pivot and movement cost

[imported_Paulisper]

A debate at the club last night - can an element pivot on its centre 180 degrees for no cost and then start it's movement?? I felt that a pivot expended distance, ie 1.5 inches (150 paces), and then you had the remainder of the movement allowance, eg 2.5 inches (250 paces), but 1 or 2 members said that you could pivot around its centre for free....??? :confused:

[imported_adsarf]

You were right. No free pivots. Page 9 'Tactical Move distances': "the maximum distance between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element...and that corner's final position is [etc.]"

Pivoting around the centre moves the front corners, so it costs movement.

Andrew

[GAZMAN]

pivot distance in 25mm(paces)vary from 110 to 250 for 90 degrees, depending on base depth, for 180 degrees it's 160 to 290.
due to the mismatch of pace length to base width across the scales the distances are slightly more in 15mm.
180 degree turn in 25mm for close order foot takes 160 paces, for open order foot 170 paces, for cav/lh 180, for el/ch 250 and for the mighty warwagons - 290, so more than one bound for them as their max move is 200.
HTH
Si2

[ August 27, 2003, 06:33: Message edited by: GAZMAN ]

[Martian]

"the maximum distance between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element...and that corner's final position is [etc.]"

Note that for an individual element move only the start and end position of the element matter.

It can go though any gyrations, rotations or spins you want.

This means even a WWg can do a 180 turn by executing what someone else has dubbed " The Martian Flip."

front edge line--------------------

start:

-------
Wwg (facing up)

end:

Wwg (facing down)
------

The only time you measure segments of movement is when you must manuever around terrain that would slow the element's movement, impassable terrain, elements you can not pass through or within one element base width of an enemy front.

So the movement of the rotation doesn't matter unless that is ALL that the element does.

Marty

[ August 27, 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Martian ]

[imported_Paulisper]

Originally posted by Martian:
"the maximum distance between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element...and that corner's final position is [etc.]"

Note that for an individual element move only the start and end position of the element matter.

It can go though any gyrations, rotations or spins you want.

The only time you measure segments of movement is when you must manuever around terrain that would slow the element's movement, impassable terrain, elements you can not pass through or within one element base width of an enemy front.

So the movement of the rotation doesn't matter unless that is ALL that the element does.

Marty Sorry - I'm totally confused now - are you contradicting adsarf and my viewpoints and saying that you don't measure the pivot distance when the move includes a further move in another direction, eg. pivot 180 and then move forward?

[ August 27, 2003, 10:02: Message edited by: Paulisper ]

[xeswop]

Marty, I forgot how much distance that takes. Is it just the base width. Thus the distance a WWg travels to do this is the same a Ps or Bd would move too?

[imported_adsarf]

Paulisper

Marty isn't contradicting me. His point is that as you measure by how far the *front* corners have moved, if you take a big element like a WWG or El and turn it round *not* by rotating at the centre but by 'flipping' it so that the front edge is in the same place, but the element is facing the other way then you've only moved 4 cm (or 6cm depending on what scale you're gaming in). The *rear* corners might have moved a huge distance, but that doesn't matter.

His other point is that (except in some unusual conditions) you measure the distance between the first and final positions of the element. A single element can do the hockey-cockey down the middle of the battlefield if it wants provided that its starting and ending positions are within 1 legal move of each other. Alas, elements doing the hockey-cockey have no effect on the game.

To give a more practicable example, take an elephant with a threatening psiloi behind it - it can 'flip' (front edge stays in place but the element turns around) for 6 cm movement (this is a 25mm element) and then advance or retreat a further 6 cm to make up it's full 300 pace movement. This could leave it 14 cm ( half a move plus the base length of the elephant) further away from whatever was frightening it than at the start of the move.

In fact strictly it could go further, because you would measure the hypotenuse from where each front corner started to where it ended, not the two 6 cm 'straight line' movements I've suggested here. Personally I can't be bothered to do Pythagorus' Theorem in my head either while playing DBA or while posting here, but it comes to about 8.5 cm.

What I love about DBA is that its a simple game, ideal for beginners.....

Andrew

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Paulisper:
Sorry - I'm totally confused now - are you contradicting adsarf and my viewpoints and saying that you don't measure the pivot distance when the move includes a further move in another direction, eg. pivot 180 and then move forward? Marty was pointing out a somewhat subtle distinction. You don't measure two distinct moves, only the total movement. So instead of measuring X paces for the pivot and Y paces for the movement straight ahead, you just measure Z paces for the element's front corner (i.e., Z equals the distance from where the corner started to where the corner ended). It doesn't matter what path that corner took, what matters is the distance from start to finish.

Of course, one consequence of all this is that the pivot is definitely not free. It's just that it's part of the total move.

- Jack

[Paul A. Hannah]

Bob Beattie's "DBA Commentary" has some useful illustrations of the concepts that the last few replies have been describing. You know... "Picture's worth a 1000 words" and all that. ;)

Link to his Commentaries at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts3.html and scroll down a few pages to No.3, under the heading, "Tactical Moves".

[ August 27, 2003, 12:08: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[Badger]

Originally posted by adsarf:
(Marty's) point is that as you measure by how far the *front* corners have moved, if you take a big element like a WWG or El and turn it round *not* by rotating at the centre but by 'flipping' it so that the front edge is in the same place, but the element is facing the other way then you've only moved 4 cm (or 6cm depending on what scale you're gaming in). The *rear* corners might have moved a huge distance, but that doesn't matter.Absolutely legal by the rules, but it nonetheless strikes me as being thoroughly cheesy, and the deeper the element base, the cheesier it is.

By and large I like only worrying about the distance moved by the front corners of an element, not the rear, but this attempt at simplifying the rules has opened an unpleasant cheese-wedge-shaped hole in them.

[xeswop]

I need to add the Martin Flip to the options smile.gif

Originally posted by Paul A. Hannah:
Bob Beattie's "DBA Commentary" has some useful illustrations of the concepts that the last few replies have been describing. You know... "Picture's worth a 1000 words" and all that. ;)

Link to his Commentaries at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts3.html and scroll down a few pages to No.3, under the heading, "Tactical Moves".

[imported_Paulisper]

Thanks for that guys - confusion no longer reigns.... :D

[GAZMAN]

To give a more practicable example, take an elephant with a threatening psiloi behind it - it can 'flip' (front edge stays in place but the element turns around) for 6 cm movement (this is a 25mm element) and then advance or retreat a further 6 cm to make up it's full 300 pace movement. This could leave it 14 cm ( half a move plus the base length of the elephant) further away from whatever was frightening it than at the start of the move. So 'flipping' could be considered 'moving directly to the rear'?? I do believe your elephant may have 'flipped' last night (although not in the 'OBW area') it was flank to flank.
Does seem a rather sketchy interpretaion to me, this 'flipping. IMHO the move is one base depth forward and then a 180 degree about face. But I can see nothing in the letter of the law that forbids the flip. I would hope that anyone who uses this device would never he heard to utter the words historical or realistic....
Si2

[ August 28, 2003, 11:47: Message edited by: GAZMAN ]

[imported_adsarf]

"DBA is an interesting game with many tactical possibilities which reward careful play, but as a model of ancient tactical combat it is neither historical nor realistic."

Satisfied?

Yes, I did 'flip' an elephant in our last game last night to get it from alongside the flank of your Cav to legal contact with the rear. It was a legal move measured front-corner-to-front corner, but the total movement of the rear corners was much further. Used in this way, I don't think it's particularly cheesy although there are some pretty ripe tactics which are possible this way.

Bear in mind that I could just have happily have contacted your flank if it hadn't been for the 'edge of the world' - itself a potentially cheesy game element.

On your other point, I don't consider a flip could be a move 'directly to the rear', so my original example would only apply if the Ps was close enough to threaten but not close enough to Barker the elephant.

Anyway, what are you doing posting here when you've got 4 battle reports to write? Don't want the Board to hear about that waltzing Bow element?

Andrew

[GAZMAN]

Hmm - ok, the quote is comprehensive and most realistic. If not historic...
I think in fairness it allows those elements based on big bases to move about a bit more - just because the base is big and unweildy doesn't mean the troop type represented is - in the case of chariots anyhow, elephants and WWg may be relevant to the big, clumpy base.
As for edge of the world - AAAargh, the new micro sized 25mm board has to be my biggest beef with DBA at the moment - Light horse as an element are useless - even Psiloi duff them up. With skilful use of the conform to group effect (Ahem..) they can even be dragged into BG and vaporised. They have nowhere to go any more. Their only advantage is their speed of advance, now the enemy camp is so much closer and 44% of the open ground that was available is gone the light horse advantage is gone also.
I am writing up the battles, impartially of course!

[ August 28, 2003, 11:45: Message edited by: GAZMAN ]

[imported_adsarf]

I agree. All our recent games have been tactically limited because of the smaller board, we should definitely reinstate the bigger board next time we fight.

Andrew

[imported_Paulisper]

Here's to bigger boards - I do all my DBA now in 6mm on 32" boards ......gives everyone plenty of scope for manouevre and takes away the influence of the all-pervasive BUA!!! :D

[nick hux]

My initial take on this when I first read the rules was that an about turn was "free". In the Tactical Moves section it says, "A tactical move by a single element.....can end facing any way." I took this to mean that a single element could simply turn round. However the Tactical Moves Distances section does lay things out as you've all been saying.

Now a couple of observations:
</font> When it comes to "cheese" - the "Martian flip" seems rather ripe ;) .</font> A simple about turn would not be achieved by a massive wheel about its centre. At its simplest everyone would just turn round! Even a pike phalanx would turn by reversing the order of each rank. Given this, why shouldn't it be "free" as I first thought?</font> Nick

[Badger]

Originally posted by nick h:
A simple about turn would not be achieved by a massive wheel about its centre. At its simplest everyone would just turn round! Even a pike phalanx would turn by reversing the order of each rank. Given this, why shouldn't it be "free" as I first thought?
Because getting everyone to do that -- issuing the order, transmitting it, and getting everyone to execute it -- would still take time! It becomes no longer a matter of just "follow the guy ahead of you", but a more radical change of direction.

Or so it seems to me... FWIW.

[imported_Ivan Nastikov]

The only thing about a free 'about turn' is that fleeing elements can get from the end of flee position back to Barkering the element that made them flee within one move - free about then a full tactical move back to the front edge of the OBWA, which, as wee all know is 'in'.
I don't think they shoudl be able to do this, it's just my opinion though, maybe the intent is that they can do this.
Maybe the about turn does not occupy any ground space, but it does occupy time and if you think the movement rates are how far a unit can move in X minutes, then making an about turn cost paces seems logical.
A flip still costs a base width worth of paces. It's not 'free'.

Andrew - I am forcing myself to play the little board in preperation for my attempt on the British OPEN, I need practice in the cramped confines. My forst games against my wifes EIR were white washes - I was pushed off the edges all over the place. I am now considering abandoning the notion of taking one of the light armies I love for something more 'tournament' like.
SI2

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

I have always believed that a 180 degree turn on an element's center was equal in movement cost to the diagonal distance from one corner to the opposite corner not on the same side (imagine a rectangle element....make an X connecting the corners...the length of one of the lines you just drew is the distance the element moves when it makes the 180 degree pivot)...I think this has been previously debated and reinforced by Bob Beattie.

As for the "Martian Flip" that allows you to flip 180 dgrees and physically move the element a base width forward/backward at the same cost as I just listed above....I see no support for that interpretation in the rules and view it as total cheese. If Bob Beattie and others endorse it, then I guess we are stuck with it....but it seems that the element should have to have the movement to make the 180 degree turn and move an element base depth to complete the "Martian flip."

[xeswop]

Maybe in an modern army drill team, the whole unit can do an about face and move in the opposite direction, but not so in an ancient army. Not all soldiers are equal there. Typically the front ranks had the better fighters and/or better armored ones. Thus an about face is not each man turning around and marching off. Probably the front men made a right turn and then a right and marched by files to the rear and reformed. Or perhaps in the less drilled units, the various corner "NCOs" ran to their new position, and everyone formed up on them.

In game terms,if all soldiers were equal, there would be no need an element to turn to face a rear attack.

Thus to compensate for the time for the troops to reform, you measure from where the front corner starts to where it ends up. No need to measure the diagonal and then add the forward move. Just measure where it starts to where it ends.

I cannot see anything in the rules to prohibit the Martian Flip. It is just one of those anomolies that end up in rules where one of the writer's goals is be a brief as possible. smile.gif

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

The "Martian flip" is cheese of the worst kind. I will specifically disallow it at tourneys that I referee. Fortunately, I haven't seen it in use at any tourney I have played in. It is just taking advantage of the lack of clarity in the rules and somehow I doubt Phil Barker would approve of its use...but who knows? After all, he does allow Buttocks of Death...as absurd as that is. BOD has only been used against me in DBAOL and never on the tabletop. I understand the idea behind BOD, but think it shouldn't be used as a gamey tactic. That is how I view the "Martian Flip." A gamey and cheesy tactic. Even cheesier when huge 80mm depth bases use it!!

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Bob Bettie wrote: No need to measure the diagonal and then add the forward move.I thought the cost of a 180 degree turn is the diagonal of the base? If that is true, then shouldn't that be the case in the Martian Flip example?? By the way....where did this concept of measuring the furthest distance an element's corner travelled come from? I don't remember reading it in the rules, but I do know it is the standard we go by. I guess it is the idea of the "oozing amoeba-like element" that Phil explained to Bob. Sure leads to some spectacular maneuverability for unwieldy element types! Can't wait to see a war wagon do the Martian Flip!

[xeswop]

Let me try again. If you just turn about, then the distance is the diagonal. Not a problem for most types, not WWg, maybe not 6Kn.

However, if you plan to move after the turn about you do not need to measure the diagonal and then add that to the rest of the distance moved. Take a 25mm Ps for example. I think the diagonal is about 175p (sq.root of 60mm squared + 30mm squared). That would leave about 125p more to move. Instead, measure from the original front corner to the ending front corner -- the long diagonal distance -- and I think it is about 50 paces further. So do not measure the diagonal as a seperate operation and then the straight distance left. Just mearure from the front corner start to front corner end to get the max distance allowed. Is my math right on this? This is not a free turnaround and then a 300p distance as some suggested. It is a 300p measure from the front corner original to front corner end.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

I understand the concept of the 180 degree turn being the diagonal. I am going to measure some samples of such a turn and move as well....if it costs less movement to measure the diagonal and then the final position, then why not go with the lower cost? The rules don't disallow that. Have to check the math to see if it works out though. As far as the flip goes, if the unit just did the 180 but its front line never moved, isn't the cost of the move equal to the distance its rear corner traveled?? I always understood it to be the case that we measure the farthest distance any of the 4 corners moved.

[imported_Ivan Nastikov]

I always understood it to be the case that we measure the farthest distance any of the 4 corners moved. Alas, not so - it would make things simpler if it was.
DBA in paper form mentions measuring the front corners only. Whereas DBAOL, the electronic version running slightly different rules says, and I quote...

DBA Online uses the same method of measuring distance traveled and hitting obstacles as tabletop DBA:

An element can move from its initial position to the specified final position if no more than one "corner line" intersects an obstacle (forbidden terrain, friendly or enemy elements). This allows an element of, say Blades, to move from Rear Group Contact into Flank Group Contact.

The longest of these 4 "corner lines" is considered to be the distance moved.

So these guys say longest corner move is the move distance and they say this is as written in 'tabletop' DBA.
These rules were developed with the WRG DBA crew so when they say 'the same way' you would think it would be...

I don't know, I think something got lost in the transcription from brain to paper. The obvious take is that movement controls the distance an element moves, and it should not be possi ble to move and part of that element further than the author has intended, and stated, it be moved. But if there is a way to avoid a stated movement maximum, you can garauntee someone will find it...
Si2

[GAZMAN]

if it costs less movement to measure the diagonal and then the final position, then why not go with the lower cost? this is unlikely - you're measuring what is in effect the opposite and the adjacent and expecting them to be less than the hypotenuse.
Si2

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always understood it to be the case that we measure the farthest distance any of the 4 corners moved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Alas, not so - it would make things simpler if it was.
DBA in paper form mentions measuring the front corners only.
--------------------------------------------------

Oh my goodness!!! If this is true, and if I understand the "Martian Flip" correctly, a war wagon could make the flip for a cost of 40mm of movement!!! :eek: After all, its front line stays in place and the stand flips on that line, so the front corners merely swap places and that is only 40mm of movement!!! I sure hope that kind of cheese isn't allowed :rolleyes: .

As I understand the rules, a mere pivot in place of 180 degrees is the diagonal of the base. Since a war wagon (most drastic example) has a depth of 80mm, that means the diagonal is the square root of 6400mm + 1600mm.....that is 89.4mm...or about 3.5 inches...which in 15mm is 350 paces and that is beyond the 200 paces war wagons can move in good going each bound...

The war wagon example points out the absurdity of the "Martian Flip," presuming I understand it correctly....

[GAZMAN]

Bob
makes a good point about supporting elements moving around to become flank support elements, maybe to become overlap elements.
for a 3wb element in 15mm to move from rear support to the side support position costs 60mm or 240 paces when the movement for this troop type is only 200 paces.
The diagonal is only 45mm (44.72) and so within the movement range.
the same goes for the thinner based troops, blades etc, these need 55 to go sideways then forward, but only 43mm (42.94) if you measure diagonal.
In 25mm for foot you need 80mm and 90mm to do the same thing if you measure across then forward, 80mm being exactly 200 paces in 25mm scale, but only 63 and 67 if you measure the diagonals.
From this bit of measurement it would almost seem that the game had been designed in 25mm scale, as the max movement of heavy foot takes them exactly to the front from the rear. This would mean that the old bigger 25mm board was the size of battle field that 15mm should have adopted, and that it was sacrilege that the 25mm gamers should be forced to play on such tiny football pitches. There, I managed to get a 25mm battlefiled rant in as well - a job well done.
Tata
Si2
Si2

[xeswop]

Keep in mind that DBAOL is based on DBA 1.22 and indeed does use the same movment rules. The current version of DBA is 2.1 and is very different from the older version. You would think people would realize that difference by now.

By the way, I do not believe any "WRG Crew" were involved in the original development of DBAOL. All technical advice was provided by various regular players

Originally posted by Ivan Nastikov:

DBA Online uses the same method of measuring distance traveled and hitting obstacles as tabletop DBA:

So these guys say longest corner move is the move distance and they say this is as written in 'tabletop' DBA.
These rules were developed with the WRG DBA crew so when they say 'the same way' you would think it would be...

I don't know, I think something got lost in the transcription from brain to paper. The obvious take is that movement controls the distance an element moves, and it should not be possi ble to move and part of that element further than the author has intended, and stated, it be moved. But if there is a way to avoid a stated movement maximum, you can garauntee someone will find it...
Si2

[GAZMAN]

Bob
Aaah, ok, I see now. Once something is published in software it tends to be there on the web for ever. I hadn't realised that the DBAOL was based on a version 1 DBA.
So during the change to V2 the movement rules were changed to specify front corners measured during movement.
I guess there were some anomilies with large based elements that prompted this - although the resulting changes have left us with the almight Martian flip!!
Do you know why the front corners were specified Bob??
Best regards
Si2

[xeswop]

Sorry, I do not recall it ever coming up during the development and playtest of 2.0. One of the drafts just had that rule and it seemed ok and it played well so no discussion. I wish Marty had noticed the flip option then smile.gif

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Well....I figured this "Martian Flip" stuff had to be stopped and exposed as the cheese that it is. I sent an e-mail to Phil Barker and he doesn't approve of the move. Here is his reply and my question to him.

"Very clever! Very infantile!
This is an attempt by the worst kind of rule lawyering to subvert the intention of the rules and should not be allowed by any umpire, tolerated by an opponent or practised by any player with any self respect."

Phil Barker
----- Original Message -----
From: Nordwind44@aol.com
To: pc.barker@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:18 PM
Subject: A DBA Question


Question from Hannibal Ad Portas:

My question refers to the DBA movement rules. I have always understood a pivot of 180 degrees costs the diagonal of the base in movement. Therefore, a cavalry stand pivoting 180 degrees would use up 50mm of movment (about 200 paces). However, one of the more enterprising players here in the U.S. has come up with what I perceive to be an outrageous and illegal move. It is called the "Martian Flip," in his honor. Bob Beattie thinks this move is within the rules. The move consists of a unit pivoting on its front line, it ends up making a mirror of itself. He has surmised that the move would only cost 40mm of movement and the unit would still have surplus paces to move forward or backward from its new position, since the element has simply switched its front corners and the Tactical Move Distances section only talks about front corners......but the whole unit has actually displaced as well!! This makes it possible for even a war wagon to make the move and that is utterly ridiculous. The war wagon's rear corners would have moved almost 650 paces to achieve the move. I was wondering how you might rule on this move? I figure that you would disallow it entirely.

[xeswop]

What is the "intention of the rules?"

If we knew that in many cases we would not need explanations from Phil. He prefers to write with brevity.

The flip is legal according to the rules. In the next edition I hope Phil will correct the rules to prevent this, but also allow a WWg to make a 180degree turn in one bound. Was the intent of the rules to prevent this action?

If a player wants a WWg to go from facing north along a certain frontage to become facing south along that same frontage, how should it be measured???

Answer that before complaining that the action is cheese!

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
"Very clever! Very infantile!
This is an attempt by the worst kind of rule lawyering to subvert the intention of the rules and should not be allowed by any umpire, tolerated by an opponent or practised by any player with any self respect."

Phil Barker
The rules are what Phil wrote, not what he wishes he wrote or thought he ought to have written. They have to be interpreted by the rules of English grammar and there's no scope for misinterpretation of this rule. It clearly specifies that only the front corners are used to measure movement.

How does this differ from the 'shooting entirely on rear' rule in terms of either the spirit of the game or the original interpretation?

DBA 2.1 isn't 3 months old, and already Phil is changing his mind about what it means.

I can feel another post about Gnosticism coming on.

Andrew

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
Well....I figured this "Martian Flip" stuff had to be stopped and exposed as the cheese that it is. I sent an e-mail to Phil Barker and he doesn't approve of the move. The funny thing is, it doesn't really matter what Phil Barker thinks. According to the rules (you know, the ones that are actually written down on paper, and not floating about somewhere in Phil Barker's head) the Martian Flip is legal. And unless directed otherwise by the Chief Umpire, when I am acting as an umpire, I will certainly rule that such a move is allowed.

- Jack

[Pozanias]

I have to weigh in with Andrew, Jack, and Bob on this one. The rules are very clear, measurement is taken by the furthest moving front corner. I don't see any room for debate.

As to whether it's cheesey or not...I'm not sure. That's a much more subjective thing.

An old version of the rules mandated measurement from the furthest moving corner period.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

I think it is just common sense that the "Martian Flip" should be disallowed. The war wagon example points out its folly. If a unit can not stand in place and pivot 180 degrees, what is the rationale for allowing it to physically dispace its base depth and pivot 180 degrees using the flip. :rolleyes: The move is obviously cute and good use of a hole in the rules, but I don't see it as good manners on a game table. The first time someone attempted to use it at our games would certainly not foster goodwill. Fortunately, I have not seen such a tactic on our game tables.

Everyone seemed just thrilled to avoid the use of the BUA when 2.0 came out and did so. They didn't like that rule and ignored it, DESPITE the fact that it was written on paper. So why is this situation any different? Why is this maneuver being so strongly defended and the rules looked upon as the gospel....even after the designer has guided us as to his intent?? In tournaments that I run, the "Martian Flip" will be disallowed. Just as I went along with the tide of discontent against the mandatory BUA before!

[Badger]

"Very clever! Very infantile!
This is an attempt by the worst kind of rule lawyering to subvert the intention of the rules and should not be allowed by any umpire, tolerated by an opponent or practised by any player with any self respect."

Phil BarkerVery peevish! Very infantile! This is an attempt by the worst kind of responsibility denying to avoid acknowledging poorly prepared and written rules and should not be allowed by any editor, tolerated by any tournament competitors, or taken seriously by any player with a solid command of English.

How much more credibility could The Barker have earned had he been willing to say (in effect), "Oops! I hadn't anticipated that one... Better fix it. Any suggestions?"

I suppose this is just another failing on the part of stupid North Americans in that we're not able to read The Barker's mind and know "the intention of the rules". Mea maxima bloody culpa.

It looks to me as though probably the original "fix" of only considering how far the front corners move (elegant, but, as Martin has shown, flawed) needs to be rethought. "Closing the door" should still be possible in one turn; should the existing movement allowances be applied to the front corners, and some maximum above that be determined for the rear corners as some function of the depth of the element base? The geometry might require a few calculations, but with only so many base sizes, the results could simply be given (rather than making everyone do the calculations him/herself).

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Badger:


I suppose this is just another failing on the part of stupid North Americans in that we're not able to read The Barker's mind and know "the intention of the rules". I'm English, and I can't read his mind either. Probably our educational standards have fallen on this side of the Atlantic since Phil was young.

Hannibal, I think you are conflating two rather different issues. The BUA issue is one where the players chose to change the rules to make the game more satisfactory for themselves, this is an example where the designer is trying to change the rules to make them more satisfactory to himself. This isn't Phil's game any more: he sold it to us and its ours now.

If we all agree that the 'flip' is silly then of course we can have houserules to forbid it, but Phil doesn't have a casting vote in that: its up to every group of players to use the rules as they see fit.

We've all been caught out before by seeking the 'author's intention'. This isn't the first example to show that Phil sometimes intended something he didn't achieve, or forgot his original intention when asked what it was (bows 'entirely on rear' for instance), or simply his intention was misguided (e.g. BBDBA deployment or, indeed, compulsory BUAs).

So if you're saying 'I think this is a hole in the rules, lets discuss a houserule' then I'm happy to have that debate with you and if you announce that houserule in advance of a tournament I would have no trouble with seeing it enforced. Phil could take part in that debate like any other player (although for very sound reasons to do with wanting some personal life, I know he chooses not to - which is fair enough).

We can exchange posts on the rights and wrongs of flipping some other time, but try asking yourself some questions about how meaningful the rear corners of a 300p-deep base really are.

Andrew

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

So, what is the rationale for anyone to believe the "Martian Flip" is anything other than an attempt to find and take advantage of a loophole in the rules. What is the real world historical rationale for allowing such a move? Does it illustrate a problem with the rules as written? I think it does that. Then why defend it so vehemently? Can't we have a debate and look for a solution....that was what happened with BUA's???

[nick hux]

I'm saddened by the way this thread has gone. Phil's reply is obviously inflammatory – I somehow doubt he wanted it read by everyone (particularly the "flip"'s creator ;) ) – but I think we should slow down in making personal attacks on him.

Once again I think the problem comes down to what exactly the DBA rules are.

They are a set of rules to allow people to play wargames, not a legal document. They cover most eventualities, but they (and Phil) expect anything not covered to be dealt with by agreement between players on the basis of what reflects the historical reality we are trying to recreate and what is in the "spirit" of the rules. They come from (and reflect the attitudes of) an era of wargaming when competitions were rare and when, in true British fashion, winning was not important – it was taking part that mattered!

We now press them into use where we scrutinise every phrase, usually for better understanding, but with the consequence that sometimes we find things which are "legal" (i.e. not excluded by the rules as written) but (fairly?) clearly not what was intended, like the Martian flip.

So what can we do? In private (non-competition games) whatever we like - House rules, standard interpretations, gentlemen’s agreements :D . In competition people need to know what to expect and here I think the DBA rules are lacking in places. I think we could look at it as like a national constitution. What most people on this forum want is the American model – a single written document. What we have is more like the British model. We have our starting point (the rules) but we also need "case law". I think that Bob's commentary might give a good start for this.

So, please don't complain because Phil wrote what he did as he did – take it and move forward. If you really think they are, "poorly prepared and written rules and should not be allowed by any editor, tolerated by any tournament competitors, or taken seriously by any player with a solid command of English" (which I don’t think you really do smile.gif ) then I would suggest you look for and use some that are.

Nick

[Alan Winterrowd]

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
So, what is the rationale for anyone to believe the "Martian Flip" is anything other than an attempt to find and take advantage of a loophole in the rules. What is the real world historical rationale for allowing such a move? Does it illustrate a problem with the rules as written? I think it does that. Then why defend it so vehemently? Can't we have a debate and look for a solution....that was what happened with BUA's??? Well said. Any rules set will fall apart eventually if you beat them hard enough. I suppose that as a tournament director one must follow the letter of the rules, but I do not think that I have played face to face with anyone who would try such a move. I know that I would not play them twice, if any choice was left to me.

[xeswop]

Indeed, let's have some suggestions for a solution now that the problem is before us. Until there is a suggestion for change, we must use what is written. Earlier I asked

"If a player wants a WWg to go from facing north along a certain frontage to end up facing south along that same frontage, how should it be measured??? "

This assumes the flip is not being used for some infamous purpose, just to change direction.


Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
So, what is the rationale for anyone to believe the "Martian Flip" is anything other than an attempt to find and take advantage of a loophole in the rules. What is the real world historical rationale for allowing such a move? Does it illustrate a problem with the rules as written? I think it does that. Then why defend it so vehemently? Can't we have a debate and look for a solution....that was what happened with BUA's???

[imported_adsarf]

I tried to indicate one of the problems with the anti-flippers position in my last post. The depth of bases is set by the size of miniatures (or, more strictly the size miniatures used to be all those years ago when Phil set these standards for the old WRG sets) *not* the actual historical depth of formations which, in any case, varies hugely between different troop types which DBA treats as the same.

This is what creates the problem (although a minor contribution is that you are allowed to move a single element backwards or forwards at the same speed) with the Martian flip. A warwagon element in 25mm (which is what I play) is a bowshot-and-a-half deep. In my understanding of their historical deployment, they were usually deployed side-on to the enemy in single line ahead, so the 'true' depth of the formation ought to be the width of a wagon plus a little bit - shall we say five metres? Let's be generous and call that 10 paces or (25mm again) 4mm.

Hannibal wants common sense: here it is. In a 'Martian flip' the real front line of the element hasn't moved at all (because the warwagons don't really all countermarch, they each turn individually), the 'real' rear edge of the *unit* has moved about ten-twenty paces (all the guys hiding behind the war wagons scoot round to the other side of the wagon they were hiding behind). In a tun-in-place then each 'real' warwagon has moved (25mm) 300 paces (again, they just turn round, they wouldn't really countermarch). So the 'flip' is much closer to a 'common sense' idea of what would happen if you ordered the unit to turn around.

But how can you apply this 'common sense' on the wargames table? Its hard enough to fit today's models on the base sizes we already have, we're not going to get them any smaller. 6mm might be doable without huge distortion, but only just - and anyway most 6mm players use 15mm or 25mm base sizes (and lots more figures).

If we're going to fix the rules (and by all means, lets) then we need to be clear which ones are broken.

Andrew

[Badger]

Originally posted by nick h (in which he quotes Badger):
If you really think they are, "poorly prepared and written rules and should not be allowed by any editor, tolerated by any tournament competitors, or taken seriously by any player with a solid command of English" (which I don't think you really do smile.gif ) then I would suggest you look for and use some that are.
Just to clarify, I meant in my quoted comments to refer to the comments of his on the "Martian Flip" and the v2.0 change that allows said maneuver (and to parody his own comments); I don't mean to dismiss the entire ruleset thereby. Of course, I have always said that The Barker needs an editor -- a ruthless one -- but the basic rules I think are sound. I just think their explication needs a lot of work.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Wagon laagers moving about during a game don't make much sense either. Historically, the laager would move till ready to deploy for battle...then it would deploy and receive the enemy. It was not an ancient panzer division. In fact, the war wagon element in DBA seems to represent nothing but problems in design....

The flip still looks wrong as a game mechanic. Taken from that angle only, it is absurd for a unit to displace and turn 180 degrees when the same unit is prohibited from pivoting in place 180 degrees. If the size of the stand is the issue and if we all believe the unit should be able to pivot in place, then perhaps we should allow all stands to make a 180 degree pivot in place regardless of their movement rate, similar to the allowance for heavy foot to "close the door?" The move could not be done while in ZOC. This seems to be a better solution than the one being used. This could be agreed upon as a house and tourney rule on a case by case basis till an actual rules amendment takes place. Phil Barker is adamant that that will not happen for two years. I can't say that I blame him.

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
the war wagon element in DBA seems to represent nothing but problems in design....
Something we can all agree on!

The easiest houserule to go back to is 'four corners', although this will significantly reduce the mobility of the deeper elements.

Andrew

[David Crowell]

Warwagons do indeed seem very problematic from a game design standpoint. Like BUAs I think they are worth including on the table for colour is nothing else. Getting them to "feel" right but still have simple rules is the nut.

A reading of the 2.0 rules for Tactical Moves, does little to clarify.

"A tactical move by a single element can be in any directions, even diagonal or oblique, can pass through any gap as wide as its leading edge, and can end facing any way." Page 8.

This implies that an element can pass through a gap as little as 1 EBDepth wide (15mm for 4Bd in 15mm) if the flank edge is the leadinge edge for that portion of the move. Ending facing any way sounds to me like the player is allowed to freely choose facing at the end of movement. All well and good, no problems so far, and no need for the flip, just end your move facing the other way. I get a strong implication from this section that an about face in place is fine.

Then we come to Tactical Move Distances: " Otherwise the maximum distance between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element or any element of a group and that corner's final position is:" Page 9

Here is where the flip comes in, as an about face in place is a longer move.


I would propose an amendment allowing elements to turn about face in place, and possibly disallowing the Flip, as being the simplest solution. Either that or its back to defining a move as being measured by the farthest moving corner, which perhaps unduly penalizes deep elements. Maybe we should just adopt square elements and solve the problems of variable base geometry that way.


The Flip does feel exessively Gamey, but it does seem to be within the letter of the rules, and is the only way for some elements to about face in a single bound. I wonder how Phil would respond if we asked him if it was his intent that Wwg and such require more than one bound to about face....

[Joe Mauloni]

The view from *outside*
Let me begin by saying that, over the last several months, I have developed a tremendous respect for the members of this site. You are knowledgeable, dedicated, and sincere folks.
Kudos.
But I gotta tell ya ... this type of issue is the reason why I have decided to stick to solo play for this game. Some of the solutions to rules questions have been, frankly, unusual. There is little unique to these rules and over the years these questions have been addressed and answered before without the need to pester the author. Phil Barker has contributed to this as well by adding changes to the rules without adequate playtesting.
I recognize the need for a single, unambiguous ruleset for tournament play and I understand that that is the intention here, but in cases like this, where the rules are ambiguous (or wrong) the example of prior rules could be used as a guide. Answers to issues that defy common sense or are radically different from most games should be avoided.
Case in point: the flip. This is absolutely allowable as written. This is not ambiguous. This is simply wrong from an historical and gaming standpoint (sorry Marty). The units that profit most from this move are the long bases; EL, Art, WWg, 6Kn etc. None of these unit types are noted for their agility. A simple solution has been suggested; measure the furthest corner. Why is this a problem?
It is not my intention to be confrontational or to start a flame war and I apololgize in advance if anyone has taken offense from this. I also realize that my opinions are likely to only hold weight with me.
Which is why I play solo.

[David Crowell]

Joe,

I certainly take no offense at your remarks. Indeed I largely play solo or down at the FLGS where I am the DBA-guru (owning afik the only copy rules) so I can use common sense and what feels proper as a guide. I tend to avoid tournaments as on the whole I don't like tournament style play (nothing against those who do).

I think DBA's biggest problem is it is a set of pub rules being used for tournament play. I think it works fine for friendly play and hash out any unclear bits with a bit of friendly conversation. I have yet to see the Flip in play, we just ruled that elements can pivot in place, such a pivot being measured only if the element also wishes to make further movement. It seems to work well enough as a house rule. It follows on the spirit of the "closing the door" rule.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Joe Mauloni:

Case in point: the flip. This is absolutely allowable as written. This is not ambiguous. This is simply wrong from an historical and gaming standpoint (sorry Marty).We should probably be more careful in noting that while Marty brought the flip to our attention (and someone else dubbed it in his honor) as a legal movement per the rules as written, I haven't noted him being a proponent of it as a historically accurate or sensible. I wouldn't want Marty to be slandered for cheese he's not using -- if he merely pointed it out and is not using the tactic himself.

The question thus being: are you using the 'Martian flip' in play, Marty? ;)

[Joe Mauloni]

You're absolutely correct. I had no intention of slandering anyone, even if they are using this tactic. I realize that my post did not make this clear.

[Martian]

Phil's remarks on the "Martian Flip"

Very clever! Very infantile!
This is an attempt by the worst kind of rule lawyering to subvert the intention of the rules and should not be allowed by any umpire, tolerated by an opponent or practised by any player with any self respect.

Phil Barker But then Phil's first words on meeting me at Historicon were.


"Aw yes, Martin. The Troublemaker!"

At least he had a big grin or his face when he said it.

Or was that a grimace?

Marty

[Marcus Barca]

A couple of people have suggested banning this manoeuvre. I don't see how this could be banned without returning to the "measure the furthest corner's movement" rule.
How would you word a rule to ban the flip ?

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Well, it would seem that the rule needs to go back to measuring from the farthest corner. Question is, will that cause unforseen difficulties as well?

How about this fix: All pivoting must be in the form of a wheel, or pivoting in place ....

I do think that an amendment is required to allow larger bases to pivot in place...providing they don't end up in contact and they make no other move that bound.

[GAZMAN]

I don't see why they shouldn't make contact - after all if you contact them in the rear they will turn to face easily enough with no movement cost to them at all.
Si2

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Fair enough....allow the contact at the end then. Now how does the rest of the new rule idea I suggested sound?? Can anyone think of obvious problems??

[Michael Fischer]

As coiner of the phrase 'Martian Flip', I'd like to restate some of my observations.

To turn in place (25mm in brackets)(using metric measurements only) the various troop types need:

</font> El, HCh - 226p [250p]</font> 3Kn, 4Kn - 200p [180p]</font> 6Kn - 288p [250p]</font> 3Cv, 3Cm - 200p [180p]</font> 6Cv - 288p [250p]</font> LCh, SCh - 226p [250p]</font> 2LH, 2Cm - 200p [180p]</font> 4Sp, 4Pk, 4Bd, 4Wb - 171p [158p]</font> 3Sp, 3Bd, 4Bw, 4Lb, 4Cb, 3Bw, 3Lb, 3Cb, 3Wb - 179p [168p]</font> 6Bd, 8Bw, 8Lb, 8Cb - 226p [212p]</font> 4Ax, 3Ax, 2Ps - 179p [168p]</font> 5Wb, 7Hd - 200p [180p]</font> Art - 226p [250p]</font> WWg, Lit - 358p [335p]</font>
The types which can't do it even in good going are emphasised. NB: El, HCh, 6Kn, 6Cv, LCh, SCh can't do it in bad going.

In real life, the majority of troops in every element will be crowded into the first few paces' depth of the element. To make the Martian Flip, your troops would have to perform a rather complicated choreography, but nobody would move much more than 1 base width.

To measure the distance for the corner that moved most would interfere with wheeling.

Ceterum censeo: You just have to tidy the scale issues, use square bases and adjust the maximum moves to the base dimensions to get happy. :D

[xeswop]

But recall that WWg do not turn to face a flank or rear attack, they count the edge contacted as the front edge.


Originally posted by GAZMAN:
I don't see why they shouldn't make contact - after all if you contact them in the rear they will turn to face easily enough with no movement cost to them at all.
Si2

[xeswop]

Note that in the language of DBA,
pivot = a swivel on a front corner of an element
"Movement is not measured when an element pivots from overlapping ..."
wheel = how a group can turn, with a pivot on the front corner of an end element
"a group can only move straight ahead or wheel by pivoting around a front corner"
"To move as a group, each element must move parallel to, or follow, the first of them that moves and must move the same distance or wheel through the same angles"

So you if you want elements to "pivot" they will swivel on a front corner. Elements do not wheel. Any rule must use the language of rules so there is consistency.

Also, note that Phil says that he thinks the M-flip "subverts the intention of the rules." Before you can make any suggestion for a modification you must first know the intention of the rules on this point.

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
Well, it would seem that the rule needs to go back to measuring from the farthest corner. Question is, will that cause unforeseen difficulties as well?

How about this fix: All pivoting must be in the form of a wheel, or pivoting in place ....

I do think that an amendment is required to allow larger bases to pivot in place...providing they don't end up in contact and they make no other move that bound.

[Marcus Barca]

"How about this fix: All pivoting must be in the form of a wheel, or pivoting in place ...."

So how would you actually measure the move ? Would you measure front corner to front corner for each pivot and wheel separately and add them up. This would make single element movement quite unwieldy I think.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

"How about this fix: All pivoting must be in the form of a wheel, or pivoting in place ...."
------------------------------------------------
So how would you actually measure the move ? Would you measure front corner to front corner for each pivot and wheel separately and add them up. This would make single element movement quite unwieldy I think.
--------------------------------------------------
No...you can measure it the same way it is done now. The fix I proposed has no change in the way things are measured. The game already handles changes of diretion by wheeling or pivoting in place and measuring the farthest distance moved by a front corner. It simply prohibits the Martian Flip by its wording since it is not wheeling or pivoting in place. I do think a rule change allowing the really large bases to pivot in place as their move is necessary though....

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Okay...Okay Mr. Beattie! Single elements "wheeling" might not be DBA terminology. However, it sure is easier to understand...

So how about this revision:

"A tactical move by a single element can be in any directions, even diagonal or oblique, can pass through any gap as wide as its leading edge and can end facing in any way. Pivots are executed using the elements center or any corner as the pivot point."

[DBAse]

Which historical troops do we think could actually execute a pivot around their centre?

Half the troops are moving backward, half are moving forward, sounds a little complicated for all but the most regular professionals.

Especially mounted troops, it is not easy to make a horse go backwards. And how do half an elements' chariots or war wagons move backwards in a pivot. How is that in English, "cart before the horse?"

Why not force all pivoting to be at a front corner.

DBAse

[ September 09, 2003, 20:12: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[Marcus Barca]

"you can measure it the same way it is done now. ...It simply prohibits the Martian Flip by its wording since it is not wheeling or pivoting in place"
But this doesn't prohibit the flip. If you pivot in place and then move backwards you can end up 'flipped'.

[Michael Fischer]

Originally posted by DBAse:
Which historical troops do we think could actually execute a pivot around their centre?

Half the troops are moving backward, half are moving forward, sounds a little complicated for all but the most regular professionals.
Even for the pros it would be tedious to walk backwards some 250 paces.

But no RL troops would make a pivot in this fashion.

An excerpt from the US cavalry regulations of 1862 (that's out of period, but gives a formalised description of the 'countermarch' procedure):
At the command, the non-commissioned officer on the right turns to the right about, moves to the rear, and turns to the right, and moves forward, so as to pass one pace in rear of the croups of the horses; arriving near the flank he turns to the left, and halts behind the left file, with two paces between the croups of their horses. The other troopers move, each when the one on his right has gone five paces, (nearly com*pleted his about turn,) performs his right about and right turn from his own ground independently, and will thus find himself one pace behind the trooper who had been on his right; and each turns to the left so as to come into his place in line as before, halts, and dresses to the right. But the troopers who are at the left of the centre of the platoon, make at first a right turn, moving so as to follow each other with distances of one pace, and turn again to the right opposite their places, and move up into line, dressing by the right.If we admit that the majority of troops in every element will be crowded into the first few paces' depth of the element, the 'Martian Flip' is much closer to RL than pivoting on the centre (and moving the front by up to 320p while doing so).

[ September 10, 2003, 05:11: Message edited by: Michael Fischer ]

[GAZMAN]

But recall that WWg do not turn to face a flank or rear attack, they count the edge contacted as the front edge.
The effect is the same - although the physical element doesn't move in this case - the effect being that they get to change the fighting edge for no movement at all.
I see the flip fugue as a big fuss about not much at all.
No one jumps up in the air and screams CHEESEY!when an element turns to face for free - I mean look at the actual historical facts - attack a bunch of guys in the back - does the whole mass of men turn neatly around and get ready to repulse you...??
I don't think so.
Take a situation where the 'flip' could be called into effect - two elements side by side, near the edge of the board facing along - not towards the edge, like II. The outer element is not going to want to attack the flank of the inner element as if it recoils it will magically disappear of the edge of the flat world. So it 'flips' and sideslides and attacks the rear of the element that was next to it. Consider the movement of the two bodies of troops - they were alongside, now they are inline - not an inconceivable movement.
This situation is legal under the rules and is used by the player because of the edge of the world effect - something I consider cheesier than a pair of my socks after a five hour march across the peak district in August with my boots done up too tight.
Si2

[<Hannibal A>]

I think it is very hard to make arguments about DBA elements as if they are a contiguous line of formed troops, or a single monolithic block. In reality, they could be seen as representing several bodies of formed troops...a 4 Sp element in DBA represents up to 1,200 men and that is only a nominal ground scale. Therefore, I see no problem with pivoting on a back corner or pivoting in place....Couldn't that be viewed as several smaller units conducting maneuvers within a space represented by the element's stand?

In fact, Phil wrote on page 2 (bold added by me for emphasis):
"Although each element is depicted as a rigid rectangular block, this does not imply that the troops it represents are necessarily in such a block of do not vary their position ."

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

I think it is very hard to make arguments about DBA elements as if they are a contiguous line of formed troops, or a single monolithic block. In reality, they could be seen as representing several bodies of formed troops...a 4 Sp element in DBA represents up to 1,200 men and that is only a nominal ground scale. Therefore, I see no problem with pivoting on a back corner or pivoting in place....Couldn't that be viewed as several smaller units conducting maneuvers within a space represented by the element's stand?

In fact, Phil wrote on page 2 (bold added by me for emphasis):
"Although each element is depicted as a rigid rectangular block, this does not imply that the troops it represents are necessarily in such a block of do not vary their position ."

[GAZMAN]

That's basically what I am saying - the base is just a theoretical space occupied by a whole load of X type troops - imagine chariots, in this ground scale they are almost dots, smaller than 2mm figures (on 25mm ground scale).
From an arial view they would look like flies in a fish tank. The notion that they are all line up on the front edge or stood shoulder to shoulder is not correct - even for pike and spear phalanxes, what we represent is not a block or line, but may be several groups.

I have had the flip used on me recently - I hardly noticed it, let alone jumped out of my seat and raged about dairy products. And we didn't discuss what rule facets we would be using either in a pre combat agreement.

Afterall - we were at war.

GAZMAN

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Well.....if I see 80mm and 60mm deep bases doing flips in a game, then that isn't a person I really want to make a habit of gaming with. It hasn't happened in any of our LA area tourneys yet. It just isn't gentlemanly and within the spirit of the game. It goes against the designer's intent, even if that is often hard to divine. It seems obvious to me that it is wrong. I hope I am not the only one who sees that. (I don't like BOD either, but would raise less of a ruckus about that if it were used by someone up 3 to 1 in a game.) The suporters of the "flip" can't seem to be convinced that it is cheese. Fine. However, you can't convince me otherwise either. It might take two years, but I am sure it will be amended right out of DBA.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Gazman, didn't you write this earlier in the thread?

"Does seem a rather sketchy interpretaion to me, this 'flipping. IMHO the move is one base depth forward and then a 180 degree about face. But I can see nothing in the letter of the law that forbids the flip. I would hope that anyone who uses this device would never he heard to utter the words historical or realistic...."

So where do you stand on this issue?? Your latest post seemed to defend the move as being rather unimportant... Do you support the flip or not? Or are you "flipping?" ;) You would make one heck of a politician!

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

This will be my last rant in this thread. I just can't stand it anymore. A use of a loophole in the rules can only be seen for what it is, cheese. Sorry about all the raving, but this kind of defense of the indefensible drives me crazy. The designer has an intent in his rules. A not so obvious flaw is pointed out by an enterprising gamer and that is dubbed the "Martian Flip." The game designer is asked for an opinion and he communicates to us that the flip is not his intent. So, we ignore him??? Isn't this the same guy we keep asking for rule changes?? Why do we bother if we don't care what his intent in the design was or is? Oh well....guess I will have to wait for about a year and a half to see what becomes of the flip.

[GAZMAN]

Robert
The quote was really specific to a particular game I had with Asdarf - I think he responded in a suitable manner!
He flipped me during the game, but he did it because he was near the board edge with an El element and to turn to attack my flank would have put him with his rear less than a recoil away from the board edge.
From a purely ranting view point it seems a wicked thing to do, although it is technically allowed.
I think it has very little impact on the game and I would consider it small fry when compared to reducing the 25mm battlefield area by almost half.
GAZMAN

[GAZMAN]

Robert
I do see it as wrong - and not in the intent - I just don't see it a major wrong - if you know what I mean. I think trying desperately to rewrite to eliminate this rule would add nothing to the game and could introduce more loopholes.

I think the rules author gets confused on his intent sometimes. The intent changes from day to day - otherwise why would the battlefield sizes change and the BoD rules change and warwagons etc. There are plenty of examples of direction change in intent instead of clarifications.

Psiloi flee to recoil
warwagon not turning
two from just the latest ammendments.

GAZMAN

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by GAZMAN:

The quote was really specific to a particular game I had with Asdarf - I think he responded in a suitable manner!
Thanks for defending my honour. As I recall, I didn't even realise that what I had done was a 'Martian' until afterwards. It's like waking up to discover that you've been talking prose all your life...I used it on you the other night with that warband element sandwiched between your Thracian LH and Ax. To be honest I thought that was a more 'gamey' move than the Elephant although it was probably allowable under Hannibal's proposed revision - one of the odd effects of being in two Barkers simultaneously.

As I seem to be the only person who actually uses this move regularly in combat (or maybe other users just don't admit it) can we have it renamed the Martian-Adsarf Flip?

Andrew

[Martian]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
The funny thing is, it doesn't really matter what Phil Barker thinks. According to the rules (you know, the ones that are actually written down on paper, and not floating about somewhere in Phil Barker's head) the Martian Flip is legal. - Jack Exactly my reply back to Phil on the matter!

He hasn't gotten back to me yet.

Marty

[DBAse]

Excellent quote from Michael on pivoting.

It suggests that for most troop types a pivot around an element's centre is absudly non-historical. (and for warwagons and chariots just impossible.)

They should not be allowed. IMHO.

DBAse

[GAZMAN]

If you outlaw pivoting, what will replace it??
Will a single element have to wheel on a front corner??
I pivot quite a lot - as I use Light horse and Psiloi who flee, so I need to 'turn around' and get back into it.
Would i now need to wheel around and back up??
I saw the pivot after flee as a regroup, the guys have legged it to safety and now stop and turn around, have a quick breather and return to fighting. With no pivot will I have to 'wheel'?
If I am to near the edge of the world will I have to back up first?

As for the quote - for most troop types a pivot around an element's centre is absudly non-historical. (and for warwagons and chariots just impossible.)
this is just not true - chariots were all over the place - the egyptian chariot can turn around almost within an axle width - the element base doesn't represent chariots axle to axle in a line, like something from Ben Hur, this is a wheeling, churning, racing, retreating, returning mass of fifty chariots. As an element type I see no reason why chariots, or any other cavalry cannot move in any direction at all.
A friend of mine who plays 1:1 WW2 skirmish was amazed to see a DBA element of horse back up a couple of hundred paces 'horses can't reverse' he said. He sees the three horses as three men on horse back, they are not. In DBA the ground scale is enormous. imagine a 25mm base for chariots, it's 60mm by 80mm and has fifty little chariots on it. These are smaller than 2mm figures, if there was such a thing they would be 1mm figs. They look like dots with a pencil.
We need to divorce ourselves from the rigidity of element blocks - as Phil suggests in his DBA preamble.
Si2

[ September 11, 2003, 04:50: Message edited by: GAZMAN ]

[Michael Fischer]

Originally posted by DBAse:
Excellent quote from Michael on pivoting.

It suggests that for most troop types a pivot around an element's centre is absudly non-historical. (and for warwagons and chariots just impossible.)

They should not be allowed. IMHO.

DBAse I just wanted to illustrate what's really happening when a unit faces about.

Of course the whole procedure of countermarch by files followed by countermarch by ranks would only be used by 'regular' troops where it matters where the File Leaders, File Closers and Right Hand Markers end. For irregulars it may suffice to countermarch by files, for skirmishers even an individual turn about may be convenient.

IMO the troops are not (more or less) evenly distributed over the whole base area, but populate mostly the first paces from the front.
Close order foot (8 ranks) may have a real depth of ~40' (16p; 4mm [6mm]) loose order foot (8 ranks) ~60' (24p; 6mm [10mm]), open order foot (4 ranks) ~30' (12p; 3mm [5mm]), horse and camel riders (4 ranks) ~40' (16p; 4mm [6mm]), elephants and chariots (1 rank) ~20' (8p; 2mm [3mm]).

The most anyone has to move is 1 element base width plus twice the real formation depth.

The result would look like an element flipping and moving forward twice its formation depth - between 4mm [6mm] and 12mm [20mm].

Don't forget that one bound (15 minutes) is ample time for so few movement.

War Wagons are a different kettle of fish. In RL they are most probably a double file of wagons, so using the full element depth, but only a minor fragment of the width (maybe something like 10p).
To turn around would indeed require moving the whole base depth plus some paces. And that's more than a maximum move permitted.

[GAZMAN]

I had to do it - here is a JPEG of fifty, two horse chariots on a 25mm base drawn to scale. The base is 150 paces by 200 paces.
http://www.gazclub.co.uk/images/im1a.jpg
This is a swarm, the notion of everyone about facing is not reality - some may already be pointing that direction. I like the game mechanic of making an element pivot around the centre to return - it doesn't mean all these chariots do a precision manouvre like some synchronised swimmers - I see it as limiting the movement distance because sometime is needed to transfer instructions and get the unit heading in the right direction.
This drawing is in AutoCAD - anyone who wants the .DWG file is welcome to ask for it - you can zoom in and count wheel nuts then...
GAZMAN

[ September 12, 2003, 06:36: Message edited by: GAZMAN ]

[Martian]

Originally posted by nick h:


Once again I think the problem comes down to what exactly the DBA rules are.

They are a set of rules to allow people to play wargames, not a legal document. They cover most eventualities, but they (and Phil) expect anything not covered to be dealt with by agreement between players on the basis of what reflects the historical reality we are trying to recreate and what is in the "spirit" of the rules. They come from (and reflect the attitudes of) an era of wargaming when competitions were rare and when, in true British fashion, winning was not important – it was taking part that mattered!

Nick Well put Nick!

This forum tends to focus on the competition aspect of the game. That and untwisting Barker logic ( ;) ). In answering someone's rule query, we've found unexpected results in the 'flip'.

In general I would not use it, except against Phil, just to show him the problem or unless someone used it against me in a game.

I laughed when I got Phil's reply, which is why I posted it here. I guess I shouldn't have. It just shows you how passionate we are for DBA, that people get so upset over it.

Just be aware of it (the flip) and decide how you want to handle it at home.

Tourney directors must do the same.

Bob usually will run them 'as written' at HMGS-East events.

Others are welcome to do otherwise.

Marty

[xeswop]

I believe in strictly applying the rules in tournaments. Work with Phil to iron out the anomolies but do not attempt to make changes in the battle rules. Once that process begins you end up with something like what the BHGS in UK has done with DBR. They have not just made clarifications but made actual changes in the rules to the extent that they are different. When we asked Phil at H'Con what he thought of that as a process, he was very upset.

Let the few strange outcomes ride if they are rare. If they are frequent, then make sure everyone understands the rule so no surprises.

I believe for the sake of tournament play, given the time restraints imposed, it is sometimes necessary to modify the start and end rules. Thus I consider such changes for BBDBA to be acceptable. I do not think making playing rules changes is necessary as they do not affect the timing of the game.

My motto for DBA
One Dice, One Rules, One Community

[konstantinius]

Could someone please explain what exactly the "Martian Flip" is? After reading all three pages of the thread I still haven't understood it. Does the element just face about, i.e. from facing, say, north to facing south? I've always thought that this is allowed for single elements, not groups, at the expense of 1 PIP and since there is no distance covered (the rectangle of the base remains in the same place) I never even measured any distance!
If the issue is in regards of an element pivoting 180 to face the other direction then this should be done according to the movement allowance of the particular element, always measuring from the farthest moving corner as provided in the rules. I haven't measured actual distances (all my stuff is still packed up-third month in a row now)but it seems to me that slower moving elements of foot would not be able to complete the pivot in one turn, including Wwg.
So what exactly is the argument about? Thanks, K.

[David Crowell]

It is the phenomenon where by an element can "flip" and change facing for 1 EBW worth of movement by exchanging the positions of its two front corners. AB is element A is front edge B is back.


CBBBB
AAAAA
aaaaa
bbbbc

Element move from upper to lower case position or vice versa. Front edge of element remains on line Aa. Movement cost is the width of the element, even though corner "c" travels farther.

[konstantinius]

I see... now I have to reread all three pages...

[Michael Fischer]

Originally posted by konstantinius:
Does the element just face about, i.e. from facing, say, north to facing south? I've always thought that this is allowed for single elements, not groups, at the expense of 1 PIP and since there is no distance covered (the rectangle of the base remains in the same place) I never even measured any distance!Obviously it's allowed for single elements ("A tactical move by a single element ... can end facing any way."), but distance must be measured ("between the starting point of any front base corner ... and that corner's final position"). The front corners don't remain in place. Art, WWg/Lit, 6Bd and 8Bw/8Lb/8Cb can't do it because of their small maximum moves and large bases. El, HCh, 6Kn, 6Cv, LCh, SCh can't do it in bad going.

If the issue is in regards of an element pivoting 180 to face the other direction then this should be done according to the movement allowance of the particular element, always measuring from the farthest moving corner as provided in the rules. Actually not the "farthest moving corner" is measured but the farthest moving front corner.

[konstantinius]

I stand corrected on both.
As for the "Flip", I agree with Martian's closing comment. As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware of the move at all; I don't think it ever emerged in any of my solo or few partner games that I've had.
Personaly, I'm just now catching up with 2.1 and that is largely due to Bob Beattie's excellent guides posted on his web page as well as the Yahoo Group. I've had very little contact over the last few months (I've been through a lot of moving around due to military reasons and most of my stuff is in storage--but I've kept a copy of the rules:) and I sort of eavesdropped on this long, very heated debate. For someone like me who finds it hard to keep in touch all the time it'd be best if the rules were set in stone, so to speak, but that is anti-evolutionary (and so are a few other things that I've experienced in the last year) and against the dynamism of the game. Regardless, this page remains a great source of information.
I'm sort of welcoming myself back --sounds of widespread applause-- thank you, thank you, ...nods head...exits left.