PDA

View Full Version : 3 Medieval Battles - Move to Contact


khr
02-04-2012, 03:46 AM
In my earlier post ( http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=12522 ) about our playtest I had mentioned that I had some more remarks about moving into contact.

The games were done using the version of 27th January. A new version is out now, but the rules I want to discuss are not changed, as far as I can see.

We both thought that the new rules for moving into contact are a good idea and should work well, but that the actual text of the rules needs polishing and/or diagrams to clearly bring the intended meaning across

---

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311802_move_2b.jpg
After tactical moves, but before using any extra move to line up corner-to-corner. Is the flank contact by the spearmen on the left legal? It was not under 2.2, where a contact had to be edge-to-edge as well as corner-to-corner to be legal. The edge-to-edge/corner-to-corner rule has been replaced by "Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or groups corner" With this change the requirement for edge-to-edge contact has (inadvertently?) been removed from the text. We inferred from other DBx games, that edge-to-edge contact was still legal, but it doesn't say so in the text any more. Newbies to the game will be confused.

---

A sequence of pictures showing how we understand the process of moving into edge-to-corner contact and where we had difficulties with the rules

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311833_move_3a.jpg
The group of four knights below has moved against the group of 3 knights at the top. They now are in corner-to-corner contact.

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311834_move_3b.jpg
After aligning.
The four knights have slid sideways into corner-to-corner contact and then pivoted around the corner of the enemy group. Is this correct?
On a strict reading of the group move rules, a group can only pivot about its own front corner.
Should only the 3 right-hand knghts have pivoted, leaving the left-most knight overlapping at an angle?
Or even more strictly: should only the 3 right-hand knights have moved as a group, with the overlapping knight moving as a single element?


Greetings
Karl Heinz

khr
02-04-2012, 04:09 AM
And a question about the interaction of threat zones and groups moving into contact.

"An element ... entering a TZ with no part of another element between can only move into contact with, or directly towards ... one such element..."

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311797_move_1y.jpg

Can the group of knights move forward into group front edge contact with the front corner of the pikemen? They would end up like this:

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311798_move_1b.jpg

Our doubts (look at the first picture):
Can the knights "X" move through the pikemen's threat zone (blue) to face the enemy knights?
They certainly could not do so if they were alone as a single element. The part about moving "...against one such element..." also does not apply because they enter the pikemen's TZ before that enter that of the enemy knights.
We assumed that the intention was that the intention was that the whole group could move straight ahead into contact, but what is the actual intention? The only part of the rules that can be read to allow it is the "...part of another element between...". Knights "Y" could be seen as "Between" the pikemen and "X" when the group enters the threat zone. But this seems like a rather strained reading to me.

What is the intention? How can it be brought across more clearly?

Greetings
Karl Heinz Ranitzsch

jacar
02-05-2012, 09:43 AM
Regarding the 4xKn aligning with the 3xKn, you have 1 Bw to make contact in any manner. If that move was less than 1 BW total, then that is fine. I can't break up a moving group so if that was longer than 1 BW then it is up to the defender to align. The defender can move as many units as he likes that can move within 1 BW.

You can contact the pikemen. It appears that the Kn is slightly forward so I would bet that the maneuver you suggest is more than 1 BW. In this case, it looks like the defender will align. Both the Pk and Kn can be called a group and are within 1 BW. So the Pike (with support) and Kn must align with the attacking group.

That's my take on it based on discussion. I am not sure how to word it but there needs to be way more than 1 sentence for explanation...including 2-3 diagrams!

Martyn
02-06-2012, 08:15 AM
In my earlier post ( http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=12522 ) about our playtest I had mentioned that I had some more remarks about moving into contact.

The games were done using the version of 27th January. A new version is out now, but the rules I want to discuss are not changed, as far as I can see.

We both thought that the new rules for moving into contact are a good idea and should work well, but that the actual text of the rules needs polishing and/or diagrams to clearly bring the intended meaning across

---

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311802_move_2b.jpg
After tactical moves, but before using any extra move to line up corner-to-corner. Is the flank contact by the spearmen on the left legal? It was not under 2.2, where a contact had to be edge-to-edge as well as corner-to-corner to be legal. The edge-to-edge/corner-to-corner rule has been replaced by "Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or groups corner" With this change the requirement for edge-to-edge contact has (inadvertently?) been removed from the text. We inferred from other DBx games, that edge-to-edge contact was still legal, but it doesn't say so in the text any more. Newbies to the game will be confused.


There is still a lot to get used too in the contact section. I have asked Phil if he could confirm what diagrams will be available in the rules but these are not ready yet. I am hopeful that these will clarify matters.

In answer to your questions I would comment separately as follows;

Flank contacts should still be front edge to edge/corner to corner with the contacted element, the rules state,

ĎWhether 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.í

It does suggest that an element can move up, swing through 90 degrees so that it just catches the element that it is trying to flank and will then slide the best part of a BW to align correctly. This does not appear logical.

Martyn
02-06-2012, 08:18 AM
A sequence of pictures showing how we understand the process of moving into edge-to-corner contact and where we had difficulties with the rules

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311833_move_3a.jpg
The group of four knights below has moved against the group of 3 knights at the top. They now are in corner-to-corner contact.

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311834_move_3b.jpg
After aligning.
The four knights have slid sideways into corner-to-corner contact and then pivoted around the corner of the enemy group. Is this correct?
On a strict reading of the group move rules, a group can only pivot about its own front corner.
Should only the 3 right-hand knghts have pivoted, leaving the left-most knight overlapping at an angle?
Or even more strictly: should only the 3 right-hand knights have moved as a group, with the overlapping knight moving as a single element?


Greetings
Karl Heinz


Group contacts have been queried before and I donít think that a solution was identified.

A group moves into contact with the corner, thatís ok. The problem arises when Ďa single contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-upí so does the group split up to contact the enemy group. I have interpreted this to mean that the elements of the group that can contact or act as overlap move to contact, but if the contacting group is much larger than the contacted group then some will not move.

Also what happens if the group is of a size, or the contact at such an angle that the 1BW pivot movement is not enough to get it into contact. The subsequent section of the rule 4th para says ĎIf an element or group moves its front edge into contact with a single enemy element or one which is part of a group, 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.í This allows the contacted element to move but only in certain circumstances, lack of adequate movement not being one of them. It would also peel off a single element from the end of a group. The alternative is that the element stays where it is and fights with an overlap (presumably just the one).

A question for Phil I think.

Martyn
02-06-2012, 08:20 AM
And a question about the interaction of threat zones and groups moving into contact.

"An element ... entering a TZ with no part of another element between can only move into contact with, or directly towards ... one such element..."

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311797_move_1y.jpg

Can the group of knights move forward into group front edge contact with the front corner of the pikemen? They would end up like this:

http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311798_move_1b.jpg

Our doubts (look at the first picture):
Can the knights "X" move through the pikemen's threat zone (blue) to face the enemy knights?
They certainly could not do so if they were alone as a single element. The part about moving "...against one such element..." also does not apply because they enter the pikemen's TZ before that enter that of the enemy knights.
We assumed that the intention was that the intention was that the whole group could move straight ahead into contact, but what is the actual intention? The only part of the rules that can be read to allow it is the "...part of another element between...". Knights "Y" could be seen as "Between" the pikemen and "X" when the group enters the threat zone. But this seems like a rather strained reading to me.

What is the intention? How can it be brought across more clearly?

Greetings
Karl Heinz Ranitzsch

On the issue of the threat Zone, I did not think that this is any different to v2.2, the wording is basically the same.

It therefore depends on the interpretation, using the rolling carpet method, Kn Y hits the right hand Pk TZ first and so blocks it, this allows the group to carry on moving and for Kn X to enter into the TZ of the Kn, and then alignment can be carried out. It would be nice if this is specifically spelt out rather than having to revisit old problems of interpretation.

Pillager
02-06-2012, 08:47 AM
ten characters...


After tactical moves, but before using any extra move to line up corner-to-corner.

EMTLU takes place immediately -- you do not do all moves to contact and then all EMTLU

Is the flank contact by the spearmen on the left legal?

No. The newest revision only allows EMTLU for the purpose of making FRONT contact. You cannot use EMTLU to achieve flank or rear contact.



---

The group of four knights below has moved against the group of 3 knights at the top. They now are in corner-to-corner contact.

No, they are in front edge (of the moving group) to corner (of the defending group) contact.


After aligning.
The four knights have slid sideways into corner-to-corner contact and then pivoted around the corner of the enemy group. Is this correct?

I think you are performing the steps in the wrong sequence. You should:
1) move into contact (as shown in the photo)
2) use any remaining move distance to wheel into front edge contact.
3) use any remaining move distance to slide into corner-to-corner contact
4) If still not lined up, use the extra (EMTLU) movement of up to <1 BW

I suppose you could do 1,3,2 instead of 1,2,3. I don't believe there is any difference to the outcome.

Karl Heinz

Pillager
02-06-2012, 09:27 AM
>Can the knights "X" move through the pikemen's threat zone (blue) to face the enemy knights?
What is the intention? How can it be brought across more clearly?
>

Yes they certainly can; you understand the intention correctly. However, I think you are correct that the words in the TZ rule do not adequately describe this situation.

Martyn
02-06-2012, 10:24 AM
ten characters...



Snip
Is the flank contact by the spearmen on the left legal?

No. The newest revision only allows EMTLU for the purpose of making FRONT contact. You cannot use EMTLU to achieve flank or rear contact.
snip


http://kh-ranitzsch.homepage.t-online.de//gallery/hist_bilder/P1311802_move_2b.jpg
After tactical moves, but before using any extra move to line up corner-to-corner. Is the flank contact by the spearmen on the left legal? It was not under 2.2, where a contact had to be edge-to-edge as well as corner-to-corner to be legal. The edge-to-edge/corner-to-corner rule has been replaced by "Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or groups corner" With this change the requirement for edge-to-edge contact has (inadvertently?) been removed from the text. We inferred from other DBx games, that edge-to-edge contact was still legal, but it doesn't say so in the text any more. Newbies to the game will be confused.



Whoops got that wrong then.

Just to clarify, and before I mess up again, the left hand Pk which has flanked the Kn is not in 'legal' contact as it does not have front corner to front corner contact so it will not provide a combat modifier, but as it is in front edge contact with the flank it will make a recoil result for the Kn a destroyed result.

I am reading that correctly.

jacar
02-06-2012, 05:57 PM
I think you are performing the steps in the wrong sequence. You should:
1) move into contact (as shown in the photo)
2) use any remaining move distance to wheel into front edge contact.
3) use any remaining move distance to slide into corner-to-corner contact
4) If still not lined up, use the extra (EMTLU) movement of up to <1 BW


There is no distinct move order to line up. You don't have to wheel and then slide. You simply move each element within 1 BW. There is no need for structure here.
You make corner contact as a group and stop. You then move each element to line up within 1 BW. At the end of the move, your elements should be in the same group position as before but lined up with the enemy. If this cannot be achieved, the enemy can move at least one element and possibly more if he chooses but only up to 1 BW. The defender may wish to stay put. In that case, his element fights as overlapped once.

Pillager
02-07-2012, 08:08 AM
>Just to clarify, and before I mess up again, the left hand Pk which has flanked the Kn is not in 'legal' contact as it does not have front corner to front corner contact so it will not provide a combat modifier, but as it is in front edge contact with the flank it will make a recoil result for the Kn a destroyed result.
>

It is not in legal contact -- therefore it is not allowed to touch at all.

Only legal contacts may be made.

Pillager
02-07-2012, 08:41 AM
1) There is no distinct move order to line up. You don't have to wheel and then slide. You simply move each element within 1 BW. There is no need for structure here.

2) You make corner contact as a group and stop.
3) You then move each element to line up within 1 BW. At the end of the move, your elements should be in the same group position as before but lined up with the enemy.

4) If this cannot be achieved, the enemy can move at least one element and possibly more if he chooses but only up to 1 BW. The defender may wish to stay put. In that case, his element fights as overlapped once.

1) You have a unique interpretation, but I'm positive it is wrong. Although it might work out the same in many instances.

2) Your move does not end when you make initial contact.
3) You do not break up groups & move individually in order to line up in contact.

4) In the unusual case that the attacker cannot line up in contact "because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this" then the defender must move ALL initially contacted elements to line up in contact.

The phrase about "or fight as if in full contact and overlapped" needs more explanation. Its much clearer in DBMM. It handles the situation where the front edge of the attacker hits the defender on its corner. It prevents the defender on the end of the line from being pulled out of line, unless the defender wants to do so.

***

Suppose that in the example, the Knights had used their full move to touch the enemy corner.

The defender has no option move at all, because nothing is blocking the attacker from lining up.

The Kn are required to use "Extra... movement of less than 1 BW" (EMTLU) to get lined up in contact.

Hopefully, the right front corner of the Kn line is <1BW from one of the enemy corners.

If not, the rules don't tell you what to do. IMO, the whole move is illegal, because there is no provision for breaking up a moving group. Measure before you move.

EDIT: Note that EMTLU applies ONLY to the attacking element(s).

If the attacker is blocked, the defender "must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped." No maximum allowable distance is given, but AFAIK it will always be less than 1BW.

The point is that only one player will be doing extra movement, never BOTH.

Pillager
02-07-2012, 09:12 AM
What I said in the Edit above may not be always true:

111112222233333....4444455555

..66666777778888899999

6-9 advances their full move straight forwards into contact. It must then use EMTLU to get lined up. They must go the minimum distance, which is to their left:

111112222233333....4444455555
66666777778888899999

Now, what happens with 4-5 ??? This is a "part-element spacing between enemy" situation.

1) One option is to stand, so 4 fights 9, but 4 counts as overlapped
2) The other option is to slide 4 leftwards. Apparently the rules don't allow the whole group to slide, only 4.

EDIT: The DBMM EMTLU rule says "An element OR GROUP in contact but not already lined up ...must..."

So if 4-5 counts as "a group in contact" then in DBMM both slide. I don't know if having any one element of a group in contact counts as being "a group in contact" or if the phrase is intended to include only the elements in contact.

I also don't know if this rule in DBA is intentionally different from DBMM, or just becomes so because of bad re-phrasing.

Dangun
02-07-2012, 09:45 AM
There is no distinct move order to line up. You don't have to wheel and then slide. You simply move each element within 1 BW. There is no need for structure here.
You make corner contact as a group and stop. You then move each element to line up within 1 BW.

mmm. I'm with Pillager, I'm not getting that from the rules.
Your method may often end up with the same result, but I don't see the rules suggesting a group breaks up into single elements to perform EMTLU.

jacar
02-07-2012, 01:56 PM
mmm. I'm with Pillager, I'm not getting that from the rules.
Your method may often end up with the same result, but I don't see the rules suggesting a group breaks up into single elements to perform EMTLU.

Nor am I suggest that. But there is no reason to think that you have to move in a structured manner either. The only thing the rules say is that you have 1BW to line up. So to put it a better way, the group can move freely in any direction 1 BW to line up in a legal contact.

Matt
02-10-2012, 03:33 AM
1)

The Kn are required to use "Extra... movement of less than 1 BW" (EMTLU) to get lined up in contact.



I like this acronym, but shouldn't it be EMLTU, or better EMLTB? :)

I am going to try and sit down and analyze this discussion. A lot of good stuff here. I think this is the most important part of the rules to get "right".

Dangun
02-10-2012, 03:52 AM
I think this is the most important part of the rules to get "right".

I completely agree. Group to group on an angle contact is very common and very important.

But where these threads can ultimately break down is that we never know what the rule writer intended. So ambiguities have multiple possible interpretations.

Martyn
02-10-2012, 08:53 AM
I completely agree. Group to group on an angle contact is very common and very important.

But where these threads can ultimately break down is that we never know what the rule writer intended. So ambiguities have multiple possible interpretations.

Following on from my earlier comments I have emailed Phil to see if we get a clarification. No response yet, but Phil has in the past responded quite quickly.

platypus01
02-10-2012, 10:40 PM
One thing that is missing here is that v3 will have diagrams. We haven't seen them yet, but, like the diagrams in DBMM, they should clarify the basic questions.

But it is good having photos so we can point out to Phil what needs to be diagramed.

JohnG

Matt
02-12-2012, 04:41 AM
I have been looking at this a bit, and this issue spans several aspects of the rules. The first in the Threat Zone rule. I think groups and single elements need to have different rules in order to meet Mr. Barker's movement to contact intent (units will move into contact if they can/could)

I would suggest the TZ paragraph be modified as follows, starting with the sentence that begins with "An element at the far edge..."

to:

"A SINGLE element at the far edge..." The rest of the sentence stays the same.

A sentence needs to be added to allow elements in a group to move across a TZ, if their group is moving into contact with that element, or any other element.

Suggest the following:

An element that is moving as part of a group that is at the far edge of, or enters into a TZ, with no part of another element between, can continue its movement as part of the group, as long as it, or another element of that group, moves closer to the element imposing the TZ. This movement can continue completely through the TZ so long as the moving group contacts an element that could form a group with the element imposing the TZ.

Thoughts?

More to follow on the actual contact rules.

Pillager
02-12-2012, 02:15 PM
Don't think that separate rules for single vs groups would ultimately simplify.

Chaotic
02-16-2012, 06:06 PM
Can the knights "X" move through the pikemen's threat zone (blue) to face the enemy knights?

The only part of the rules that can be read to allow it is the "...part of another element between...". Knights "Y" could be seen as "Between" the pikemen and "X" when the group enters the threat zone.

You have interpreted the rule correctly and there is no strain. A "threat zone" extends only to the point where it touches another element. Since the contact is with knight Y, knight X is free to move into front edge contact the enemy knights, either as a single element or as part of a group.

I don't think that additional rules are necessary. :)

Matt
02-17-2012, 01:17 AM
You have interpreted the rule correctly and there is no strain. A "threat zone" extends only to the point where it touches another element. Since the contact is with knight Y, knight X is free to move into front edge contact the enemy knights, either as a single element or as part of a group.

I don't think that additional rules are necessary. :)

I think this is a nice interpretation, but no where do the rules say " a TZ extends only to the point where it touches another element". Some form of that line inserted into the TZ rules would be a wonderful addition. Would suggest the following

A TZ extends equally from the front edge of an element to the first part of any enemy element it meets and stops there.

Not sure if this would fix problems as shown in the original question (it might), since a group moving across a TZ will have the elements at one end of the group enter a TZ before closer friendly moving elements do so, and the more distant elements could potentially be forced to alter their movement in reaction to this threat zone.

It boils down to interpretation, which is said by everyone. In this case, alternate interpretations should, in my opinon, be minimized by defining how groups react while moving in a TZ. Clarification in this case would require a few more words, but I think could be accomplished.

Martyn
02-20-2012, 10:07 AM
I think this is a nice interpretation, but no where do the rules say " a TZ extends only to the point where it touches another element". Some form of that line inserted into the TZ rules would be a wonderful addition. Would suggest the following

A TZ extends equally from the front edge of an element to the first part of any enemy element it meets and stops there.

Not sure if this would fix problems as shown in the original question (it might), since a group moving across a TZ will have the elements at one end of the group enter a TZ before closer friendly moving elements do so, and the more distant elements could potentially be forced to alter their movement in reaction to this threat zone.

It boils down to interpretation, which is said by everyone. In this case, alternate interpretations should, in my opinon, be minimized by defining how groups react while moving in a TZ. Clarification in this case would require a few more words, but I think could be accomplished.

Isnít this a continuation of the old discussion which has occurred under every version of DBA which has boiled down to the alternative rolling carpet or flashlight interpretation.

Most people seem to accept the rolling carpet and presumably that is the intention in v3. However, I would agree that it should be made clear in the rules so that there is no need for this discussion yet again.

Matt
02-20-2012, 11:25 AM
Isnít this a continuation of the old discussion which has occurred under every version of DBA which has boiled down to the alternative rolling carpet or flashlight interpretation.

Most people seem to accept the rolling carpet and presumably that is the intention in v3. However, I would agree that it should be made clear in the rules so that there is no need for this discussion yet again.

No knowledge about your first comment, but agree whole heartedly with the second. Seems like just a few words could go a long way, or maybe a diagram...;)

Martyn
02-20-2012, 11:32 AM
No knowledge about your first comment, but agree whole heartedly with the second. Seems like just a few words could go a long way, or maybe a diagram...;)

I have made the comment direct to Phil that diagrams would be of huge benefit. His response has been, yes, they are in production but are not ready yet.

It does make me wonder why, when we are on the final run up before release the diagrams have not been provided. :???

Skeptical Gamer
02-20-2012, 11:51 AM
Most people seem to accept the rolling carpet and presumably that is the intention in v3. However, I would agree that it should be made clear in the rules so that there is no need for this discussion yet again.

I've never actually accepted the "rolling carpet" version (nor the "flashlight" version really). It all boils down to the meaning of the word "between".

"Between" was clearly defined for shooting in DBR, "no part of another friendly or visible enemy element is between imaginary lines connecting one front rank shooting edge corner to any corner of the target element and the other to an adjacent corner without crossing or passing through any element except the target."

Well, clearly defined for Phil Barker anyway. There were even some actually useful diagrams...

The wording in the "crossing an enemy element's front" sections of all of his games is nearly identical so I have to assume that he meant more or less the same thing for all of them.

This is also, more or less, the same definition used in HoTT.

Now I admit that referring to a game (DBR) that very few people other than myself own isn't really fair... but I do think this shows clear intent across the games. I just wish that Mr. Barker would admit that not everyone interprets his rules the same way and would post polite and complete FAQ's for his games.

Mind you, I'll play it any way that my opponent is comfortable with. The impact on the game of the various definitions of "between" is relatively minor. I just prefer the definition found in DBR and HoTT...

david kuijt
02-20-2012, 11:57 AM
I've never actually accepted the "rolling carpet" version (nor the "flashlight" version really). It all boils down to the meaning of the word "between".

"Between" was clearly defined for shooting in DBR, "no part of another friendly or visible enemy element is between imaginary lines connecting one front rank shooting edge corner to any corner of the target element and the other to an adjacent corner without crossing or passing through any element except the target."

Well, clearly defined for Phil Barker anyway. There were even some actually useful diagrams...

The wording in the "crossing an enemy element's front" sections of all of his games is nearly identical so I have to assume that he meant more or less the same thing for all of them.


The "shooting" heuristic has some serious problems when used for ZOC, though. There are non-trivial cases where a number of elements all in the 40mm square in front of a single enemy are none of them in "ZOC" if shooting is the heuristic used; there are other cases where many elements are all within ZOC at the same time. I made a webpage many years ago showing peculiar cases for the three major ZOC heuristics (carpet, flashlight, and shooting); eventually the debate more or less resolved with carpet being the one with the fewest bizarre or offensive cases.

But I think Phil has said he does not like the carpet heuristic, so evidently he means something different. Until a diagram comes up, hard to say what.

Skeptical Gamer
02-20-2012, 12:25 PM
The "shooting" heuristic has some serious problems when used for ZOC, though. There are non-trivial cases where a number of elements all in the 40mm square in front of a single enemy are none of them in "ZOC" if shooting is the heuristic used; there are other cases where many elements are all within ZOC at the same time.

I've never seen a situation where no element is in "ZOC".

I made a webpage many years ago showing peculiar cases for the three major ZOC heuristics

Is this still out there somewhere? I'd love to see all the work you've done on this. I thought I'd followed this debate fairly well, but non-gaming life takes me away from this sort of thing somewhat regularly and I missed this...

Until a diagram comes up, hard to say what.

Wouldn't that be nice...

Thanks for the answer. As I said, I'll be happy to play it in any way agreed upon. As long as my opponent and I are playing it the same way, I'll have fun playing.

Martyn
02-21-2012, 10:24 AM
Is this still out there somewhere? I'd love to see all the work you've done on this. I thought I'd followed this debate fairly well, but non-gaming life takes me away from this sort of thing somewhat regularly and I missed this...


I was waiting to see if somebody else would respond, but, in the absence of anything else

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

I hope that helps. (I hope it works ;))

Skeptical Gamer
02-21-2012, 04:56 PM
I was waiting to see if somebody else would respond, but, in the absence of anything else

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

I hope that helps. (I hope it works ;))

Thank you!