Certainly ZoC needs better definition but I donít see a better solution with the level of simplicity of implementation.

n - you make that comment that ZoC was added after v1, but was it not included, in a slightly simpler form, in v1 from the off?

Rich Gause
01-27-2011, 11:30 AM
I said in a previous post that DBA is *inspired* by reality, but doesn't *emulate* it. I like the historical aspect, just not the fiddly little rules bits like ZOCs :)

Also, please, let's not exagerate here... I never suggested that bows should fly! But your idea that elephants should, now that is something there... You are an inspired man!

My question is, why did you choose DBA over more complex, and arguably realistic rules sets like DBMM? FoG? Is it because DBA is much simpler yet still satisfyingly historically inspired? Do you appreciate it's simplicity compared to those games? Are you willing to forgo the detailed and complex mechanisms of those games to keep things simple and enjoyable?

Thanks
n.

I think you are mistaking "more realism" with complexity and microsimulating processes in great detail rather than abstraction and an emphasis on results over how one got there. Fog tries to assign a factor for every detail they can imagine and makes the gamer explicitly model all those details with a billion die rolls. DBA assigns a generic combat factor and determines the outcome with one die roll. Neither approach is inherently more "realistic", one is just more detailed. The more detailed sets in many cases are less realistic because they can misvalue a factor or give a player a much greater ability to micromanage things than is appropriate for what they are trying to simulate.

ferrency
01-27-2011, 11:34 AM
My question is, why did you choose DBA over more complex, and arguably realistic rules sets like DBMM? FoG? Is it because DBA is much simpler yet still satisfyingly historically inspired? Do you appreciate it's simplicity compared to those games? Are you willing to forgo the detailed and complex mechanisms of those games to keep things simple and enjoyable?

I find that many people confuse "detail" with "realism." They aren't the same thing, and "realism" can be created in many different ways. I don't believe any of the games you mention are inherently more realistic than the others, only that some of them include more details in their rules than others. I feel that most of those details detract from the game rather than add to it, which is why I prefer DBA.

So yes: I am willing to forgo the additional complexity of DBMM to have a more enjoyable game. However, this has nothing to do with ZoC in DBA.

In DBA, I don't find ZoC to be complex or confusing, I don't think it has any relevant bearing on the game's realism, and I like the tactical situations it allows. I've never had games delayed significantly due to interpretations of ZoC rules. In short: I like it.

You say that none of the rest of the games you've played have ZoC, so why should DBA? Well, none of the rest of the games you mentioned have 300+ army lists in the back of the book either, so why don't you remove those as well? None of the rest of the games you mentioned can be played in under an hour.

As far as I'm concerned, ZoC is one of the many aspects of DBA (and other DBx games) that makes the game what it is. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I don't think comparing DBA to other rulesets provides very much useful insight into whether a rule is right for DBA or not. The rules should be considered only within the context of the game they're used in.

In short, I'm fine with you not liking ZoC, but I like it. :) Losing it in 3.0 wouldn't be enough to get me to stop playing the game, but I do like it enough to attempt to defend it here.

Alan

winterbadger
01-27-2011, 11:36 AM
I said in a previous post that DBA is *inspired* by reality, but doesn't *emulate* it. I like the historical aspect, just not the fiddly little rules bits like ZOCs :)

You're beginning to sound a lot like Humpty Dumpty.

ETA: By which I mean, you complain first of all that ZOCs are unrealistic. Then, when people point out that if you take out ZOCs, you have to replace them with something else to show the complex interactions that are abstracted by ZOCs. At which point you say you don't want realism. Then I ask why play a historical game if you don't want it based in reality, and you say, oh, I don't want *that* much reality. TBH, I think you've gotten a wild hare about this idea of dropping ZOCs out of the rules without making any other changes, and you're just making whatever argument comes into your head to justify it.

My question is, why did you choose DBA over more complex, and arguably realistic rules sets like DBMM? FoG? Is it because DBA is much simpler yet still satisfyingly historically inspired? Do you appreciate it's simplicity compared to those games? Are you willing to forgo the detailed and complex mechanisms of those games to keep things simple and enjoyable?

I play DBA because it is a game that is quick and small and portrays historical battles with some degree of accuracy, given its very generic approach. I do not think that it would do that if you eliminate ZOCs.

Tony Aguilar
01-27-2011, 11:42 AM
Not being restricted by ZoC in DBA is like not having to roll for PIPs. It would dramatically alter the way the game plays. Both of these help eliminate the ďGod-factorĒ that the player has over the game. The fact that you have to work around both of these problems makes the game unique and rewarding to say the least. Both of these factors, along with the fact that you can finish a game to conclusion in an hour are the reasons I havenít played any other miniatures since I discovered DBA in 2004.

Doug
01-27-2011, 11:48 AM
I'll take it a step further and say that anyone who plays that way is probably not someone you want to play with anyway because they are a butthole in real life. Playing DBA, for me at least, has been about playing with friends and people that are amicable with each other - more so than any other game. These are folks I look forward to seeing again and again every year to take part with in our favorite hobby.
(Yes, even Larry :))

Absolutely agree, but what do you do ? Tell soneone they are not allowed to play because they are not 'nice' enough?

Tony Aguilar
01-27-2011, 11:56 AM
Absolutely agree, but what do you do ? Tell soneone they are not allowed to play because they are not 'nice' enough?

I imagine you wouldn't need to because chances are everyone else in your gaming group feels the same way. I have only run into two folks that were unpleasant to play DBA with and fortunately, neither of them plays in our tourneys anymore. It was extremely disheartening when a new recruit said he no longer wanted to play DBA because of a bad experience with one of these fellows.

As an alternative, you could resort to a "DK Nose-Punch" to get the point across. :)

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 12:03 PM
In short, I'm fine with you not liking ZoC, but I like it. :) Losing it in 3.0 wouldn't be enough to get me to stop playing the game, but I do like it enough to attempt to defend it here.


I respect that Alan, that's totally cool. I understand that you are committed to it, and that's a personal choice. I don't think any amount of arguing on my behalf will change your mind, and I have no problem with that! So, we can agree to disagree on this. :) I can see where you are coming from; ZOCs do add tactically interesting complexity. DBA would be much different without it.

But please don't hold it against me if I advocate the ZOCs removal. It isn't personal! I just think it adds unnecessary complexity in the rules. :)

thanks,
n.

winterbadger
01-27-2011, 12:09 PM
Absolutely agree, but what do you do ? Tell someone they are not allowed to play because they are not 'nice' enough?

I can't speak for Tony, but if I encountered someone who played like that I would see if there was a way to persuade them that that's a very anti-social way to play. If they didn't care, I'd just decline (courteously, like New York:) ) to play them in future.

david kuijt
01-27-2011, 12:11 PM
Since the above statement pretty-much invalidates the whole 'hand of god' idea behind gamers controlling armies, we hit a wall... In light of that, on top of pip rolls, perhaps we should introduce random movement rules! I am up for it, it would be entertaining at least!


So your position is that either gamers should be able to control everything, or nothing? There is no middle ground, for you?

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 12:31 PM
So your position is that either gamers should be able to control everything, or nothing? There is no middle ground, for you?

Nope. I am saying that there's no point in arguing this on grounds of how realistic it is.

n.

Paul A. Hannah
01-27-2011, 12:32 PM
Down with the ZOC!

As I played DBA at the NAGS Game Night last night, I quietly thought thru how various game-situations would be different, absent a ZOC. I won't bore readers with specifics, but several times players made moves so their elements' ZOCs could slow advances, plug holes or cover gaps.

Realistic? I dunno (I've never seen combat), but these moves certainly seemed very plausible. Absent a ZOC, it seemed that some very funny things could have happened.

Has anyone mentioned the "Royal Khazar Drill Team" yet? (And am I properly recalling that famous, Fanaticus thread from ages past?)

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 12:33 PM
You're beginning to sound a lot like Humpty Dumpty.

Are you saying that I sound like an egg breaking on the sidewalk?

n.

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 12:45 PM
As I played DBA at the NAGS Game Night last night, I quietly thought thru how various game-situations would be different, absent a ZOC. I won't bore readers with specifics, but several times players made moves so their elements' ZOCs could slow advances, plug holes or cover gaps.

True. DBA wouldn't be the same without the ZOC rule. Perhaps DBA without the ZOC rule isn't DBA, and perhaps advocating this change is the wrong move for me... maybe I should be looking for a different game...

Still, I like DBA, with or without the ZOC. I'd like it a lot more without the ZOC though.

n.

winterbadger
01-27-2011, 12:51 PM
Are you saying that I sound like an egg breaking on the sidewalk?

No, just that you're a bit cracked. :silly

I was actually thinking of the Humpty Dumpty in Alice, who wants word to mean exactly what *he* means by them, no more and no less.

jtstigley
01-27-2011, 01:11 PM
Perhaps zones of control should not be blocked by intervening elements. This would simplify whether an element is within a zone of control or not.

JTS

Si2
01-27-2011, 01:13 PM
for me, the two critical elements of play in DBA that make the game are the OBWDA/ZOC and closing-the-door (death if you recoil with flank contact)

One is a passive defensive strategy, the other is a blatant agressive attack policy. They balance well and they make you think of position to protect and position to destroy.

For me personally, they are the key to DBA, and apart from rewording the OBWDA nicely, so it becomes ambiguous, I wouldn't change it.

Just my ha'penny's worth.

Reword; don't remove.
Si

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 01:44 PM
Perhaps zones of control should not be blocked by intervening elements. This would simplify whether an element is within a zone of control or not.

JTS

hrm... interesting...

Thanks
n.

winterbadger
01-27-2011, 01:47 PM
Perhaps zones of control should not be blocked by intervening elements. This would simplify whether an element is within a zone of control or not.

JTS

I refer the honourable member to posts 17-61 of this thread.

Lobotomy
01-27-2011, 10:03 PM
Could you explain some examples of strange ZOC-created rules lawyering?

You mean beside the discussion we are having about closing the door? :???

Doug
01-27-2011, 10:19 PM
And the 'intervening' elements rule.

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 01:03 AM
You mean beside the discussion we are having about closing the door? :???

That one is a pretty simple example with an obvious answer: Larry is wrong!:rotfl

Lobotomy
01-29-2011, 06:28 PM
That one is a pretty simple example with an obvious answer: Larry is wrong!:rotfl

Oh yea. Well, we'll see who's wrong by next Sunday, you Cheesehead!!! :silly

Rich Gause
01-29-2011, 09:40 PM
And the 'intervening' elements rule.

You mean the fact that intervening elements block ZOC? I think that is a necessary part to make the game playable..........

Rich Gause
01-29-2011, 09:42 PM
Oh yea. Well, we'll see who's wrong by next Sunday, you Cheesehead!!! :silly

Make sure you stock up on kleenex, the Pittsburgh stores will probably be sold out by the Monday after..........:silly

Lobotomy
01-30-2011, 05:57 PM
Make sure you stock up on kleenex, the Pittsburgh stores will probably be sold out by the Monday after..........:silly

You can maybe get one of those FAKE towels they started making last week for the Green Bay Pikers, due to the extreme jealousy of the Terrible Towel, to dry your Florida crocodile tears. :cool

Rich Gause
01-30-2011, 06:07 PM
You can maybe get one of those FAKE towels they started making last week for the Green Bay Pikers, due to the extreme jealousy of the Terrible Towel, to dry your Florida crocodile tears. :cool

The same company actually made Packer towels first during the 1996 season before the Superbowl in 1997......... They started making your copycat Steelers towels in 1997. Also, in FL we call them alligator tears, not that I'll be shedding any....:eek

winterbadger
01-30-2011, 08:34 PM
You mean the fact that intervening elements block ZOC? I think that is a necessary part to make the game playable..........

Yeah, all of the debateable rules I've seen mentioned so far are ones that there seems to be a settled interpretation of. It may not be the interp that everyone likes; heck, the rules may not be ones that everyone likes. But I don't see a whole lot of controversy or confusion.

Could the rules be written more clearly? Yes, but I don't think the person who wrote the wording that confuses so many people is the person to do that rewrite; I think the result would be just as impenetrable, just differently worded.

Doug
01-30-2011, 10:45 PM
Yeah, all of the debateable rules I've seen mentioned so far are ones that there seems to be a settled interpretation of. It may not be the interp that everyone likes; heck, the rules may not be ones that everyone likes. But I don't see a whole lot of controversy or confusion.

Could the rules be written more clearly? Yes, but I don't think the person who wrote the wording that confuses so many people is the person to do that rewrite; I think the result would be just as impenetrable, just differently worded.

The point being that if there is a 'settled' interpretation, then this is still an interpretation, and has no enforceability. This sort of thing creates bad feeling. there should be no need to refer to a further authority (regardless of how authoritative), when the rules themslves should be sufficient.

Now whether Phil writes clearly enough for you is an entirely different matter. My own experience has been that Phil is confident his rules can only be interpreted one way, and that any other case is a wilful misunderstanding

winterbadger
01-30-2011, 10:58 PM
The point being that if there is a 'settled' interpretation, then this is still an interpretation, and has no enforceability. This sort of thing creates bad feeling. there should be no need to refer to a further authority (regardless of how authoritative), when the rules themslves should be sufficient.

That is, IME, a fantasy that does not reflect reality in any widely played set of rules I know. ALL rules that are played by a large number of people require interps. Sometimes these are issued by publishers, sometimes by national associations or local groups or by tournament organizers. It's a common feature of wargaming.

Now whether Phil writes clearly enough for you is an entirely different matter. My own experience has been that Phil is confident his rules can only be interpreted one way, and that any other case is a wilful misunderstanding

If he actually believes that (and I don't beleive he's really that stupid), obviously he's wrong. Not because *I* say so, but because hundreds and thousands of players around the world say it. It's disproven by the very fact we're having this discussion.

Which really demonstrates my previous point: if you want more clearly written rules, don't look to Phil to write them. Third-party interps are the *only* way that's going to be achieved.

Rich Gause
01-30-2011, 11:23 PM
The point being that if there is a 'settled' interpretation, then this is still an interpretation, and has no enforceability. This sort of thing creates bad feeling. there should be no need to refer to a further authority (regardless of how authoritative), when the rules themslves should be sufficient.

Now whether Phil writes clearly enough for you is an entirely different matter. My own experience has been that Phil is confident his rules can only be interpreted one way, and that any other case is a wilful misunderstanding

Any rules or interpretations are certainly enforceable by tournament organizers. Outside of that it is useful to agree to a common way to play the game unless you like arguing about rules more than playing. Luckily we have the WADBAG guide that provides DBA players from all over the world a common understanding of how the game is played. It works and I have seen events from Australia to the US and points in between that use it. Too bad Phil didn't write it. Hopefully he reads it prior to writing DBA 3.0 for ideas about where 2.2 needed improvement.

Doug
01-31-2011, 12:23 AM
My impression, rightly or wrongly, is that Phil resents WADBAG, and doesn't see the need for it.

Frankly I have never bothered with it (WADBAG), as I always felt the rules were on the whole clear, and that by using another interpretation was to layer the possibility of a misreading.

(My own experience of writing a gloss or interpretation is that one multiplies the risk of error, because you firstly, have to assume you understand what the original was intended to convey, and secondly, that you can yourself convey the same meaning more simply or more clearly.)

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 12:37 AM
Frankly I have never bothered with it (WADBAG), as I always felt the rules were on the whole clear...

Funny, given all the messages you've posted to this thread about things that needed to be clarified or rewritten in the rules, I would never have guessed. :rolleyes

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 01:33 AM
Frankly I have never bothered with it (WADBAG), as I always felt the rules were on the whole clear, and that by using another interpretation was to layer the possibility of a misreading.


One minor correction about the use of "WADBAG" as a noun -- WADBAG is the Washington Area DBA Gamers. A group of players, of which I am one.

What you are talking about is the Unofficial Guide, which was produced by some of the WADBAG people, of which I am also one. You can call it the Unofficial Guide, or (as Rich does) the WADBAG Guide -- but it isn't WADBAG (the group of players), it is a production of (part of) that group.

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 01:38 AM
My impression, rightly or wrongly, is that Phil resents WADBAG, and doesn't see the need for it.


I think your impression is correct; as I recall Phil said as much during the discussion we (three or four of the contributors to the Unofficial Guide, plus Phil and Sue) had on the issue two Historicons ago. He also said that he thought it might have had a negative effect upon the sales of the DBA rulebook, on which topic we disagreed.

Doug
01-31-2011, 02:31 AM
Funny, given all the messages you've posted to this thread about things that needed to be clarified or rewritten in the rules, I would never have guessed. :rolleyes

I would be interested in seeing what I have said "NEEDS" to be rewritten. As I said, I think most of the rulebook is reasonably clear.

There are parts I would like to see written differently, as I think the concern over brevity has outweighed the need for clarity. One of those, and it is the basis for this thread, is the concept of an intervening element in a ZoC.

And my apologies if I have offended the WADBAG, it was merely a convenient shorthand for their guide.

ferrency
01-31-2011, 11:21 AM
As I said, I think most of the rulebook is reasonably clear.

In my experience there are two kinds of people in this world: those who agree that Phil Barker's writing is ambiguous and unclear, and those who believe it to be clear and unambiguous, but disagree with each other as to what it means.

Alan

David Constable
01-31-2011, 11:30 AM
In my experience there are two kinds of people in this world: those who agree that Phil Barker's writing is ambiguous and unclear, and those who believe it to be clear and unambiguous, but disagree with each other as to what it means.

Alan

In the main that is true, PB has a dislike of doing things in lists, has had for forty (40) years, added to which he tried to save two much space in DBA.

However, having said that coming back to Deployment, swapping elements and Littoral landings, the Deployment section looks to be in order, so you deploy and do swaps etc, then Littoral landing choice is made, people assume that is in the wrong place, why? How does that apply in your choices.

David Constable

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 11:39 AM
In my experience there are two kinds of people in this world: those who agree that Phil Barker's writing is ambiguous and unclear, and those who believe it to be clear and unambiguous, but disagree with each other as to what it means.


You ought to write stand-up, Alan -- that is freaking hilarious.:up

ferrency
01-31-2011, 11:42 AM
However, having said that coming back to Deployment, swapping elements and Littoral landings, the Deployment section looks to be in order, so you deploy and do swaps etc, then Littoral landing choice is made, people assume that is in the wrong place, why? How does that apply in your choices.

Here is the ambiguity.

The rules say:
The defender now deploys its troop elements within 600 paces of its base edge, or of the shore line if a waterway edge, except that 1 element of foot may be used to garrison a BUA even if further forward. It cannot deploy any element within 300 paces of a battlefield side edge unless in a BUA or camp. The invader then does the same, except that it has no BUA. The defender can now exchange the positions of 0-2 pairs of its deployed elements. If any sideís home topography is LITTORAL, it can reserve 0-4 elements to be placed together anywhere on an existing waterway edge (at least 2 touching it) as a 1 PIP group move in its 1st bound.

The rules suggest that the choice by littoral defenders and attackers whether to reserve 0-4 elements for a littoral landing, is made after deployment.

However, in actual practice whenever I've seen things played, the defender decides at deployment time whether to deploy all 12 elements, or whether to deploy 8-11 and hold back elements for a landing. The attacker knows whether a landing is happening, when they deploy; and at that time decides if they're performing a landing. Then the defender knows whether the attacker is performing a landing, when they decide whether to swap elements.

Upon more careful reading of the rules: it would seem that all 12 elements are deployed by defender and attacker, and after the defender swaps are complete, each side decides whether to remove 0-4 deployed elements and use them for a littoral landing.

I've never seen anyone play this way. This disparity between the way most people play and the way the rules is written is why people think the rules are in the wrong order.

Alan

Tony Aguilar
01-31-2011, 11:43 AM
In the main that is true, PB has a dislike of doing things in lists, has had for forty (40) years, added to which he tried to save two much space in DBA.

However, having said that coming back to Deployment, swapping elements and Littoral landings, the Deployment section looks to be in order, so you deploy and do swaps etc, then Littoral landing choice is made, people assume that is in the wrong place, why? How does that apply in your choices.

David Constable

Here is the deployment rule below:

DEPLOYMENT
Each side dices and adds the armyís aggression factor to the score. The side with the lower total is the defender. It
places terrain of those types allowed to the army. The high scorer is the invader. It now numbers 3 battlefield edges
1,2,3 and a preferred fourth edge, which cannot be either of the 2 edges closest to a BUA, 4,5 and 6, then dices for
which edge will be its base edge. The defenderís base edge is that opposite. Both sides now place their camps if
needed, the defender first. The defender now deploys its troop elements within 600 paces of its base edge, or of the
shore line if a waterway edge, except that 1 element of foot may be used to garrison a BUA even if further forward.
It cannot deploy any element within 300 paces of a battlefield side edge unless in a BUA or camp. The invader then
does the same, except that it has no BUA. The defender can now exchange the positions of 0-2 pairs of its deployed
elements. If any sideís home topography is LITTORAL, it can reserve 0-4 elements to be placed together anywhere
on an existing waterway edge (at least 2 touching it) as a 1 PIP group move in its 1st bound.

The last sentence really should be moved up before the sentence that starts: "The invader then does the same...."

ferrency
01-31-2011, 11:45 AM
You ought to write stand-up, Alan -- that is freaking hilarious.:up

Thanks. I've been working on my act for ages, just waiting for the right moment to debut it...

Alan

Tony Aguilar
01-31-2011, 11:45 AM
I've never seen anyone play this way. This disparity between the way most people play and the way the rules is written is why people think the rules are in the wrong order.


Which is exactly what I was typing at the same time you were, Alan. :)

Tony Aguilar
01-31-2011, 11:46 AM
Thanks. I've been working on my act for ages, just waiting for the right moment to debut it...

Alan

Now would be a good time. I really need a "cheer-me-up" due to the events that have unfolded in the last week here on Fanaticus.

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 11:51 AM
Upon more careful reading of the rules: it would seem that all 12 elements are deployed by defender and attacker, and after the defender swaps are complete, each side decides whether to remove 0-4 deployed elements and use them for a littoral landing.

The notion of "reserving" an already deployed element strikes me as distinctly odd.

I'll be asking Phil to rephrase for clarity.

ferrency
01-31-2011, 11:55 AM
Now would be a good time. I really need a "cheer-me-up" due to the events that have unfolded in the last week here on Fanaticus.

Sorry you missed it; that was my act. Thanks, I'll be here all week! :up

Alan

Martyn
01-31-2011, 11:59 AM
Now would be a good time. I really need a "cheer-me-up" due to the events that have unfolded in the last week here on Fanaticus.

Likewise Tony, I was feeling quite despondant on Friday, but when I saw Sue's posting of the revised book II lists I felt uplifted that there is some hope that DBAers will be listened to. :2up

Martyn
01-31-2011, 12:11 PM
Here is the deployment rule below:

DEPLOYMENT
Each side dices and adds the armyís aggression factor to the score. The side with the lower total is the defender. It
places terrain of those types allowed to the army. The high scorer is the invader. It now numbers 3 battlefield edges
1,2,3 and a preferred fourth edge, which cannot be either of the 2 edges closest to a BUA, 4,5 and 6, then dices for
which edge will be its base edge. The defenderís base edge is that opposite. Both sides now place their camps if
needed, the defender first. The defender now deploys its troop elements within 600 paces of its base edge, or of the
shore line if a waterway edge, except that 1 element of foot may be used to garrison a BUA even if further forward.
It cannot deploy any element within 300 paces of a battlefield side edge unless in a BUA or camp. The invader then
does the same, except that it has no BUA. The defender can now exchange the positions of 0-2 pairs of its deployed
elements. If any sideís home topography is LITTORAL, it can reserve 0-4 elements to be placed together anywhere
on an existing waterway edge (at least 2 touching it) as a 1 PIP group move in its 1st bound.

The last sentence really should be moved up before the sentence that starts: "The invader then does the same...."

The problem is in trying to read the paragraph sequentially; you do A, followed by B, followed by C. The way you need to read is; you do A, followed by B, followed by C, and you can also do D. There is nothing to identify when you do D just that you can do it. It needs an interpretation to identify when D occurs, hence the potential for confusion.

Yes more clarity is easy to achieve by re-ordering the sentences within the paragraph.

Personally, I can not see any other way than reserving the units for Littoral landing and deploying the rest. Then the exchange occurs with the deployed elements.

neldoreth
01-31-2011, 04:05 PM
In all honestly, that paragraph is as clear as a bell compared to the original. To me it seems pretty straight forward to being the exact same rules as DBA 2.2; if you go LITORAL then you reserve those elements.

Interesting... I wonder if the rest of the book will be worded in such a clear manner... or if it is really poorly worded but since I know the rules it seems clear ;)

n.

Tony Aguilar
01-31-2011, 04:17 PM
In all honestly, that paragraph is as clear as a bell compared to the original. To me it seems pretty straight forward to being the exact same rules as DBA 2.2; if you go LITORAL then you reserve those elements.

Interesting... I wonder if the rest of the book will be worded in such a clear manner... or if it is really poorly worded but since I know the rules it seems clear ;)

n.

That quote was from the 2.2 rulebook.

neldoreth
01-31-2011, 04:19 PM
That quote was from the 2.2 rulebook.

lol, I guess I am in trouble then ;) Thanks!

n.

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 04:20 PM
That quote was from the 2.2 rulebook.

:rotfl Priceless!

Doug
01-31-2011, 10:06 PM
Likewise Tony, I was feeling quite despondant on Friday, but when I saw Sue's posting of the revised book II lists I felt uplifted that there is some hope that DBAers will be listened to. :2up

Yay! I guess that makes Andreas and myself 'Not DBA'ers'. Y'all might need to just chill instead of making phantoms of your own worst fears.

Martyn
02-01-2011, 05:45 AM
Yay! I guess that makes Andreas and myself 'Not DBA'ers'. Y'all might need to just chill instead of making phantoms of your own worst fears.

This is not meant as a suggestion that there is any body out there who does not count. I used the term DBAers to be inclusive of all who play. It does not matter if you are a DBAer who also plays DBMM, DBM, FOG, 7th, 6th, Armati, Impetus, only DBA or any other or every game.

We have had opportunities to make comment either through this site, the DBA yahoo group, DBMM group or direct to Phil. Which ever you are and how ever you make comment the point is that there are changes in the book II list which have been floated on and by one or other of the above. For that I am grateful.

I am immensely heartened by the fact that you and Andreas, seasoned DBAers (if I am allowed to use the term), are involved in the process of the development of v3.

Do not get carried away by your own phantoms that I have any objections to you because you 'dare' to like DBMM.