PDA

View Full Version : Conforming in DBA 3.0


Andrechin
12-28-2011, 06:27 AM
I just recently went through the DBA 3.0 draft and hope to have my first playtest this evening, but I am quite confused by the "MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY" section. It is very different from DBA 2.X.

I searched the word "conforming" in the forum, but basically that was selecting almost all threads, and could not find the specific posts. So I am sorry if the question was already answered: please point me to the right post.

Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or group's corner

So now we have two possible contacts: edge-to-edge available to single element's and group's move, and edge-to-corner, available only to group's moves.

Whether the initial contact is on an edge or a corner, at the end of the movement phase a single contacting element or at least one element of a group must be lined-up in both front edge and front-corner-to-front-corner, or in full front edge to read edge contact with an enemy element's edge, or in overlap.

No requirement any more of front-corner-to-front-corner at the time of contact, only at the end of the movement phase. I understand it as meaning: first I do my tactical moves to contact edge-edge or edge-corner, then, after all the moves are completed, the conforming (according the last paragraph in the section) is done, so that the movement phase ends with only "legal" contacts.

I think the rule would be clearer if the last sentence is slightly modified: must be lined-up in both front edge and front-corner-to-front-corner with an enemy element's edge, or in full front edge to read edge contact, or in overlap.

Thanks for your help!

Attilio

Pillager
12-28-2011, 09:20 AM
>then, after all the moves are completed, the conforming

The new rules about lining up using "extra" movement if necessary, and/or by the contacted element, prevent geometric cheese. If you waited until the end of all movement, the cheese would still stink.

The "lining up in contact" needs to be done at once. The sentence you are looking at in the first paragraph is badly phrased.

Per the last para on pg 9:

WHO CONFORMS:
If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

Single elements contacting or contacted by a group conform to the group unless part of a contacted single element is in bad going.

When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible.

HOW:
If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

Andrechin
12-28-2011, 01:13 PM
Thanks Pillager for the explanation!

The reason I asked is the following situation, which may happen if elements A and B are non-psiloi in bad going facing down, and C is an enemy element facing up, at a distance smaller than A and B base depths (dots are empty spaces):

AAAABBBB
AAAABBBB
.............
.CCCC.....
.CCCC.....

According to your reply, the two single element move to

.AAAABBBB
.AAAABBBB
.CCCC
.CCCC

is still forbidden in DBA 3.0 as it was in DBA 2.2, because A is prevented from contact by a friendly (not an enemy) element, but B cannot move to the overlap position to make space because that will violate the DZ restrictions.

So C is in a better position to avoid be contacted with overlaps if it goes near to A and B rather then staying away. I hoped that was fixed in 3.0 :???

Attilio

larryessick
12-28-2011, 02:57 PM
AAAABBBB
AAAABBBB
.............
.CCCC.....
.CCCC.....

According to your reply, the two single element move to

.AAAABBBB
.AAAABBBB
.CCCC
.CCCC

is still forbidden in DBA 3.0

As single element moves this is correct. But why use single element moves? If A and B are friends then why not group move to contact?

David Schlanger
12-28-2011, 03:20 PM
As single element moves this is correct. But why use single element moves? If A and B are friends then why not group move to contact?

Because they are in bad going.

DS

larryessick
12-28-2011, 04:40 PM
Because they are in bad going.

Well, that would explain things. But in 3.0 they can group move if Ps, yes?

Is this a serious problem? Should it be addressed by allowing group moves in bad going if they end in contact?

Pillager
12-28-2011, 06:04 PM
Pg 9

If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

So CCCC will shift leftwards to conform to AAAA.

DBMM Rev 2 has more details on how to move to contact & line up, so intentions can be gleaned from it.

the whole DBA 3.0 paragraph:

Pg 9

SINGLE TO SINGLE
If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

GROUP MOVES INTO SINGLE
Single elements contacting or contacted by a group conform to the group unless part of a contacted single element is in bad going.

GROUP TO GROUP
When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible.


RULES TO PREVENT CHEESY GEOMETRY
If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free. NOTE EITHER PLAYER MIGHT DO THE EXTRA. AFAIK THE MOVER MUST IF POSSIBLE.

Alan Saunders
12-28-2011, 06:14 PM
Well, that would explain things. But in 3.0 they can group move if Ps, yes?

Is this a serious problem? Should it be addressed by allowing group moves in bad going if they end in contact?

It's a problem in HOTT as well, in terms of elements in bad going or when crossing rivers. Not a big one, in my experience, but it's still there.

In HOTT a single element not in bad going automatically and immediately conforms to a group which contacts it, even turning to face if necessary.

Perhaps a group move in bad going into contact might help, but maybe at an extra PIP cost?

Alan Saunders
12-28-2011, 06:25 PM
Pg 9

If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

So CCCC will shift leftwards to conform to AAAA.

DBMM Rev 2 has more details on how to move to contact & line up, so intentions can be gleaned from it.

the whole DBA 3.0 paragraph:

Pg 9

SINGLE TO SINGLE
If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

GROUP MOVES INTO SINGLE
Single elements contacting or contacted by a group conform to the group unless part of a contacted single element is in bad going.

GROUP TO GROUP
When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible.


RULES TO PREVENT CHEESY GEOMETRY
If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free. NOTE EITHER PLAYER MIGHT DO THE EXTRA. AFAIK THE MOVER MUST IF POSSIBLE.

Interesting. That deals with the example given above. A moves out of bad going, and C conforms.

However does it cover this one? Same set-up, but element D sits to the right of D. A and B are in bad going, C and D aren't:


AAAABBBB
AAAABBBB
.............
.CCCCDDDD
.CCCCDDDD

A moves forward but can't line up with C. C is not a single element, so doesn't conform, but CD are not contacted by a group. CD don't move, because they are only required to do so if A can't contact them because of 'other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature'. A is prevented from sliding by a *friendly* element.

platypus01
12-28-2011, 06:52 PM
When the elements moved into such a position, they should have shifted sideways to line up with the existing enemy elements. If they are not in a DZ, then the element should be able to slip in betweeen.

If your opponent has not shifted sideways to line up in the DZ, then you invoke the "troops that would contact in real life should do so in the game" rule, move to contact and shift the friendly element sideways so you can line up. If your opponent complains about that, he or she is XXXXX not playing as a gentleperson.

Cheers,
JohnG
I XXXXed out what I really think because of the new civility rules!

SteveW
12-28-2011, 07:02 PM
Hello,

Just having checked the draft of 3.0, line 1 of Para 4 of Moving to Contact on page 9, it would appear that if A moves to contact but cannot manage to line up, the opposing element C, must move if it can to line up.

Steve

Alan Saunders
12-28-2011, 08:31 PM
If your opponent has not shifted sideways to line up in the DZ, then you invoke the "troops that would contact in real life should do so in the game" rule, move to contact and shift the friendly element sideways so you can line up. If your opponent complains about that, he or she is XXXXX not playing as a gentleperson.



I agree that shifting would be desirable if possible, but there are cases where it may not be possible, or where it causes issues elsewhere. And there's no reason to assume that one or other player has deliberately created such a situation; elements out of alignment with each other can happen in normal game-play with no intent to create tricky situations.

There does seem to be a caveat if you're blocked by enemy elements or terrain to allow combat when there isn't a legal contact. It would be interesting to see how this worked in actual game-play though. For example, if A moves forward and contacts C, such that it's not lined up, they could fight. But is A overlapped by D? Do we assume that they are *considered* in legal front edge contact, even if such contact can't be made.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-28-2011, 09:07 PM
Well, at least this discussion helped my understanding of the 3.0 move to contact rules!!!

Pillager
12-28-2011, 11:53 PM
Good answer Platypus.

Also in DBMM there is a rule on pg33 that says this sort of obstructing element must be moved out of the way. So BBBB would shift either back or sideways, whatever is the minimum.

You just aren't going to be able to cover all the odd cases with fewer words than in DBMM.

Pillager
12-28-2011, 11:54 PM
Hello,

Just having checked the draft of 3.0, line 1 of Para 4 of Moving to Contact on page 9, it would appear that if A moves to contact but cannot manage to line up, the opposing element C, must move if it can to line up.

Steve

No, that covers only single element contacting a SINGLE element, not a group.

While I don't give a rats ass about who Ignores me, the fact that I previously explained this rule means that contrary & incorrect posts from such Ignorame's can cause confusion for people who really want to understand 3.0

Andrechin
12-29-2011, 07:02 AM
I find some tension in the rules here:

Pg 9

If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

So CCCC will shift leftwards to conform to AAAA.



RULES TO PREVENT CHEESY GEOMETRY
If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.


The rule specifies when the enemy element must conform, but in my example none of the conditions is valid: contact is prevented by a friend of AAAA, not by enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature.

So either the conforming is unconditional (and, if the conditions are to be neglected, why should be specified later?) or is conditional and limited to the cases listed, and CCCC is not forced to conform or to fight as overlapped (and probably AAAA not allowed to contact).

I am fine with the unconditional statement, but then the rule would be clearer if the "RULES TO PREVENT CHEESY GEOMETRY" part is simply dropped.

Attilio

Andrechin
12-29-2011, 08:01 AM
Another question about conforming, that came out during our playtesting yesterday. This time, hopefully, with a proper diagram:

<br>http://www.mi.infn.it/%7Eandreazz/DBA30/SideContact.png

<br>Bw1 contacts Ax2 on the flank. It cannot get to front-corner to front-corner contact because of the enemy Ax3. How conforming is to be done?

The rule say:
<br>If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.<br><br>What take precedence:
<br>
since Bw1 can actually line up to the front-edge of Ax2, it is forced to do so;
Ax2 can choose either to conform to Bw1, or to stay in position and fight as overlapped.


<br>If Ax2 was part of a group, I think only option 1) would be available. Am I right?

Attilio

Pillager
12-30-2011, 01:30 AM
Thanks Pillager for the explanation!

The reason I asked is the following situation, which may happen if elements A and B are non-psiloi in bad going facing down, and C is an enemy element facing up, at a distance smaller than A and B base depths (dots are empty spaces):

AAAABBBB
AAAABBBB
.............
.CCCC.....
.CCCC.....

According to your reply, the two single element move to

.AAAABBBB
.AAAABBBB
.CCCC
.CCCC

is still forbidden in DBA 3.0 as it was in DBA 2.2, because A is prevented from contact by a friendly (not an enemy) element, but B cannot move to the overlap position to make space because that will violate the DZ restrictions.

So C is in a better position to avoid be contacted with overlaps if it goes near to A and B rather then staying away. I hoped that was fixed in 3.0 :???

Attilio

All I can say is that in DBMM, there is a rule which causes BBBB to be moved out the way so AAAA can make contact with the enemy.

Should that rule be added to DBA at the cost of more words?

Pillager
12-30-2011, 01:41 AM
>
What take precedence:

1. since Bw1 can actually line up to the front-edge of Ax2, it is forced to do so;

2. Ax2 can choose either to conform to Bw1, or to stay in position and fight as overlapped.
>

Bw1 may choose to attack the front or the flank of Ax2.

If it attacks the flank, then Ax2 has the option of moving forwards or staying (in which case it counts as overlapped on one side).


>
Pg9
If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

Single elements contacting or contacted by a group conform to the group unless part of a contacted single element is in bad going.

When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible.

If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.
>

Some persons might be say this rule allows a problem. It is possible that Bw1 makes its contact without entering the bad going, and that Ax2 would move forwards out of the bad going. That could cause it to fight at worse combat values if being in the bad going gave it a terrain advantage. However, it does have the option of standing and counting as overlapped on one side.

Rich Gause
12-30-2011, 03:16 PM
Another question about conforming, that came out during our playtesting yesterday. This time, hopefully, with a proper diagram:

<br>http://www.mi.infn.it/%7Eandreazz/DBA30/SideContact.png

<br>Bw1 contacts Ax2 on the flank. It cannot get to front-corner to front-corner contact because of the enemy Ax3. How conforming is to be done?

The rule say:
<br><br><br>What take precedence:
<br>
since Bw1 can actually line up to the front-edge of Ax2, it is forced to do so;
Ax2 can choose either to conform to Bw1, or to stay in position and fight as overlapped.


<br>If Ax2 was part of a group, I think only option 1) would be available. Am I right?

Attilio

I would think the bow must line up frontally. It can line up so the qualifier "cannot line up" and anything after that does not apply. The rule does not give an ability to force conforming because you don't want to line up.

Doug
12-30-2011, 08:22 PM
I XXXXed out what I really think because of the new civility rules!

We have Civility Rules Now...???!!!! :eek

Bobgnar
12-31-2011, 01:43 AM
I would think the bow must line up frontally. It can line up so the qualifier "cannot line up" and anything after that does not apply. The rule does not give an ability to force conforming because you don't want to line up.

My thought exactly. Sometimes the alignments are such that you cannot do what you want to, and must settle for something else. That is true in any wargame. The challenge of a game is to achieve what you can, with what you are given.

dicemanrick
12-31-2011, 10:30 AM
But that means the bow now hit a different edge of the defender....I see no rule to force that. The flank was contacted initially, so I would think the obligation is for the defender to conform.

If the defender is unable to do so because of friends, etc...then I believe the attack may not be made. Then the bow may be required to contact the front if it has the required movement and the owning player desires it.

Rich Gause
12-31-2011, 07:33 PM
But that means the bow now hit a different edge of the defender....I see no rule to force that. The flank was contacted initially, so I would think the obligation is for the defender to conform.

If the defender is unable to do so because of friends, etc...then I believe the attack may not be made. Then the bow may be required to contact the front if it has the required movement and the owning player desires it.

The bow could have lined up if it really wanted contact. To allow moving elements to force conforming by hitting in such a way that they cannot line up when they could hit in legal contact would seem to open up a lot of cheesiness. The rule says if they cannot line up, not if they choose to contact without lining up; they can line up if they choose to.

Lobotomy
12-31-2011, 11:28 PM
This discussion now shows the apparently unintended consequences of this rule. Further, there is nothing to prevent an element that does not want to leave the bad going from having to do so in such a situation.

After having this pointed out with regard to the group rule, that a group would pull an element out of bad going, he added that such contact would not cause the contacted element to confirm. Now there is the same problem, though only in unusual situations where a single element can pull a single element out of bad going; i.e., presume a Cv cannot contact the full front of a Ps due to moving only 2 BW, but it can still pull the Ps out of the bad going. Strange to say the least.

Doug
01-01-2012, 12:18 AM
This discussion now shows the apparently unintended consequences of this rule. Further, there is nothing to prevent an element that does not want to leave the bad going from having to do so in such a situation.

After having this pointed out with regard to the group rule, that a group would pull an element out of bad going, he added that such contact would not cause the contacted element to confirm. Now there is the same problem, though only in unusual situations where a single element can pull a single element out of bad going; i.e., presume a Cv cannot contact the full front of a Ps due to moving only 2 BW, but it can still pull the Ps out of the bad going. Strange to say the least.

Sorry.. not quite sure what you are talking about here? Currently under 2.2 there are situations where an element contacting can 'pull' an element out of bad going. How is this any different - or 'an unintended consequence' ?

Rich Gause
01-01-2012, 01:06 AM
I think the difference is that in current 2.2 the moving player can only pull an element out of BGo if it makes a legal contact on said elements flank and its flank extends out of BGo farther than its base depth. The new rule allows it without the onus of making a legal contact and is harder to prevent. Depending on how the "cannot make contact" provision is interpreted this could be bad. If a player said that he "cannot make contact" because "a terrain feature" reduces his movement rate to prevent enough movement to make a legal contact would be cheesy.

Doug
01-01-2012, 04:17 AM
I think the difference is that in current 2.2 the moving player can only pull an element out of BGo if it makes a legal contact on said elements flank and its flank extends out of BGo farther than its base depth. The new rule allows it without the onus of making a legal contact and is harder to prevent. Depending on how the "cannot make contact" provision is interpreted this could be bad. If a player said that he "cannot make contact" because "a terrain feature" reduces his movement rate to prevent enough movement to make a legal contact would be cheesy.

Hi Rich, still not sure what you are referring to - under 3, there seem to be two occasions:

"If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can."

So - I am not sure if this is a problem, there would be few occasions when you 'cannot' line up.

"Single elements contacting or contacted by a group conform to the group unless part of a contacted single element is in bad going. "

So you can't pull a single element out of bad going with a group.

The first part (I believe) is intended to ensure you cant avoid combat, which, after times where I get ZOC'd by 55% of an element, which I can't contact, seems like a good thing.

So for example:

xxxx/xxxxx

yyyy/
yyyy

under 2.2, yyyy protects the flank but cannot be contacted. A BAD thing.

David Schlanger
01-01-2012, 11:22 AM
This single aspect of 3.0 will prevent players from achieving a common understanding of the rules and how they are played for an indeterminable length of time.

DS

Doug
01-01-2012, 01:00 PM
This single aspect of 3.0 will prevent players from achieving a common understanding of the rules and how they are played for an indeterminable length of time.

DS

?? Why ?? I am not sure what exactly is unclear.

mdsanderson
01-01-2012, 01:26 PM
It is interesting to me how you worshippers of Phil refuse to admit that something in his newest divine decree could possible be unclear. In this automatic shuffle to combat, which is supposed to correct an unrealistic situation, he has created a much larger unrealistic situation. (My opinion.) I would guess that in the limited number of games that are be play tested this conforming is not being done correctly. When V3 goes public and is used outside the confines of local gaming, where one of the players is perceived to know the rules, the more "cheesy" situations will appear. Unfortunately Phil will have moved on to his next project and it will take months of pleading to get him to resolve questions. Some will make no sense and some will be contradictory. Just like occurred when he was begged to resolve questions about V2.2. Plus we can look forward to a few more snide insults to our intelligence.
Mike Sanderson

David Schlanger
01-01-2012, 03:16 PM
?? Why ?? I am not sure what exactly is unclear.

Did I say anything about the sky? I believe that in your mind Doug, it is clear.

DS

Doug
01-01-2012, 09:26 PM
Did I say anything about the sky? I believe that in your mind Doug, it is clear.

DS

Sorry - David, I am genuinely asking what you find unclear, so that hopefully it can be clarified. I haven't yet seen a clear statement of what you all find confusing. It may well be that it seems entirely clear to me, and I just haven't seen how it could be interpreted otherwise.

It may well be that I am interpolating a piece of text or an understanding from elsewhere that isn't currently in DBA3.

So in the genuine spirit of trying to establish what the problem is - could you explain what you think will cause problems for an undetermined period?

El' Jocko
01-01-2012, 10:10 PM
Sorry - David, I am genuinely asking what you find unclear, so that hopefully it can be clarified. I haven't yet seen a clear statement of what you all find confusing. It may well be that it seems entirely clear to me, and I just haven't seen how it could be interpreted otherwise.

It may well be that I am interpolating a piece of text or an understanding from elsewhere that isn't currently in DBA3.

So in the genuine spirit of trying to establish what the problem is - could you explain what you think will cause problems for an undetermined period?

The challenge is that different players will reach different conclusions about how the conforming rules are supposed to work. And it will take a considerable period of time to reach a consensus. And it will be painful for those involved.

This came up in August and I got the sense that there wasn't even consensus amongst the playtesting group. Just that each subset of testers had their own interpretation that they were using.

For example, back in August I posted this situation:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RQnHS9OSJL8/TlZa118c3WI/AAAAAAAAAVw/t2iukMy279g/s800/Contact1.png

I honestly don't know what, if anything, is supposed to happen here. And this is just one of many, subtly different, cases that can arise.

- Jack

Lobotomy
01-01-2012, 11:06 PM
So - I am not sure if this is a problem, there would be few occasions when you 'cannot' line up.

Doug,

Rich as the nub of it. See, if you do not have the movement to "line up" but can contact the original element in any manner, it appears that the contacted element has to move to "line up." This comment applies to single elements. So, a single element of CV, hitting a corner of a Ps in bad going, to which it cannot line up as the Cv move does not allow it to his in the "normal" manner, will pull the Ps to its face. Thus, the unintended consequences as I see it.

A good way to look at it is to view Jack's example above and eliminate the all the elements but the C and the one contacting it. If that is the extent of the move of the element contacting C, then C must conform the way the current rule is written.

Doug
01-02-2012, 01:47 AM
The challenge is that different players will reach different conclusions about how the conforming rules are supposed to work. And it will take a considerable period of time to reach a consensus. And it will be painful for those involved.

This came up in August and I got the sense that there wasn't even consensus amongst the playtesting group. Just that each subset of testers had their own interpretation that they were using.

For example, back in August I posted this situation:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RQnHS9OSJL8/TlZa118c3WI/AAAAAAAAAVw/t2iukMy279g/s800/Contact1.png

I honestly don't know what, if anything, is supposed to happen here. And this is just one of many, subtly different, cases that can arise.

- Jack
Ok, current text is:

MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY
The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life should do so in the game. <so this is the general rule>.

Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element’s or group’s corner.

:So a single element cannot move into contact with a single element's corner:

Whether the initial contact is on an edge or a corner, at the end of the movement phase a single contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-up in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or in full front edge to rear edge contact with an enemy element’s edge, or in overlap.

:So following conforming - you must be lined up... :

Artillery or War Wagons cannot move into any contact with an enemy element or (unless a WWg mobile tower) an enemy-controlled BUA or camp. Elements attacking a BUA or camp must be in front edge contact with it.

:Ok, WWg and BUA stuff...:

An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges. It can move into contact with an enemy rear edge only if it starts entirely on the far side of a line prolonging that edge.

:Limitation on 'Zooming' around into contact..:

If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

:I think this above is the bit causing the problem.:

Single elements contacting or contacted by a group conform to the group unless part of a contacted single element is in bad going.

:So you cant use a group to pull the contacted element out of bad going. It might be worth excluding single elements that would no longer be in bad going.?:

When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible. If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

:This is the 'non-cheesey' bit, preventing players from using geometry to avoid contact.:

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

:this is the bit that I think covers el jocko's question. So my take on it is that advancing the group, it contacts the corner of C. the two end blue elements (right and centre) then continue to wheel to get into contact with B & C, and slide across to make full front edge to front egde contact.:

I think the first concern is a contentious one, regarding single elements 'unable to line up' in bad going. I don't think there should be an exception to this rule as it is then possible to set up positions in bad going that can never be legally contacted. This is against the spirit of the rules. It also breaks the 'prime directive' of the Moving into Contact section.

I would suggest that the rules support the onus being on a player not to set up a position that the opponent cannot legally contact. Therefore I (personally) have no problem with the requirement for the defending element to conform.

SteveW
01-02-2012, 07:33 AM
I am still learning about conforming, and trying to understand.

How about this:

On the assumption that the blue group still has movement left, once the enemy's corner has been contacted, the blue group slides left to make corner to corner contact whilst wheeling right, resulting in element A also being contacted on a corner by the group. Then, A, B and C line up to conform.

This would appear to comply with the intent and and wording.

Doug
01-02-2012, 07:48 AM
I am still learning about conforming, and trying to understand.

How about this:

On the assumption that the blue group still has movement left, once the enemy's corner has been contacted, the blue group slides left to make corner to corner contact whilst wheeling right, resulting in element A also being contacted on a corner by the group. Then, A, B and C line up to conform.

This would appear to comply with the intent and and wording.

Yes, - assuming there was enough movement, but I believe in this diagram, the intent was that there was not enough movement to contact A.

(One way we have treated for simplicity, it is to allow each element in a group to move up to it's full movement allowance, potentially creating a stepped sort of series of contacts, which then pivot and slide. This seems to be closest to the intent).

mdsanderson
01-02-2012, 10:14 AM
Repeating the text does not answer the question concerning the contact. What is your opinion of what the final position of each element will be with no movement remaining to the moving elements?
Mike Sanderson

Andrechin
01-02-2012, 10:58 AM
If a player said that he "cannot make contact" because "a terrain feature" reduces his movement rate to prevent enough movement to make a legal contact would be cheesy.

I do not think it is a movement rate issue: you have always to be able to contact (even non-legal contact) with your movement rate. If you manage that, you have right to 1 BW additional movement to go to front-corner-to-front-corner (by the way, why somebody in this list talked about 1/2 BW? I see 1 BW in the 10 Dec version). Every sliding after contact is <1BW except for some DBE, so in general you cannot pull out an element out of bad-going just using the movement rate issue.

In fact in my drawing the problem was not the movement rate, but the obstacle posed by other elements.

Notice that there very few terrain features that can prevent contact: to me only Waterway, BUA and rivers (if curved) which can do so.

I personally think this rule is a great improvement, but needs to be spelled out clearly (and with some non-trivial explanatory diagrams) to understand how it must be applied.

Attilio

Andrechin
01-02-2012, 11:09 AM
When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible. If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

:This is the 'non-cheesey' bit, preventing players from using geometry to avoid contact.:

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

:this is the bit that I think covers el jocko's question. So my take on it is that advancing the group, it contacts the corner of C. the two end blue elements (right and centre) then continue to wheel to get into contact with B & C, and slide across to make full front edge to front egde contact.:


According to the text of the rule, it was obvious to me what Doug just said:
after contact is made, than conforming is done and the end position is with the leftmost blue element staying as it is in the picture, without further movement, while the two rightmost elements in full front contact with B and C.

El'Jocko, David Schlanger, mdsanderson, what was your interpretation instead?

Attilio

kontos
01-02-2012, 12:22 PM
So, assuming I do not want to fall into the kinked line defense -still cheesy - I can wait a bound, have the blue group contact the corners of A and C. Now A, being a single element, would be forced to conform. The rightmost Blue elements cannot make front edge contact with B and C now so both B & C would conform to the advancing Blue line? I hope this would be the result as any other conforming would seem to benefit the kinked line defense and I would not be comfortable with that. What's the word?

david kuijt
01-02-2012, 12:45 PM
So in the genuine spirit of trying to establish what the problem is - could you explain what you think will cause problems for an undetermined period?

I am not the David to whom you are responding, but I think DS was basically saying this:

1) resolving how ZOC worked (carpet, flashlight, shooting) and how shooting from behind worked took several years (each, independently) before consensus eventually emerged. And in both cases, the consensus that eventually emerged (based upon the words of v2.2 rules and the community effort to make sense of them) did not correspond to Phil's understanding. With regard to shooting from behind, Phil eventually changed his own understanding; with regard to ZOC Phil never did say which ZOC heuristic he preferred, and still hasn't said so to my knowledge.


2) this rule has geometric implications more poorly understood than ZOC or shooting from behind were when 2.2 came out. As Jack's post (sent to the commentary group many months ago) makes clear, as even the commentary group did not agree as to what the rules made happen in that simple image.


That's what I think DS was saying -- if you take (1) and (2) together, it is clear that the 3.0-playing community is going to disagree on how the rule resolves a number of situations (like Jack's), and further that such disagreement will last for some long period. Years. My guess is that without direct intervention from Phil (which he did not supply in either of the discussions of the ZOC heuristic debate or shooting from behind) it will take longer than either of those. Both of those took 2-3 years to shake out, and there are still people who disagree with the community take on them.

Please don't take this as an attack on 3.0. My observations are based upon my own extensive experience on what happened when resolving the discussions on v2.2 (shooting from behind and ZOC) -- and I was heavily involved in both of those. There is no attack on 3.0 imbedded in my response. It is clear you believe that the 3.0 conforming rule is clear -- and I'm sure it is, to you.

Everyone believed that the 2.2 ZOC rule was clear as well, but it took a couple of years before the community discovered that there were three or four schools of thought on it, each thinking they had the truth, and each different.

Dangun
01-02-2012, 02:13 PM
As Jack's post (sent to the commentary group many months ago) makes clear, as even the commentary group did not agree as to what the rules made happen in that simple image.


The composition of the rule may never be clear, but surely the intent of this rule can be easily settled.

Can't 4 or 5 confirmation situations (like Jack's) be presented to Phil or the inner circle, and once they adjudicate on these, at least we'll know what rule they intended.

I participated in this forum, albeit under a different name, precisely because my group was trying to understand the DBA 2.2 ZOCs. That experience should mean: IF any of the authors or testers actually play DBA, reasonable communication should mean this shouldn't take another 2-3 years.

Cheers
Dangun

Hannibal Ad Portas
01-02-2012, 04:00 PM
If the kink were between b and c in Jocko's diagram, would c be forced to conform after the corner contact and thus fight at a disadvantage?

platypus01
01-02-2012, 05:13 PM
For example, back in August I posted this situation:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RQnHS9OSJL8/TlZa118c3WI/AAAAAAAAAVw/t2iukMy279g/s800/Contact1.png
- Jack

1. After contact the blue group will use up to 1 BW to shift sideways and try to conform to the contacted group.

2. If that is enough so the group contacts both A and C, these elements will shift and pivot to conform with the group. B will not move.

The reason that this happens is because it says "that element". It does not say "that element or group". So in this case B and C will no longer be a group.

There is no requirement that the moving group has to break up to make contact. The rules say "the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible.". This means the whole group, not just bits of it. Note that " as many elements as possible" can include 0 elements, so in the example the kink in the contacted group stops the moving group conforming.

3. If the 1 BW is not enough for the moving group to contact A, then element C will only conform.

4. If C cannot conform (say a waterway is behind it), then C does not move and fights the moving group as if it was overlapped.

This example is analogous to figure 9h to 9j in the back of the DBMM rules. I believe DBA will have some diagrams, so I think it would be a good idea to put Jack's example in.

I believe the intension is to punish kinked lines. My experience with DBA v3 is that it rewards solid lines and an attention to flanks.

Hope this helps. Must now go and do some digging in the garden before the temp gets up over 30 Deg C.

Cheers,
JohnG

platypus01
01-02-2012, 05:19 PM
Another question about conforming

<br>http://www.mi.infn.it/%7Eandreazz/DBA30/SideContact.png

<br>Bw1 contacts Ax2 on the flank. It cannot get to front-corner to front-corner contact because of the enemy Ax3.
Attilio

In this case, Bw1 will move to contact the flank of Ax2. It is eligible to contact the flank, so there is no reason not to allow it.

Bw1 will shift sideways to conform but is prevented by Ax3. Ax2 cannot conform because it involves moving forward. It can only "shift sideways". So things stay as they are.

At the end of the movement phase, Ax2 will turn to face Bw1, and the requirement to be lined up will be met.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,
JohnG

Dangun
01-02-2012, 05:46 PM
1. After contact the blue group will use up to 1 BW to shift sideways and try to conform to the contacted group.

2. If that is enough so the group contacts both A and C, these elements will shift and pivot to conform with the group. B will not move.

Platypus and Doug have two dramatically differing answers to Jack's great question. Anyone care to add a third?

(For what its worth, I thought Doug's argument looked to follow the rule-as-written more closely. But it would be more interesting to know what Phil intended.)

Cheers
Dangun

Pillager
01-02-2012, 06:24 PM
In this case, Bw1 will move to contact the flank of Ax2. It is eligible to contact the flank, so there is no reason not to allow it.

Bw1 will shift sideways to conform but is prevented by Ax3. Ax2 cannot conform because it involves moving forward. It can only "shift sideways". So things stay as they are.

At the end of the movement phase, Ax2 will turn to face Bw1, and the requirement to be lined up will be met.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,
JohnG

The rules specify that Ax2 might "pivot" and pivoting usually involves moving forwards.

>
Pg9
If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can.

Single elements contacting or contacted by a group conform to the group unless part of a contacted single element is in bad going.

When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible.

If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

Pillager
01-02-2012, 06:28 PM
I think the difference is that in current 2.2 the moving player can only pull an element out of BGo if it makes a legal contact on said elements flank and its flank extends out of BGo farther than its base depth. The new rule allows it without the onus of making a legal contact and is harder to prevent. Depending on how the "cannot make contact" provision is interpreted this could be bad. If a player said that he "cannot make contact" because "a terrain feature" reduces his movement rate to prevent enough movement to make a legal contact would be cheesy.

To the contrary, the 3.0 rule IS a legal contact. Its a new type of legal contact, but clearly legal.

Pillager
01-02-2012, 06:35 PM
Doug,

Rich as the nub of it. See, if you do not have the movement to "line up" but can contact the original element in any manner, it appears that the contacted element has to move to "line up."

3.0 follows the mechanisms of DBMM. In effect, the Extra Move To Line Up rule creates "extra" longer movement distance, sometimes, for the purpose of lining things up "realistically."

Sometimes that extra movement is performed by the contacted element(s) -- which is a change in the geometry of the game. But its an improvement; it eliminates a lot of geometry cheese.

Doug
01-02-2012, 08:02 PM
Repeating the text does not answer the question concerning the contact. What is your opinion of what the final position of each element will be with no movement remaining to the moving elements?
Mike Sanderson

If you are asking me, then what I posted above:

"this is the bit that I think covers el jocko's question. So my take on it is that advancing the group, it contacts the corner of C. the two end blue elements (right and centre) then continue to wheel to get into contact with B & C, and slide across to make full front edge to front edge contact"

(Subsequently clarified to say that I dont think that A gets into contact as I dont believe it has the move to reach contact, and the extra move is for slide, pivot or wheel only, which implies it must be part of the group that contacts.)

Doug
01-02-2012, 08:05 PM
Platypus and Doug have two dramatically differing answers to Jack's great question. Anyone care to add a third?

(For what its worth, I thought Doug's argument looked to follow the rule-as-written more closely. But it would be more interesting to know what Phil intended.)

Cheers
Dangun

Which is hilarious because we each play DBMM and DBA together.. which just shows how often these sorts of things come up ...

Maybe John and I should sort it out amongst ourselves first ;-)

platypus01
01-02-2012, 10:51 PM
Which is hilarious because we each play DBMM and DBA together.. which just shows how often these sorts of things come up ...

Maybe John and I should sort it out amongst ourselves first ;-)

Yes, because we are arguing angels on pins here. These things almost never come up in real games.

Cheers,
JohnG

platypus01
01-02-2012, 11:08 PM
The rules specify that Ax2 might "pivot" and pivoting usually involves moving forwards.


But it does not (and should not) pivot or wheel to make a flank contact "valid". A valid contact is either front edge to front edge, front edge to rear edge, or overlap (p9, MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY, para 1, sentence 3). Overlap is defined on p10, CLOSE COMBAT, para 4, sentence 1. In this case mutual left-to-left corner contact.

On page 9, MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY, para 4, sentence 4, note the "or fight as if in full contact and overlapped". This means that there is an option if the element cannot conform. Ax2 cannot conform because this means a forward movement, that is not a pivot or wheel. So it stays put. At the end of movement Ax2 will turn to face.

This will happen once in a blue moon in any case.

Cheers,
JohnG

platypus01
01-02-2012, 11:17 PM
If you are asking me, then what I posted above:

"this is the bit that I think covers el jocko's question. So my take on it is that advancing the group, it contacts the corner of C. the two end blue elements (right and centre) then continue to wheel to get into contact with B & C, and slide across to make full front edge to front edge contact"

(Subsequently clarified to say that I dont think that A gets into contact as I dont believe it has the move to reach contact, and the extra move is for slide, pivot or wheel only, which implies it must be part of the group that contacts.)

There is no requirement for the left most blue element to be broken off from the group. If the extra wheel and slide doesn't make contact with A, then C will pivot and conform to the group.

People do realize the (up to) 1 BW is extra to normal movement?

Cheers,
JohnG

Doug
01-03-2012, 12:52 AM
There is no requirement for the left most blue element to be broken off from the group. If the extra wheel and slide doesn't make contact with A, then C will pivot and conform to the group.

People do realize the (up to) 1 BW is extra to normal movement?

Cheers,
JohnG

errr... sorry .. why ? blue elements - (numbered 1-3 from the left for convenience) advance, and no 3 contacts element C on the corner. The group may now wheel/pivot up to a base width to make contact. As a base width pivot/wheel does not allow element 1 to make contact, then the blue elements wheel 2 and 3 as a group, into edge contact, and slide.

We can always discuss in person !

Dangun
01-03-2012, 02:33 AM
Which is hilarious because we each play DBMM and DBA together..

That does make it amusing, I hadn't realized.

I would add that while the Aux in bad going example is quite contrived, I would disagree about the other example being angels on pinheads, because groups contacting at angles is quite common.

Cheers
Dangun

Dangun
01-03-2012, 02:34 AM
errr... sorry .. why ?

JohnG and Doug, if I may moderate here...

I think its just a misunderstanding about how far blue element 1 (left) can move. Its not completely clear from the diagram how far 1BW would get him.

Cheers
Dangun

Pillager
01-03-2012, 09:53 AM
The rules specify that Ax2 might "pivot" and pivoting usually involves moving forwards.


But it does not (and should not) pivot or wheel to make a flank contact "valid". A valid contact is either front edge to front edge, front edge to rear edge, or overlap (p9, MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY, para 1, sentence 3). Overlap is defined on p10, CLOSE COMBAT, para 4, sentence 1. In this case mutual left-to-left corner contact.

On page 9, MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY, para 4, sentence 4, note the "or fight as if in full contact and overlapped". This means that there is an option if the element cannot conform. Ax2 cannot conform because this means a forward movement, that is not a pivot or wheel. So it stays put. At the end of movement Ax2 will turn to face.

This will happen once in a blue moon in any case.

Cheers,
JohnG

The start of Sentence 3 indicates that the INITIAL contact can be upon the flank of the enemy.

Ax2 can choose to be conformed "at the end of the movement phase" by first pivoting on its front corner, until its front edge is in contact instead of its flank. Then it slides into corner-to-corner contact.

"This means that there is an option if the element cannot conform."

The sentence you refer to gives the contacted player TWO OPTIONS when the moving player is unable to perform the conforming:

1) He can pivot/slide.

2) He can choose to remain contacted upon his flank, in which case he counts as if "lined-up in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner" and also as overlapped.

You seem to think that one of the options takes priority under some circumstances. But the contacted player always has two choices, when the moving player cannot conform.

Pg9

Whether the initial contact is on an edge or a corner, at the end of the movement phase a single contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-up in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or in full front edge to rear edge contact with an enemy elementís edge, or in overlap.


Pg 9

that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact
or
fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Martyn
01-03-2012, 02:11 PM
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RQnHS9OSJL8/TlZa118c3WI/AAAAAAAAAVw/t2iukMy279g/s800/Contact1.png

I am still having problems working out what happens in a situation such as this.

Assuming that the following can be carried out within the additional 1BW movement, I can see that the blue group can slide to align the front right hand corner and then pivot. But what happens when the group pivot hits unit A.
Some are suggesting that the right hand two blue elements carry on to line up with B and C, but then what happens to A and its opposite? Should they not also align, with A pivoting and sliding as the blue element has contacted it.
Others suggest that the blue group then stop and A and C line up with their respective opposites, leaving B un-contacted and unfought..
Or should the blue group pivot be followed by the B/C group also pivoting into contact?

It would help to know what diagrams are proposed to clarify.

If there is not sufficient 1BW movement distance then presumably blue group would slide and pivot as far as it could go and then what? Does the blue group have to fragment so that the right hand element does make full contact with its opposite, but then would have to face a combat at a disadvantage, being overlapped? :???

Dangun
01-03-2012, 03:05 PM
But what happens when the group pivot hits unit A.
Some are suggesting that the right hand two blue elements carry on to line up with B and C, but then what happens to A and its opposite? Should they not also align, with A pivoting and sliding as the blue element has contacted it.

Firstly Martyn, why are you trying to hit element A?

The rule begins, "When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible."

A+B+C is not a group. Only B+C is a group. So the blue group has contacted green group B+C. Only 2 blue elements can possibly be "as many elements as possible" to align with group B+C, so why are we moving the left blue element?

You may instinctively be rejecting the idea that an attacking group should be forced to break up when it contacts an enemy. But the pivoting and aligning up to 1BW will force a longer group to break up anyway.

I'm not saying its a good rule. But I think this is the intention.

Martyn
01-03-2012, 06:55 PM
Firstly Martyn, why are you trying to hit element A?

The rule begins, "When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible."

A+B+C is not a group. Only B+C is a group. So the blue group has contacted green group B+C. Only 2 blue elements can possibly be "as many elements as possible" to align with group B+C, so why are we moving the left blue element?

When conforming does not moving into an overlap also constitue a conformation move? If so all three blue elements would try to conform to B/C (two to be in contact, one to be overlap) that is the 'as many elements as possible', but they can not do so because A is in the way.

You may instinctively be rejecting the idea that an attacking group should be forced to break up when it contacts an enemy. But the pivoting and aligning up to 1BW will force a longer group to break up anyway.

I'm not saying its a good rule. But I think this is the intention.

This does seem to introduce the potential for gimicky geometric ploys where two elements set at an angle can force a larger group to break up, which to me is worse than the percieved problem that is trying to be fixed. If that is the intention, I don't like it.

kontos
01-03-2012, 07:14 PM
When conforming does not moving into an overlap also constitue a conformation move? If so all three blue elements would try to conform to B/C (two to be in contact, one to be overlap) that is the 'as many elements as possible', but they can not do so because A is in the way.



This does seem to introduce the potential for gimicky geometric ploys where two elements set at an angle can force a larger group to break up, which to me is worse than the percieved problem that is trying to be fixed. If that is the intention, I don't like it.

I agree. This was supposed to fix "geometric defenses" and it appears it still rewards them. Where's the "improvement"?

Doug
01-03-2012, 07:39 PM
When conforming does not moving into an overlap also constitue a conformation move? If so all three blue elements would try to conform to B/C (two to be in contact, one to be overlap) that is the 'as many elements as possible', but they can not do so because A is in the way.

This does seem to introduce the potential for gimicky geometric ploys where two elements set at an angle can force a larger group to break up, which to me is worse than the percieved problem that is trying to be fixed. If that is the intention, I don't like it.

No, single elements will conform. And geometric play is less rewarding thanks to the new recoil rules. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is better than the 2.2state of play.

Macbeth
01-03-2012, 11:51 PM
Long before we had any draft rules I had always assumed that if a group was presented with an angled defence as above then that group was within its rights to simply contact the element furthest forward and draw it out, beat it with overlaps and so on down the line until the defenders reacted and straightened up (and flew right :D)

My reading of the rules suggest this is the case - I can't myself see anything that says the moving group has to maximise its contacts - therefore possilby finish up overlapped itself.

My own question regardign conforming came up in our games last Friday between two other players. Lets call them PK and DO for convenience.



From this position : (note the ~ character is providing spaces)

~~~~~~~~PPPPKKKK

~~~~~~~~DDDD
~~~OOOO

PK wished to attack element D with his group at an angle
~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~~~K
~~~~~~~DDDD~K
~~OOOO~~~~~~~K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K

So that element D would conform and then be unable to recoil in a bound or two.

Could PK do this or was he bound to attack DO's forward element frontally and then slide?

Macbeth
01-04-2012, 12:15 AM
The other confusion I had over conforming was flank contacts.

Me I have always been a fan of the fundemental DBA rule about movement into contact - if you can't get the whole element to the position you want then you can't make the move

I remember watching impossibly long lines of infantry in WRG7th whip around having just touched a flank, then getting converted charges on reserve units :rotfl

Last Friday my opponent was able to get the leading corner of his element into the flank of one of mine whilst hitting this element in the front with another. Under 2.2 the best he would have made an overlap but we both assumed that he could pivot the free distance and shut the gate.

Is that right or does the "Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or group's corner" rule override this?

Cheers

Dangun
01-04-2012, 01:47 AM
Long before we had any draft rules I had always assumed that if a group was presented with an angled defence as above then that group was within its rights to simply contact the element furthest forward and draw it out, beat it with overlaps and so on down the line until the defenders reacted and straightened up (and flew right :D)

My reading of the rules suggest this is the case - I can't myself see anything that says the moving group has to maximise its contacts - therefore possilby finish up overlapped itself.

My own question regardign conforming came up in our games last Friday between two other players. Lets call them PK and DO for convenience.



From this position : (note the ~ character is providing spaces)

~~~~~~~~PPPPKKKK

~~~~~~~~DDDD
~~~OOOO

PK wished to attack element D with his group at an angle
~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~~~K
~~~~~~~DDDD~K
~~OOOO~~~~~~~K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K

So that element D would conform and then be unable to recoil in a bound or two.

Could PK do this or was he bound to attack DO's forward element frontally and then slide?

Absolutely you can do that. Assuming that D is a single element and not a group of elements O and D, D will conform to group P+K.

But groups contacting groups is different. AND group contacting group conformation has changed in 3.0. If O+D are a group, and P+K have contacted a corner then it is P+K who conform.

Again, I don't know whether this is Phil's intention, but that seems to be what is written.

Doug
01-04-2012, 02:09 AM
Long before we had any draft rules I had always assumed that if a group was presented with an angled defence as above then that group was within its rights to simply contact the element furthest forward and draw it out, beat it with overlaps and so on down the line until the defenders reacted and straightened up (and flew right :D)

My reading of the rules suggest this is the case - I can't myself see anything that says the moving group has to maximise its contacts - therefore possilby finish up overlapped itself.

My own question regardign conforming came up in our games last Friday between two other players. Lets call them PK and DO for convenience.



From this position : (note the ~ character is providing spaces)

~~~~~~~~PPPPKKKK

~~~~~~~~DDDD
~~~OOOO

PK wished to attack element D with his group at an angle
~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~~P
~~~~~~~~~~~K
~~~~~~~DDDD~K
~~OOOO~~~~~~~K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K

So that element D would conform and then be unable to recoil in a bound or two.

Could PK do this or was he bound to attack DO's forward element frontally and then slide?

It would depend on the interval between the two groups. Essentially one thing that people are missing is that when you reach an enemy elements DZ you may slide to match up frontage.

If he starts from outside the DZ, then he is within his rights to wheel (outside) and go straightforward into the element - forcing it to conform.

If he is already in the DZ, then no fancy stuff.

Doug
01-04-2012, 02:13 AM
The other confusion I had over conforming was flank contacts.

Me I have always been a fan of the fundemental DBA rule about movement into contact - if you can't get the whole element to the position you want then you can't make the move

I remember watching impossibly long lines of infantry in WRG7th whip around having just touched a flank, then getting converted charges on reserve units :rotfl

Last Friday my opponent was able to get the leading corner of his element into the flank of one of mine whilst hitting this element in the front with another. Under 2.2 the best he would have made an overlap but we both assumed that he could pivot the free distance and shut the gate.

Is that right or does the "Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or group's corner" rule override this?

Cheers

Yes it does! Override this.

So, as long as he can get a bee's d*ck (marginally larger than a micron) of front edge into contact with the flank, he can slide for free into a legal flank contact (but not in a DZ). - But he can't contact with a corner and get a pivot.

I would stop playing with him DL ;)

Martyn
01-04-2012, 08:09 AM
No, single elements will conform. And geometric play is less rewarding thanks to the new recoil rules. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is better than the 2.2state of play.

Doug, I may have been unclear so if you can clarify. The two elements would be in a group so when contacted by a larger group the moving group conforms, the effect would be to break up the larger group.

This can be useful with say 2xPs set out in front of the main line at an angle to contact an advancing line of Bd. The Bd have to conform (I could not see anything limiting conforming to groups made up of only Ps) breaking up the line. Couple that with Bd pursuit and it makes a nice mess of the battle line.

Macbeth
01-04-2012, 06:10 PM
Yes it does! Override this.

So, as long as he can get a bee's d*ck (marginally larger than a micron) of front edge into contact with the flank, he can slide for free into a legal flank contact (but not in a DZ). - But he can't contact with a corner and get a pivot.

I would stop playing with him DL ;)

Perhaps I should have been clearer - the way we interpreted the rule was a joint decision with myself as much being the driver as the other player (new Fanatici and DBA Player Lowkee) so I don't think we should slap a label on him :)

Also if what you say above is correct (and no doubt it is) then we would have achieved the same result by making that move as his element would have been easily close enough to acheive that one micron front edge to side edge contact and slid across.

Flanks are brutal in this new version :eek

Cheers

Macbeth
01-04-2012, 06:14 PM
It would depend on the interval between the two groups. Essentially one thing that people are missing is that when you reach an enemy elements DZ you may slide to match up frontage.

If he starts from outside the DZ, then he is within his rights to wheel (outside) and go straightforward into the element - forcing it to conform.

If he is already in the DZ, then no fancy stuff.

I can confirm that they were outside the DZ at the time.

Personally I thought that this move was an example of a "cheesy geometric ploy" but now that I can see that it is within the rules then it obviously I was wrong --> If the rules allow it it isn't a cheesy geometric ploy since the rules are designed to prohibit such play QED. :D:p;)

Cheers

Macbeth
01-04-2012, 06:17 PM
Doug, I may have been unclear so if you can clarify. The two elements would be in a group so when contacted by a larger group the moving group conforms, the effect would be to break up the larger group.

This can be useful with say 2xPs set out in front of the main line at an angle to contact an advancing line of Bd. The Bd have to conform (I could not see anything limiting conforming to groups made up of only Ps) breaking up the line. Couple that with Bd pursuit and it makes a nice mess of the battle line.

However the line of Bd is within its rights to contact one element of that angled group of Ps causing it to conform and therefore break up the angled line designed to slow down the enemy

Or am I reading this wrong?

Martyn
01-04-2012, 06:43 PM
However the line of Bd is within its rights to contact one element of that angled group of Ps causing it to conform and therefore break up the angled line designed to slow down the enemy

Or am I reading this wrong?

I think that as it is the moving group that has to conform you can't split off parts of the contacted group.

I wish somebody would do some nice diagrams that we can all agree on how it works based on those examples. It would make it much easier to understand.

I'm going to bed as my head hurts. :sick

platypus01
01-04-2012, 08:47 PM
I think that as it is the moving group that has to conform you can't split off parts of the contacted group.


I'm going to talk to Doug about this, because my understanding is exactly the same as Macbeth. That is the moving group does not have to "split". It conforms as much as possible WHILE STAYING AS A GROUP, and if it can't, then the enemy element has to conform instead.

This is a radical change, where usually it is up to the mover to do all the compromise. The key here is that groups are allowed to contact front corners, and that the alignment only needs to occur at the end of movement. In v2.2, it had to happen when contact occurred.

But I'll have a wee chat to Doug and see what he thinks. The interweb is such a course instrument to do this type of discussion.

Cheers,
JohnG

Macbeth
01-04-2012, 09:51 PM
I'm glad someone thinks the way I do. All up I originally thought this rule was the best possible solution to the angling of lines that I regulary do myself since I am a bad sport and refuse to let Bd and Sp just march up to my Sung Chinese Bw and Art without trying to avoid a massacre in some way.

However I can now see a whole can of worms opening

As the moving player with a longer line than my opponent I might now wheel in and contact just the end element and draw it out of the enemy line and deal with it singly then take on an even shorter enemy line.

It has been suggested in answer to one of my queries that this is a legitimate move ;)

Cheers

kontos
01-04-2012, 10:27 PM
I'm glad someone thinks the way I do. All up I originally thought this rule was the best possible solution to the angling of lines that I regulary do myself since I am a bad sport and refuse to let Bd and Sp just march up to my Sung Chinese Bw and Art without trying to avoid a massacre in some way.

However I can now see a whole can of worms opening

As the moving player with a longer line than my opponent I might now wheel in and contact just the end element and draw it out of the enemy line and deal with it singly then take on an even shorter enemy line.

It has been suggested in answer to one of my queries that this is a legitimate move ;)

Cheers

Is it a legitimate move? I have seen responses that if that end element is part of a group, it doesn't conform to your moving group. :???

Doug
01-05-2012, 12:53 AM
Is it a legitimate move? I have seen responses that if that end element is part of a group, it doesn't conform to your moving group. :???

John and I are going to revisit this tonight with some elements and the latest draft, and make sure it is clear to both of us before we try and answer that.

Pillager
01-06-2012, 04:46 PM
However I can now see a whole can of worms opening

As the moving player with a longer line than my opponent I might now wheel in and contact just the end element and draw it out of the enemy line and deal with it singly then take on an even shorter enemy line.

It has been suggested in answer to one of my queries that this is a legitimate move ;)


The Danger Zone rule might need tweaking. In DBMM, entering the equivalent of the DZ requires your contact to be FRONTAL, unless you are only moving straight ahead for the entire bound.

Martyn
01-10-2012, 05:21 AM
Continuing the quest for clarification of v3 the following came up that I wanted to check.

Roman Bl with Ps behind contacted to front by Cartho Sp with a Wb that had closed the door. Sp beat the Bd, so Bd destroyed as had enemy in contact with flank. Ps is not destroyed because it did not give support.

Next phase Roman player leaves Ps in place which now has the Wb in contact with flank but not in corner to corner contact. At the end of movement what conforming takes place as neither element moved? I played it as the Wb slid to make corner contact and then the Ps turned to face. I am not sure if it should not have been that the Ps had to pivot to face and line up with the Wb. :???

larryessick
01-10-2012, 08:30 AM
I am not sure if it should not have been that the Ps had to pivot to face and line up with the Wb.

That is how I would have played it, Ps simply turned and conformed to the Wb element.

Martyn
01-10-2012, 09:38 AM
That is how I would have played it, Ps simply turned and conformed to the Wb element.

I have had a further read through and I think you are right. In 'turning to face' the requirement is that if the element has an enemy in front face contact with its flank it turns to face, it does not need corner to corner contact. So there was no need for the Wb to slide.

Thanks. :up

jacar
01-10-2012, 02:28 PM
For example, back in August I posted this situation:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RQnHS9OSJL8/TlZa118c3WI/AAAAAAAAAVw/t2iukMy279g/s800/Contact1.png

- Jack

Been following this thread with interest as I did not understand the contact on a corner rule either but I think by breaking down all the parts, you can come up with something close to what is intended.

Taking inventory:
A group can move straight ahead and wheel. It may not change frontage. I presume this means that there is no depth change either. this also implies that the group may not break up or drop off units along the way as this would violate the frontage depth restriction mentioned. Columns are the exception of course but we can forget about that as they do not apply here.

With that in mind, the attacker moves directly ahead and into contact with the kinked line A-C hitting C on the corner with the right most element. At this point, it must try to conform. It has a free BW move to do so.

Case 1: The group is within 1 BW of A. It wheels up to A. Since A is an element that prevents the attacker from wheeling into position, it can either fight as if overlapped, or pivot to full contact. Similarly, C will conform. As B is part of the group B-C, it may conform as well. So the final result would have ABC lined up corner to corner edge to edge.

Case 2: The attack group is not within 1 BW of A. Here is what is not completely clear, do you wheel as far as you can and then let the defender do the rest or do you stay put and let the defender wheel to contact. Also, does the 1BW free move apply to the moving group only? Or is the move limited by 1 BW for the defending group as well?

Here is how I'd do this. The moving group moves to contact and wheels as far as it can. The defending group then can move the balance to make contact with a unit or the group. In this case only group B-C makes contact. A is not part of the group so it stays put out of contact. This is how the kinked line is punished as now the fight will have 3 on 2 with B being overlapped.

Everything I've said is in the rules. There are a few assumptions in case 2. The larger questions now become

1) If you make contact and you have movement left over, can you expend that movement to conform on top of the free BW move?
2) If you have no movement left, are in contact and cannot conform with 1 BW do you move as far as you can and the defender makes up the rest?
3) Is the defender limited by 1 BW as well?

Hope that helps.

John

Pillager
01-10-2012, 04:12 PM
Hmmm.... These two sentences, buried in a paragraph, is the DBA version of the DBMM rule _section_ called EMTLU (Extra Move To Line Up). In DBMM, it is specifically stated that either player might have to use it. During development, questions were resolved about _which_ player was obligated to try to use it first (moving player).

But in DBA, the structure of the rule indicates that only the _contacted_ element can use it.

I have a feeling that this is NOT a deliberate change from DBMM. I'd like to know for sure.

Pg9
If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this,

that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

jacar
01-10-2012, 04:43 PM
Hmmm.... These two sentences, buried in a paragraph, is the DBA version of the DBMM rule _section_ called EMTLU (Extra Move To Line Up). In DBMM, it is specifically stated that either player might have to use it. During development, questions were resolved about _which_ player was obligated to try to use it first (moving player).

But in DBA, the structure of the rule indicates that only the _contacted_ element can use it.

I have a feeling that this is NOT a deliberate change from DBMM. I'd like to know for sure.

Pg9
If an element or group moves its front edge into contact with an enemy element but cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this,

that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

Indeed. What you say is covered in my case 1. That deals specifically with blocking elements and not units that you otherwise could make contact with. However, I do see your point that defenders CAN move. So that answers the question if defenders are limited to the 1 BW free move for conforming or not.

Doug
01-10-2012, 05:40 PM
I have raised this, and it will be clarified in the next version. As I understand it, it will be incumbent in that position for the end green element to conform.

jacar
01-10-2012, 07:39 PM
I have raised this, and it will be clarified in the next version. As I understand it, it will be incumbent in that position for the end green element to conform.

Doug,

I presume you are talking about the situation where the attack group cannot conform with a 1BW move. As you understand it, would you say then the attack group does not move at all since it can't make contact and it is up to the defending group to get as many stands as it can into contact with 1BW move?

Dangun
01-10-2012, 09:01 PM
I have raised this, and it will be clarified in the next version. As I understand it, it will be incumbent in that position for the end green element to conform.

Doug, that is very interesting.
Are you saying that PB's intention is: that only green element C conform to the blue group? (As opposed to green B and C? or the most literal reading of the blue group conforming to green?)

Doug
01-10-2012, 09:49 PM
Doug,

I presume you are talking about the situation where the attack group cannot conform with a 1BW move. As you understand it, would you say then the attack group does not move at all since it can't make contact and it is up to the defending group to get as many stands as it can into contact with 1BW move?

I believe that is the consensus in the playtest group (except that the contacted elements may not wheeel, they may pivot and slide..) , and I would hope it is clarified in this way in the next release. Of course, Phil may come up with something entirely different... :D

Martyn
01-11-2012, 09:11 AM
I believe that is the consensus in the playtest group (except that the contacted elements may not wheeel, they may pivot and slide..) , and I would hope it is clarified in this way in the next release. Of course, Phil may come up with something entirely different... :D

This seems to be the requirement that is identified in the DBMM contact/conforming rule, but not clearly stated by the v3 draft wording. Would it be simpler if the DBMM wording is imported as this seems to be the intention of the rule but due to the word count has been abbreviated and therefore made less clear.

Doug
01-11-2012, 09:59 PM
This seems to be the requirement that is identified in the DBMM contact/conforming rule, but not clearly stated by the v3 draft wording. Would it be simpler if the DBMM wording is imported as this seems to be the intention of the rule but due to the word count has been abbreviated and therefore made less clear.

Hi Martyn, Norman on the playtest group has made a suggested wording change, which should clarify how this works. Essentially, if the moving group cannot make legal contact using the pivot/wheel and slide due to enemy elements, terrain or gaps, then the contacted elements will conform by a pivot and/or slide as single elements.

Martyn
01-12-2012, 10:31 AM
Hi Martyn, Norman on the playtest group has made a suggested wording change, which should clarify how this works. Essentially, if the moving group cannot make legal contact using the pivot/wheel and slide due to enemy elements, terrain or gaps, then the contacted elements will conform by a pivot and/or slide as single elements.

Thanks Doug, there are still a few bits that I feel are unclear on conforming but if changes are in progress it is probably better to see how they pan out rather than keep up a barrage of, relatively minor, requests for clarification.

Look forward to seeing what transpires.

Doug
01-12-2012, 05:09 PM
Thanks Doug, there are still a few bits that I feel are unclear on conforming but if changes are in progress it is probably better to see how they pan out rather than keep up a barrage of, relatively minor, requests for clarification.

Look forward to seeing what transpires.

Hi Martyn, and in further news, as Phil has now completed the first draft of the Book 2 lists, he is working away on 3 again, and we have seen several emails with changes to be tested. So that's very positive after a bit of a hiatus for Christmas etc.

snowcat
01-12-2012, 06:44 PM
Hi Martyn, and in further news, as Phil has now completed the first draft of the Book 2 lists, he is working away on 3 again, and we have seen several emails with changes to be tested. So that's very positive after a bit of a hiatus for Christmas etc.

I don't suppose he'd consider increasing the shooting range for Bw...?

:D

Doug
01-12-2012, 07:06 PM
I don't suppose he'd consider increasing the shooting range for Bw...?

:D

Has never even been raised. Would you like to make a cogent argument and I will raise it...?

snowcat
01-12-2012, 07:22 PM
Has never even been raised. Would you like to make a cogent argument and I will raise it...?

Cogent? Right, that's me out then...!

Actually it's the thought of heavy foot sprinting through bow range into close combat that concerns me a bit now (ie Bw are in heavy foot's charge range now if they want to shoot at them) - that combined with reduced target selection options for supported shooting = speedhumps for heavy foot.

Try 300p Bw range (will look better too).

Macbeth
01-12-2012, 11:40 PM
Has never even been raised. Would you like to make a cogent argument and I will raise it...?

Cogent arguement -

point 1 - what he said above :D (speedbumps)

point 2 - in other DBx games the shooting range vs movent rates in units per turn effectively doubled the shooting range

Okay I admit I haven't checked this with more recent edtions

point 3 - in DBA 1 and 2 this was a problem but less so since the shooting player could concentrate their firea and break up the enemy line.

point 4 - other DBx games had stricter target priorities which allowed for enemy that got through the initial barrage to close in

DBA 3 has inherited the target priorities but not the ability for the shooters to disrupt the enemy from long range.

A refight of Poitiers or Agincourt might be the best way to demonstrate the current naffness of Bw :D

Cheers

snowcat
01-13-2012, 12:11 AM
Mind if I copy this Bw business into a separate thread...?

Thanks!

:up