Movement Question [Archive]

imported_JLogan

09-30-2003, 08:40 PM

First of all, Pthomas, congratulations on raising an excellent issue. I only hope someone can demonstate a definitive answer - which, I hope, is that, no, this is not a legal move. However, the sole reason it may be a "legal" move is likely because of the 3rd example/analysis that El'Jocko gave. As he mentions, a very analogous situation (though slightly different to your example) to this is currently being debated in another post (we can fix it) and seems to be still up in the air, in so far as reaching a consensus of opinion.

However, re your objection to El'Jocko's 3rd analysis/example, that you feel that he has understated the movement cost, I suspect what he would say that you have missed, is that you only consider when moving, the furtherest distance travelled by one of the FRONT corners; the REAR corners are ignored, even though as you point out (and is often the case) they will actually travel further.

So technically, El' Jocko's 3rd situation perhaps does work (though others on the "we can fix it post" debate this). However, for me, it just doesn't "feel' right; the idea that troops could wheel into a column and then zip around a corner to slide into flank contact of an enemy just feels wrong to me. But I'm equally not sure what part of the rules can be pointed to that disallows it (but I'm hopeful others will successfully find it!) I hope Bob Beattie and some of the other veteran experts will weigh in on your post here, just as El' Jocko has done (and yes, excellent graphics El' Jocko - thanks, those are always very helpful).

Incidentally, for El' Jocko, in your first graphic example, can you point me to where in the rules does it make clear (or can the inference be drawn, as you do) that troops who normally cannot interpenetrate each other, may however, have one corner (only) legally appear to pass through a friendly element? This would certainly explain why in Bob Beattie's excellent commentaries, he allows an example of a second rank Sp to expand forward and to the side to align with the front rank Sp, and only have to measure the front diagonal distance moved, even though this causes the lagging front corner to appear to pass through the front friendly Sp element.

I never understood this example of Bob's (to me it seems an 'illegal' interpenetration), but your comment would appear to explain it - if it's supported by the rules, which is what I'm looking for help on finding where it's in there. Many thanks!

xeswop

09-30-2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:

Interestingly, I always thought units wheeled
into a flank attack and that was why a blade couldn't "close the door." However, even if you don't wheel, but rather "ooze" into flank attack with heavy foot, that would still take 2.22 inches (222 paces) and would be prohibited were it not for the 2.0 rule allowing you to go from overlap into flank contact. Careful with the use of words. In DBA there are no "units" as Phil use to tell me when I asked questions about them.

Do you mean "groups" -- they do wheel. But I think you mean "elements" -- they pivot. So we get the rule,
you cite. The "ooze" is just a way to think of the solid looking elements on the battlefield as made up of individual people. The element pivots from overlap to flank but you do not measure it. This can still happen if the pivot is through a hole in the enemy lines because of the ooze function.

The problems for DBA are not due to the front corner measurement. This is in HOTT and there are no problems. Our problems stem from the double deep WWg and the fact that there are no examples or description of how to move.

El' Jocko

09-30-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by JLogan:
So technically, El' Jocko's 3rd situation perhaps does work (though others on the "we can fix it post" debate this). However, for me, it just doesn't "feel' right; the idea that troops could wheel into a column and then zip around a corner to slide into flank contact of an enemy just feels wrong to me. But I'm equally not sure what part of the rules can be pointed to that disallows it (but I'm hopeful others will successfully find it!) I hope Bob Beattie and some of the other veteran experts will weigh in on your post here, just as El' Jocko has done (and yes, excellent graphics El' Jocko - thanks, those are always very helpful).Yes, I found it very odd at first, and it's still not intuitive. But I haven't found anything in the rules that disallows it, and haven't even been able to come up with a rule of thumb that would allow me to distinguish it from moves that have always been accepted as legal.

Incidentally, for El' Jocko, in your first graphic example, can you point me to where in the rules does it make clear (or can the inference be drawn, as you do) that troops who normally cannot interpenetrate each other, may however, have one corner (only) legally appear to pass through a friendly element? This would certainly explain why in Bob Beattie's excellent commentaries, he allows an example of a second rank Sp to expand forward and to the side to align with the front rank Sp, and only have to measure the front diagonal distance moved, even though this causes the lagging front corner to appear to pass through the front friendly Sp element.

I never understood this example of Bob's (to me it seems an 'illegal' interpenetration), but your comment would appear to explain it - if it's supported by the rules, which is what I'm looking for help on finding where it's in there. Many thanks! I still remember having it explained to me the first time. I was playing DBM and I was convinced that Terrance had just pulled it out of his...oops, kid-friendly forum...invented it out of thin air. But it has now shown up in both DBM and HOTT, and so has been adopted for DBA.

- Jack

[ September 30, 2003, 18:56: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

Hannibal Ad Portas

10-01-2003, 05:31 AM

Thank goodness, I now know that I can't call my DBA stands units! I think people know what is being referred to when one says "unit" or "element" though (I would reasonably conclude they mean the same thing in a discussion with another gamer..."groups" are another matter though). I will endeavor to keep my rulebook open and use exact terminology when possible...but I was actually curious to see how Bob Beattie would rule in the situation outlined by Pthomas....and the 3 situations illustrated by Jocko? That is the crux of the question being debated. I think we should be searching for what is right and wrong, not whether or not it is written correctly. No rules written by anyone are without holes. Lawyers, and that includes rules lawyers, can argue their way around anything and muddle the issue. Therefore, I think it is better for us to come to consensus on interpretations. BTW, whether I call it a pivot, wheel, turn, ooze or glurpschnagel (this one is extreme...but I think arguing whether a stand should be dubbed an element or a unit or whether a stand, forgive me, element is pivoting or wheeling is kind of extreme too...) doesn't really matter if front corner measurement from the start point to the finish point is what is used to calculate the distance moved (for instance, if one were to measure the distance traveled by a blade closing the door...and I know we don't have to because it is a special case...then the move would cost about 222 paces, regardless of what we call it). But, back to the issue of contention, I believe that El Jocko's example 3 is illegal because it doesn't account for the fact that the Aux can't interpenetrate another Aux in movement (only mounted through psiloi and psiloi through psiloi can do that). It must first move around it in some fashion. Any movement calculation that measures the move through the friendly Aux unit seems to be violating that rule.

David Crowell

10-01-2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by El' Jocko:

Making the move in just one leap doesn't work. The two left corners of the auxilia would both go through the front auxilia, which is an illegal interpenetration. Only one corner may pass through another element.

I am very sorry, but I cannot seem to find reference to this magical ability any where in my rulesbook.

It is certainly not listed under the rules for Interpenetrating Friendly Toops. (pg 9) Common play and Bob's Commentaries may allow it. But a strict reading of the rules does not. Especially if it is a FRONT corner that would be required to so penetrate.

Further support for my position is found on page 8 "... can pass through any gap as wide as its leading edge, ..." Note that Phil says "leading edge" not "leading corner", this implies that any gap must be at leaast at wide as the narrowest edge of the element, otherwise teh element either cannot pass through, or must obey any restrictions placed upon teh move by terrain, interveigning elements, etc.

I do not see how the move in Jocko's third diagram is to be accomplished without this illegal penetration.

[ October 01, 2003, 06:17: Message edited by: David Crowell ]

Simon Thompson

10-01-2003, 07:46 AM

At the risk of upsetting a lot of players with far more experience of DBA than I (that'll be anyone who has been playing longer than a week or so), I'll add my t***enny worth.

Why not simply use your head and work if this kind of thing WOULD have been possible historically? Or failing that agree beforehand whether it's allowed or not. After all, if you want real accuracy surely you're playing the wrong game.

Isn't the whole point of DBA to enable a quick and dirty game with a historical flavour, rather than an opportunity to squabble over a mm here, a mm there?

David Crowell

10-01-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
I still remember having it explained to me the first time. I was playing DBM and I was convinced that Terrance had just pulled it out of his...oops, kid-friendly forum...invented it out of thin air. But it has now shown up in both DBM and HOTT, and so has been adopted for DBA.

- Jack But we need to remember DBA is NOT DBM or HotT. As Phil so often reminds us when we cite one of those rules sets for DBA discussions. We need to limit ourselves to what the DBA rules say.

Pthomas

10-01-2003, 12:38 PM

Simon,

You are right, in the sense, that most players when playing skittles aren't that concerned with details. However the issue comes up, when in tournament play, one player says that their local group plays a rule one way and the other plays it another and, since the player who does not play it in this particular way is unprepared and undefended he is taken behind the woodshed and given a whupping about the head and shoulders.

DBA is like playing a game of chess with two players and one claims their knight moves 3 spaces by 2 spaces rather then 2 by 1 space and since the other player is unprepared for this he loses his queen. One claims the board is 9 squares by 9 and the other 8x8. Now that is not going to make you a happy chess player, so we simply are trying to determine for all players how knights move and what is the appropriate size of the board. It really has nothing to do with the rules as written, all rules have flaws, but with making everyone comfortable that all players will play the game the same and thus all have the same chance to be victorious and not find out in the middle of a battle (or, more usually, days later when you are pouring over the rulebook) that you just got sucker punched.

Tom
Originally posted by Simon Thompson:
At the risk of upsetting a lot of players with far more experience of DBA than I (that'll be anyone who has been playing longer than a week or so), I'll add my t***enny worth.

Why not simply use your head and work if this kind of thing WOULD have been possible historically? Or failing that agree beforehand whether it's allowed or not. After all, if you want real accuracy surely you're playing the wrong game.

Isn't the whole point of DBA to enable a quick and dirty game with a historical flavour, rather than an opportunity to squabble over a mm here, a mm there?

El' Jocko

10-01-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by David Crowell:
But we need to remember DBA is NOT DBM or HotT. As Phil so often reminds us when we cite one of those rules sets for DBA discussions. We need to limit ourselves to what the DBA rules say. I agree with you on this point. DBA is not DBM or HOTT and their rules don't apply to DBA. But we have, in the absence of explicit DBA rules, adopted the DBM and HOTT rules for this question. I'd be happy to throw them out and start over, or to keep them and apply them in all situations. I'm just looking for an unambiguous, uniform application of an clearly written rule.

- Jack

El' Jocko

10-01-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
But, back to the issue of contention, I believe that El Jocko's example 3 is illegal because it doesn't account for the fact that the Aux can't interpenetrate another Aux in movement (only mounted through psiloi and psiloi through psiloi can do that). It must first move around it in some fashion. Any movement calculation that measures the move through the friendly Aux unit seems to be violating that rule. But that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. No corner of Auxilia 2 moves through Auxilia 1. You need to look at it closely. It's counter-intuitive. But it's true. Draw a straight line from the starting position to the ending position for any corner. They don't go through the other Auxilia.

- Jack

xeswop

10-01-2003, 03:29 PM

I do not understand why Robert is so upset about a request to refer to things in DBA by the name they are given so there is no ambiguity. There are things called groups and things called elements. Generically either could be a unit.

If we seek to have clarification of rules, why not use standaradized language? When discussing DBA cannot we use DBA words.

I raise the issue of language because the question at hand has to do with whether whether elements can "move through" other elements, as opposed to interpenetrate. Interpenetrate is covered on page 9 and is very clear about what can interpenetrate what and when. The current Yahoo group discussion on this subject does yield some problems.

Moving through is another issue. Consider the diagrams below. Are these moves allowed in DBA?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/DBA%20pics/dbamove.gif

In the first a second rank of Blades moves to be on the side of the front rank. In the second an element of blades moves through a gap to make a flank attack.

[ October 01, 2003, 12:31: Message edited by: xes*** ]

David Crowell

10-01-2003, 11:01 PM

I am not sure how to answer this one. In one way I feel that the letter of the rule says "no" as part of one element must move through another in ways that are not allowed (at least as the moves are depicted).

But I would object to neither in play. In fact it would not even occur to me outside of a discussion such as this one tat such moves might be restricted.

in the first case a clear path around the front rank element exists so it seems some what overly pedantic to worry about the exact path. Either way it should be within the movement allowance, so it would seem moot. Except for mounted troops it is not even an issue if the move is in good going or bad, only the distance between strating and end points of the front corners matters. (This seems to allow for teleporting elements, the Martian Flip, and other oddities)

In the second example the gap is as wide as the leading edge, and movement is from overlap to flank combat contact, both situations in which the move indicated is explicitly allowed by the rules (and in this case is not measured for distance).

My mental construct of how DBA should play tells me that both moves are of course allowed, but my close parsing of the rules seems to tell me that they may or may not be, depending on exactly how the elements are moved.

All of which leads me to say I am very glad it is Bob and not me who has the task of being chief tournament rules authority. In cases like this it is not easy.

David Crowell

10-01-2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
But that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. No corner of Auxilia 2 moves through Auxilia 1. You need to look at it closely. It's counter-intuitive. But it's true. Draw a straight line from the starting position to the ending position for any corner. They don't go through the other Auxilia.

- Jack I checked again and strange as it may seem he is right. Auxilia 2 is not moving through Auxilia 1.

David Kuijt

10-02-2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by xes***:
[QB
Moving through is another issue. Consider the diagrams below. Are these moves allowed in DBA?
[/QB]Why are you asking, Bob? You're confusing me -- you know quite well that both of those moves are perfectly normal and non-bizarre in DBA.

John Meunier

10-02-2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Why are you asking, Bob? You're confusing me -- you know quite well that both of those moves are perfectly normal and non-bizarre in DBA. Yes, but neither work without some assumptions not written into the rules -- the ooze metaphor.

Since the closing the door move is required to be a "pivot," it was reasonably asked some time ago whether the fact the rear edge of pivoting element would strike its neighbor to the flank negates the move. The word came back "no." The ooze metaphor was born. But that conclusion cannot be indisputably derived from the plain text of the rules.

My guess is Bob is asking old questions again to get at the core mechanisms by which movement disputes are resolved. Is there a set of principles for interpreting DBA movement quandries that can be applied to novel questions.

Bob can now tell me I'm wrong. But that was what I took to be the purpose of the question.

John

Hannibal Ad Portas

10-02-2003, 03:03 AM

I don't see what Bob (Beattie's??) last diagram has to do with the issue at hand either David. I understand those move....the move I don't understand is example 3 given by El Jocko...The only way I can see the second Aux ELEMENT making the move is for it to interpenetrate the front Aux element. The diagram is not at all clear as to how the second element moved to a flanking position on the friendly one in front of it. I guess he intends it to pivot backwards on its front right corner and then slide up 60mm to flank contact?? If that is so, the move should cost more than 60mm...but the problem comes from that measuring from the front corners bit again. You could measure the move of the left front corner from its start point to finish point by not going through the forward Aux element and instead say that the left front corner slid 40mm to the right and then displaced only 20mm up. This totally ignores the pivot cost and that is the problem. 2.0 doesn't call for elements to measure the pivot, only the displacement of the corners. In my opinion, that is a failing that is demonstrated by examples such as this. The move just doesn't feel right. I am sure Barker would be shocked by this move, but this will take 2 years to be resolved since that is how long he will take to make changes to outlaw this kinda stuff.

David Crowell

10-02-2003, 09:51 AM

Like it or not, the DBA rules as written state only that the starting and ending positions of the corners matter for movement.

In Jocko's case the shortest path is an arc around the 1st Ax then sliding down to position. The path traced by the moving corner is longer than 40mm, but that is not what DBA says to measure.

If you accept that the "Martian Flip" can be accomplished in 40mm then you must accept that Jocko's move only requires 60mm.

In actual fact the movement distance required for the flip is aproximately 62.8mm (using pi=3.14, this is so because in order to execute the flip and element must pivot on its center point moving its front corners each through half the circumference of a circle of 1EBW diameter.

Both of Bob's moves although commonly accepted cannot be executed as drawn without violating the letter of the DBA movement rules. Set up the elements on teh table top. Now move the relevant front corner through the path indicated by Bob's arrows. Watch closely what happens. Remember Phil's response about "ooze" and "amoeba-like elements" is not in the rule book as printed, nor is it in the 2.1 update. Therefor it is not an official rule. A player who had access only to the printed rules and 2.1 ammendments would not see a priori that such moves should be allowed.

xeswop

10-02-2003, 03:10 PM

John M has hit the nail exactly on the head. How an element is physically moved on the battlefield is not written into DBA.

Assumptions have been made. The unwritten rule has been to follow the procedure in DBM and HOTT. A new player with only a rule book does not know this. Recently, players have asked about applying the simple part of the unwritten in DBA rule (but written in the other rules) to complex moves that are not allowed by the rules of DBM and HOTT. This seems reasonable. Take an unwritten rule and extrapolate to a more complex situation. The unwritten rule for movement procedure will only work best if all the DBM/HOTT procedures for element movement are used.

A player who has not been exposed to these rules from other games will think the examples I show below are not possible. One of my first discussions on-line with David K was about the situation of a second rank spear moving to be be along side the front rank (the first example I show below). He, knowing only what was written in the rules, thought this could not be done in one bound as the distance measured had to be a slide to the side and then forward -- 216 paces.

So I ask, should we rely only on what is actually written in DBA? Now David can say "you know quite well that both of those moves are perfectly normal and non-bizarre in DBA." This is only because they have been accepted as an unwritten rule (and not known to newbies). Experienced players seem not to have accepted or do not know the other part of the unwritten rule for when more than one corner deviates from a straight line. This rule is that you must then move the element to avoid passing through anything (slide left and forward and turn, etc) and measure all the segments of the move.

As one who must establish standards for events run by the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers, I would like to use the full set of movement rules from HOTT/DBM until Phil chooses to provide this for DBA. If this is to cause much unhappiness among players then perhaps it is not a good idea. This would require eliminating the oozing principle and follow the procedure as noted by David in our first discussion. Movement must all be in straight lines sideways and forwards or pivots off a corner and elements cannot move any corners through things as I show in my diagram below.

----------------
Regarding David C's comment "Like it or not, the DBA rules as written state only that the starting and ending positions of the corners matter for movement. "

The DBA rules as written state only that movment is measured by" the maximum distance between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element or any element in a group and that corner's final position"

"matter" and "measure" are very different.

[ October 02, 2003, 12:17: Message edited by: Bob. ]

David Kuijt

10-02-2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:

As one who must establish standards for events run by the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers, I would like to use the full set of movement rules from HOTT/DBM until Phil chooses to provide this for DBA. If this is to cause much unhappiness among players then perhaps it is not a good idea. This would require eliminating the oozing principle and follow the procedure as noted by David in our first discussion.The reason I asked "why are you asking this?" is that you have come down solidly on the "what Phil says is truth, regardless of what he wrote in the rules" side of issues in the past (for example, on the new ZOC interpretation that is widely reviled). When you first explained the amoeba principle to me several years ago, that was the argument you used -- "this is the way Phil wants it to be played." I accepted your argument at the time because it made sense in a couple of ways.

First, not everyone is a math whiz -- measuring in a more polygonally-accurate but more complicated way isn't necessarily a good thing for the game. Second, consistency is important -- one set of rules that everyone can learn, not requiring learning a different set to play in Ohio than in DC and a third set to play in Florida. Third, established practice is important -- if fifty or a hundred well-travelled players play it one way, and I (at a miniatures convention for the first time, at the time) play it a different way, I can see the logic in my learning their way rather than trying to get all of them to change it to my way. And finally, OK, if Phil intends amoeba-movement as the unwritten method, that also holds some weight with me. Although I'd be happier if he made the mechanics explicit in the rules.

So that all made sense. The reason I am asking "why are you asking this?" is that you seem to be contradicting your previous stances on a couple of issues. You've been telling people (like me) about the established amoeba practice for many years. It is what Phil likes, I hear (from you, among others). It isn't contradicted by the written rules (unlike some "Word From Phil" rulings in the past). And finally, I don't see that a major hole or wierdness in the rules will be fixed by changing anything in this established method (unlike, for example, the new ZOC silliness). As NASAMW chief umpire, it seems to me that one of your main jobs is to be conservative -- not to make any changes in the NASAMW interpretations unless there is a clear and established need for them. Even when I disagree with your decisions, I support you in being conservative -- it is important not to change interpretations any more often than you must. Most people who play DBA at NASAMW conventions do not follow all these rules debates online -- it is unfair to them to have fifteen different interpretations every convention.

With all that said, I was surprised that you seemed to be advocating change to a well-established practice that (even if slightly non-intuitive in some cases) is no worse than anything else that has been suggested, and has been the way you have taught players at conventions for years and years, and is what Phil supports, too.

David Crowell

10-02-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:
----------------
Regarding David C's comment "Like it or not, the DBA rules as written state only that the starting and ending positions of the corners matter for movement. "

The DBA rules as written state only that movment is measured by" the maximum distance between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element or any element in a group and that corner's final position"

"matter" and "measure" are very different. This is true Bob. It is the measuring of the straight line between these two points that seems to lead to anomolies. Although having just re-read the sentence in the rules, it does not actually say to measure the straight line, that is an assumption we make. It could well be that "the maximum distance between" includes an implicit "traveled". Thus yielding "the maximum distance travelled between the starting and ending psoitions" This would, I hope, close a few of the loopholes in the movement rulehe

imported_JLogan

10-02-2003, 09:15 PM

Some really excellent posts by everyone on this, but especially the last two from DK and Bob. IMHO, lots of common sense trying to be applied on this issue.

As a newcomer to DBA in the past few years, I've always tried - and still do - to scrutinize the rules first to devine solutions to problems such as these. Obviously, because of it's limitations, this can often be frustrating - usually due to simple silence or lack of explantion on an issue.

But in common with many others, I quickly came across Bob's superlative commentaries, which for a newcomer, was a Godsend ( I refer to it reverently with my teenage son/opponent as the Barker Bible according to Bob......). I certainly feel in his debt for it, as I suspect do many. It's reassuring to a novice such as I that even such an incisive DBA-er as David gained some of his understandings from essentially the same source.

As David and Bob both point to, these clarifications/explanations have often been arrived at from knowledge/presumptions gained from discussion with the great man himself. As David points out, it would be far preferable if PB would put much of this explicitly in the rulebook; but Phil being Phil, he often does not, for whatever reason. So we are left to try to establish a kind of "common law" on issues such as these; with Bob's commentaries in effect, a documentation of this; i.e. commonly agreed practise.

The problem I see with some of this is that I'm becoming less sure that some of it is grounded in sound sources. PB for one, changes his mind/contradicts himself on things. This is ok (often welcomed if perceived as improving the rules) if written into an update version or amendment. Not so when verbal interpretation/clarification.

The second rank Sp expansion to align with the front is a prime example of this for me. Until I read Bob's commentaries, I played this as apparently David also originally had. Move to the side, then forward. Even when I read Bob's clarification, though I happily adopted it, it always seemed in contradiction to the rules. But because it apparently was PB-approved, I thought nothing more of it.

Today, I believe it is incorrect per the current written rules; and that how I (and apparently DK) originally determined from a reading of the rules alone played it, is how it should be played. Even if it is not how PB would say he intends it to be. If that is so, as far as I'm concerned, then he had better make it clear in the rules, and explain how it will not violate other parts of the rules. Namely allowable interpenetrations.

Now I'm aware of the specific solution quoted from HOTT/DBM. Unfortunatelty I do not play/know these rules (though I hope to eventually try DBM)I'm willing to consider these as clues, but not conclusive determinations. I've no idea how HOTT reconciles the "one corner is ok, two is not" with the rest of it's rules. Maybe there is nothing (in HOTT) to reconcile (for all I know, maybe HOTT allows all element types to interpenetrate all other element types; after all, it is fantasy) Nor do I feel the need to buy them to figure it out for DBA.

What I do know is that the DBA rulebook says you use front corners to measure movement, and a second rank Sp front corner would need to interpenetate a front rank Sp element to move and measure movement obliquely. They also specifically say that Sp cannot interpentrate other Sp. So I conclude they cannot do it. They can however, move to the side first, then move forward to align. But as Foot, they will be unable to do this in one move. This is how I (now) believe this should be played. It seems this may be where Bob is now wondering if we should be leaning towards on some of this (i.e. play the rule -unless totally inadequate or unclear; not the - sometimes mercurial - Barkerism....)? Hence DK's confusion with Bob's comments?

For those who feel this Sp to Sp oblique/align movement should still not be objectionable (as I now feel it is) and be considered justified by adopting the HOTT/DBM clarifications/exceptions quoted by Bob and others (a perfectly reasonable approach-just not one I share), how then is the following resolved if we do this?

The second rank Sp is now instead behind a front rank Ps. Can it still move obliquely thru the Ps to align beside? If it does, it now surely contravenes even the HOTT/DBM exception, since now two of the Sp corners must interpenetrate the front rank Ps element (because of the Ps greater base depth)? And if you would feel that that is not allowed, but the Sp to Sp is still ok, doesn't it seem counter-intuitive that a Sp can appear to obliquely intepentrate/align thru/beside a Sp; but not Ps? Worse, a second rank Ps could not obliquely interpenetrate/align thru/beside a fronk rank Cv or Lh (even though normal front to back interpentration is here specifically allowed by the written rules...); but yet could a front rank Sp or Bd? Just doesn't feel right to me.

My fear is adoption/borrowing of specific pieces from other DBx rules to apparently solve a DBA ambiguity, can end up creating more contradictions elsewhere.

Joe Mauloni

10-03-2003, 12:48 PM

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that, as a group, we could devise a consensus movement system agreeable to the majority? As a suggestion we could use the existing DBA rules clarified where appropriate by examples from HoTTs and DBM but not explicitly tied to them.
If the rules so devised do not contradict DBA, they should be acceptable to players unfamiliar with this forum.
Question: do players show up at conventions without knowledge of the 2.1 amendments, and if so, how is this handled?

Hannibal Ad Portas

10-03-2003, 08:40 PM

I see on the Yahoo group someone elese just got some replies from Barker on this movment subject....He says an element can't move obliquely through another element. That at least sheds some light on how he would rule on El Jocko's example 3....I don't think it would be permitted....just like the Flip. Based on what we hear from Phil when he is asked questions, I think we know what is the right way to interpret the movement rules (which aren't written well enough...I think the movement rules actually took a big hit in this version with the measurement from the front corner bit). Bob Beattie, or anyone, does it seem that the HOTT movement rules are really what Phil is expecting....I know he didn't write it that way in DBA 2.0, but does it seem to you that he leans towards the HOTT interpretiations? I don't own HOTT, so you guys are my only sounding board on that question!!

El' Jocko

10-04-2003, 11:35 AM

As we discuss the HOTT/DBM rule that we're using, we need to keep one other point in mind. Both HOTT and DBM have special rules that prevent a flanking element from starting in the front. To flank an element, you must start entirely beyond an imaginary line drawn along the element's side edge.

This rule makes this funky flank attack illegal in HOTT or DBM, and limits the impact of the new Phil explanation (the one that let's an element back out of a BWD and then move freely).

- Jack

David Crowell

10-04-2003, 11:46 AM

A good point Jack. I wonder if Phil has this in mind for DBA and just doesn't realize it is not part of the DBA rules.

With DBA, DBM, HotT, DBR and HFG (plus maybe DBF)that's a lot of games to keep track of which rules are actually in which rulebook.

Joe Mauloni

10-04-2003, 12:43 PM

I have the HotT 1.0 (I think) rules and the movement there seems fairly well defined. The major snag with DBA would be that HotT doesn't permit an element to move through a space less than the base width (no leading edge provision).
The "no flank attack unless you start outside this line" provision is very sensible and would eliminate the whole ZOC/not ZOC debate. HotT requires a single element to move by wheels rather than diagonally and doesn't allow corners to interpenetrate terrain, ZOCs, etc without penalty. It would seem a good starting point but it would require going against specific interpretations that Phil Barker has made and would conflict DBA as written.
Not a problem for me, but ...?

imported_adsarf

10-06-2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Joe Mauloni:
It would seem a good starting point but it would require going against specific interpretations that Phil Barker has made and would conflict DBA as written.
Not a problem for me, but ...? Conflicting with Phil's previous opinions is something we do all the time, conflicting with the rules-as-written is more of an issue. There are some DBA players not active either here or on the DBA list on Yahoo, and its only fair that they should know what the rules are.

Andrew

xeswop

10-07-2003, 03:17 PM

Phil has said that people can play the game as they want, make their own interpetations. This is why he is vague and shows not diagrams and gives no explanations.

The problem arises when people come to play in a neutral place such as a tournament. In these cases, Phil has said, players can learn from others.

xeswop

10-07-2003, 03:44 PM

Sorry to post two in a row but I wanted to find Phil's comments. First, here is an exchange we had on movement. You can see this is not a new question. He tried by adding the sentence on page 2 about the element not being a rigid block

From: PhilBarker <pc.barker@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Tue Nov 7, 2000 5:01:50 AM America/Detroit
To: BOB <beattie@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: How to move and shoot
Reply-To: pc.barker@cableinet.co.uk

Will try.

Phil

BOB wrote:

Hi,
Another tid-bit
There continues to be questions from newbies and from those who have played
for some time,even on how an individual element moves

People want a single element to move like a group, wheeling to initiate a
turn, or to about face. See recent note, below. They do not think an
element in a line of elements, can turn from within the line because they
will hit the element next to them. The text is now clear to someone who
understands your philosophy that elements are not blocks of troops that
move around like a marching band. Can you spend a sentence or two,
somewhere, explaining the procedure for moving individual elements and that
they are not solid blocks, even tho represented by such on the board.

---------
Here is the comment about new players (and some other issues too )
--------------------------------------
From: PhilBarker <pc.barker@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Fri Jan 12, 2001 5:51:26 AM America/Detroit
To: BOB <beattie@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: simple game?
Reply-To: pc.barker@cableinet.co.uk

Most of the added complexity is due to the extended definitions you asked for!
The camp definition for instance. My additions have been aimed at making
wargaming more like the real world. For example, BUA are compulsory in Arable
because Arable is defined by large scale agriculture and large populations
exploited by and serviced by urban communities. Such countries has large and
often standing armies with expensive troop types. They have a lot of flat
farmland which has replaced most of the forest and marsh. Anyone complaining
about compulsory BUA and little bad going is complaining about the real world!
There are plenty of armies that are not based in Arable for them to pick.

I am not going to add to the present number of pages, which at 52 is already 4
more than my original limit. So you can forget overviews and extra diagrams and
your other more space-consuming suggestions. I have done what I can with your
other points and even there have had to eliminate other features to make room. I
am also NOT going to drop the campaign system, which is popular everywhere but
in America.

Some of your points dealt with wording that as far as I know have never been
misunderstood in 10 years of DBA and DBM. DBA has mostly spread by contact. If a
new player plays someone who has played before, things will be explained to him.
If two new players play only each other, it doesn't matter if they get it wrong.
I do not feel any inclination to disadvantage everyone else for the sake of the
occasional Florida Democrat lawyer. (Our election system has a simple
intelligence test. You have to be able to identify the sharp end of a pencil and
make a cross.)

The next version will be emailed as soon as I have made final checks. It has
some battlerule changes to suit the other chain of testers. The things still
needing to be looked for are side effects from recent changes and we need more
Big DBA testing.

I do not know when Victor will be upgrading to 2.0
I sent him a prototype at his request, but he has not commented on it.
I shall send him the final version, which I hope will be the next after the one
coming.

Phil

_____
This came from my note:
_____________________________
In the course of writing "DBA-Tens Years Later" for the Courier, I came
across your intro piece in the Slingshot early 1990. I had never seen that
before and it was a wonderful insight to your thought processes in
developing the rules. One statement stood out, reinforced by a similar one
in the 2.0 Draft:

"The rules had to be as simple as possible so that they could be memorised
effortlessly by an average reader in the course of his first game, and
subtle effects had to be produced by the interaction of simpler procedures."

This is indeed a cornerstone of DBA. As I like to say, "Simple but
Elegant."

Is it the case that you are moving too far from simplicity and simple
procedures? Perhaps it is not bad to get a bit more complexity, but if so,
then the explanations must be simpler. The recoiling rules for example.

In the commentary I hope you will have (or soon will have) received I make
some suggestions for that simplicity of text, but keeping as much of your
structure as possible. For example, I urge you in the strongest possible
terms to put all the recoil material in one place. Yet there is still a
very long sentence and one aspects is clouded. What happens to elephants
that meet friends other types cannot pass through. You need to tell of the
El vs El/WWg encounter and that El can destroy and then recoil through
other friends. Maybe this text could be simplified and expanded.

I prefer to put all the interpenetration rules in one place - where there is
also room! Painful experience tells me that duplicating items in two places
produces more argument as people imagine differences.
Simplification is more likely from removing words than adding them. Tell me if
you find any that can be disposed of.

Recoiling is a crucial aspect of the game and should be fully explained in
one place. The less looking back and forth the better, it aids
memorization if the text flows along.

Is the text getting too long? There are places to add some text. Perhaps
put the Campaign map on inside back cover. You could go to a 10point font.
People want/need full explanation and a couple more diagrams. The diagrams
could be made much smaller. You could use some of the space at the end of
the army list sections to put a diagram or extra text such as Philosophy.

Also, please consider my offer to underwrite the addition of whatever it
takes to get another set of pages in. Is that 8 or 16? I can raise the
money with help of your devoted followers over here. One more folio should
do it.

Keep in touch

Bob
beattie@umich.edu

Zekestrom

10-09-2003, 04:52 PM

You know what, when I first looked over this, I ruled that it wouldn't have been legal, but that was taking into account the movement of the rear corners (which I stupidly forgot about).

It's legal in DBA 2.0, and it would even be legal in HOTT EXCEPT that in HOTT you can't make flank contact unless you start outside of the edge-line.

HOTT has a stipulation on moves such as this which helps, but not in the case of Example 3. In HOTT the rule is stated as so:

"If, however, more than 1 of the element's corners deviates from a straight path to avoid other troops, to avoid crossing the restricted zone in front of an enemy element, or to avoid a terrain feature, the extra distance must be taken into account in measuring the element's move distance. In such cases, all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction."

In the case of Option #3, none of the corners ever has to avoid the front Auxilia, therefore that portion of the move (the "slide around") is valid, and the followup move (the "side-step shuffle") would be valid.

Much as it annoys me, I'd have to rule it legit.

-Dave Zecchini

xeswop

10-15-2003, 04:02 PM

I am still thinking about the HOTT rule and Jack's pic.
Dave Z says, "HOTT has a stipulation on moves such as this which helps, but not in the case of Example 3. In HOTT the rule is stated as so:

"If, however, more than 1 of the element's corners deviates from a straight path to avoid other troops, to avoid crossing the restricted zone in front of an enemy element, or to avoid a terrain feature, the extra distance must be taken into account in measuring the element's move distance. In such cases, all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction."

I think this rule does apply to the Jack's 3rd example.
It seems to me that the back Ax element does have more than one corner deviate from a straight path to reach its final position. Do not some corners curve in their path to bypass the front Ax? I cannot see why the move below is allowed if we follow the above stated rule.

More than one corner deviates from a straight path to avoid another element. What am I missing?

So if following the HOTT rule I would say the Ax move in this manner is not legit.

Dave Z says, "none of the corners ever has to avoid the front Auxilia,"

This does not seem to me to be true. All of the corners of Ax 2 must follow a curved path to avoid Ax 1. I cannot physically move the element except in such a way that its corners avoid Ax1. If Ax2 were to slide to be next to Ax1 then only one corner would have to deviate for Ax1 and so that move is allowed.

Consider the term "path" as the actual space that the element must move in to reach its final point. Do not look at just the straight line distance, if considering the HOTT rule.

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
snip
But there is one more possibility. If the auxilia swings around 90 degrees in the first part of the move, and then slides into full flank contact in the second part, the total distance moved by the front corners is only 60mm. And no corner has to move through another element.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsheriff/dba10c.gif
snip
- Jack

David Crowell

10-15-2003, 05:19 PM

Bob,
I agree with you that tnis move would not be legal if using the HotT movement rules.

It is however legal under the strict letter of the DBA 2.0 rule book and 2.1 amendments. Even if it is not what was intended by those rules. Teleporting elements and teh Martian Flip are also legal under the strict letter of teh rule book, but no player of my aquantence suggests that elements actually teleport from place to place in the manner of chess men.

xeswop

10-15-2003, 08:10 PM

David, glad you agree with the HOTT rule. I think others do not believe it is true for those rules.

The problem with the DBA 2.x rules is that there are no rules for movment. Only rules for how to measure the distance of movment (didn't we discuss this somewhere before:) )

What I hope to arrive at are some guidelines for movment for players who do not know how to move or cannot agree on how to move. I want to apply the HOTT rules as interim rules for at least NASAMW tournaments to avoid any difficulites between players on how to move.

Then we need to get after Phil to tell us how to move.

Badger

10-15-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Bob Beattie:
I want to apply the HOTT rules as interim rules for at least NASAMW tournaments to avoid any difficulites between players on how to move.

Then we need to get after Phil to tell us how to move.I wonder.... Who, again, is the copyright-law-experienced attorney in the group? I'm wondering whether the "how to move" section of the HotTs rules is short enough that to copy those rules, and those alone, from the published HotTs rules, would be a short enough passage as to constitute "fair use"? That might be a way around forcing those who didn't want to have to buy another rules set to do so anyway, and would be so immensely easier than getting The Barker to admit to such a gaping hole in his scripture, let alone then getting him to fill it.

Okay, that was a little harsh -- but from a purely practical perspective, I think you've hit on an eminently practical, reasonable, and elegant solution, Bob.

Zekestrom

10-15-2003, 11:21 PM

AAARRRGGGHHH...this is maddening. Mostly because I really, really, REALLY want to shoot this down, but I'm just not sure that the rules will allow me. I apologize in advance because I know this probably won't make much rational sense, but I'll give it another try.

(I know also that we're really talking about a HOTT ruling here, but I truly DO believe that this spells the "intent" and "interpretation" behind the DBA rules ... I just don't think Phil wanted to take the extra space to spell it out. For purposes of a NASAMW ruling, all you really need is intent.)

See, I initially thought the HOTT rule would take care of this problem, then I thought about it some more. The problem is that in the case we're debating, none of the CORNERS moves through the obstacle, only the FRONT EDGE. (The front-right corner moves 40mm due "up" and the front-left corner moves 40mm due "right", neither of them try to move through the obstructing element, they just slide along the edges.)

I thought at first that the rule was there to prevent "twisting around" but looking back at it I'm not sure that's the case. (That would mean passing through a gap, or around an obstacle you couldn't turn, and that doesn't seem right to me at all for simplified movement, otherwise you wouldn't be measuring which front corner moved the furthest...they'd always be the same).

I believe that the intent was to try and describe the limits on the amount of an element which is allowed to pass through (i.e. one corner can pass through, as in the case of the slide over at the top of the page, but two or more corners is too much and you have to go around). The problem is, there's no way by just looking at the corner movement that Option #3 below trips that rule and disallows it. You could write the rules to say "more than one corner or an entire edge" but that's starting to get more complex, and probably even less obvious. Logically, I think that's what the authors really meant, though they didn't spell it out.

BUT, here's the real kicker. Let's assume that we DID disallow it because the edge was moving through (or because the corners move at different vectors, etc), it's actually irrelevent...our alternative would be legal anyway. According to the example, "In such cases, all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction."

Again, it's all about corners. In the move described below the corners never had a problem in the first place, it's the edge that's the issue. It seems clear to me that the INTENT behind the rule was that "if you can't flow around something like an amoeba then your entire element must clear the obstacle" but it VERY specifically says "all four corners of the moving element" rather than saying "all portions of the moving element."

(By the way, just so everyone knows, I would NEVER argue this, even in a tournament situation. I'm a big believer in a gentle(wo)man's game, and HATE it when these kinds of things come up in play ... that said, I'm an obsessive/compulsive gamer geek and I HATE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS smile.gif ).

Can we just go back to checking all four corners like we did in 1.x? I know it was more difficult, I know it meant exercising the atrophied geometry classes rotting away in my brain, but it pretty much nukes this AND gets rid of the Martian Flip, that's a two-for-one-deal, in my book!

Pleeeeeeeeeeeease? :D

Hannibal Ad Portas

10-16-2003, 01:49 AM

Yayyyy!! Maybe all this debate about the flip and El Jocko's move diagrams weren't in vain!! I have contended all along that these moves should not be allowed. The HOTT rule and/or furthest corner moved rule seems to be just what we need to get things back to normal and get rid of any problems! I am all for some sort of agreement on those lines for the upcoming tourneys!

konstantinius

10-16-2003, 05:52 AM

I wonder if and when we will cease to have new issues with the rules. I long for a set that is "set in stone", fully explained and understood and with all the bumps smoothed out.

GAZMAN

10-16-2003, 06:52 AM

WHat would happen to this community if we had ironed out all the issues?
The fact we all care enough about the game to come here and discuss says a lot about the DBA community.
Such an abstract concept like DBA is always going to be full of holes, even if they are small ones. Some great minds work on DBA problems, I enjoy seeing the banter, I even wade in sometimes, I'd miss it all if things were 100 per cent sorted.

Joe Mauloni

10-16-2003, 10:49 AM

WHat would happen to this community if we had ironed out all the issues? Never fear, some bozo (like me) will always find something to whine about ;)

As for a useful comment: it would seem reasonable to me to count edges for movement purposes without a rule change. It seems obvious and new players should have no trouble with it. An addition to Bob's commentary should cover it I would think.
Regards

xeswop

10-16-2003, 04:59 PM

Consider the actual path the element must take to reach its position on the flank of the enemy. In order for the element to reach that position more than 1 corner must deviate from a straight path.

The HOTT rule
"If, however, more than 1 of the element's corners deviates from a straight path to avoid other troops, to avoid crossing the restricted zone in front of an enemy element, or to avoid a terrain feature, the extra distance must be taken into account in measuring the element's move distance. In such cases, all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction."

If more than one corner must deviate from a straight path, then the total distance travelled by the furthest moving corner must be measured along the path it takes. Thus the Ax2 must slide sideways and then forward and turn into the flank. Or it can pivot on the right front corner until the left front corner is fully out of the current space Ax2 occupies Then the side of Ax1 is in line with the front of Ax2. Then Ax2 can slide forward until its front edge is in a legal flank position against the side of the Wb.

Originally posted by Zekestrom:
snip
See, I initially thought the HOTT rule would take care of this problem, then I thought about it some more. The problem is that in the case we're debating, none of the CORNERS moves through the obstacle, only the FRONT EDGE. (The front-right corner moves 40mm due "up" and the front-left corner moves 40mm due "right", neither of them try to move through the obstructing element, they just slide along the edges.)

snip

Michael Fischer

10-20-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:
Consider the actual path the element must take to reach its position on the flank of the enemy. In order for the element to reach that position more than 1 corner must deviate from a straight path.

The HOTT rule
"If, however, more than 1 of the element's corners deviates from a straight path to avoid other troops, to avoid crossing the restricted zone in front of an enemy element, or to avoid a terrain feature, the extra distance must be taken into account in measuring the element's move distance. In such cases, all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction."

If more than one corner must deviate from a straight path, then the total distance travelled by the furthest moving corner must be measured along the path it takes. Actually, it's if more than one corner must deviate from a straight path to avoid something (troops, restricted zone, terrain feature -- strangely enough, the battlefield edge isn't mentioned at all). But the rear corners don't travel on curved paths to avoid something, but because geometry requires that (as often). During each and every wheel or pivot at least three corners of an element move actually on curved paths.
You'd have to say that the avoid part doesn't apply to the corners (even if this seems to be somewhat strange).

Andrechin

10-20-2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:
Consider the actual path the element must take to reach its position on the flank of the enemy. In order for the element to reach that position more than 1 corner must deviate from a straight path.

Bob, till now I have not understood why you consider the move "illegal", but now I may start to grasp something:
 El Jocko' divided the move in two steps; in each step it is true that no corner deviates from a straight line to avoid an obstacle, so if only the first movement is done, it is true that the move would take only 40 mm, if only the second part it would take only 20 mm; but executing the combination of the first and second part of the move, three out of the four corners deviate from a straight line, and therefore you have to measure along the path of all corners.
So 40 mm + 20 mm is not 60 mm!

I hope to have got it!

So, now two questions:
 do I understand correctly that measuring the path of all four corners is something you get from HOTT, but nothing like that is mentioned in the written DBA rules? OK, I have to measure the movement of all four corners, may I use the sum of the straight segments, i.e. the front corners move 40+20=60mm, and the rear corners 63+20=83 mm (if my math is correct)?I accept using HOTT as a reference where DBA is silent, but I would also like to use straight segments whenever possible, as measuring a curved path is not easy and prone to discussions.

xeswop

10-20-2003, 08:39 PM

Attilio, Thanks for getting what I have been trying to say.

Indeed, there is no mention of moving in the DBA rules except for the explanation of what to measure -- distance travelled by front corner -- and the reference in the intro that elements are not rigid. Phil thinks that moving is self-evident. Yet in the other rules he does not take this line of reasoning.

My purpose in doing the Commentary is to offer players an option to follow if they cannot agree between themselves. If both players want to follow the process suggested by Jack then they certainly can. I think this is too liberal for the game and prefer the HOTT process as the model to follow. Keeps all the games at least somewhat similar.

If there is something in the path of the element that keeps it from moving from where it is to where it wants to be and more than 1 corner must deviate from a straight path, then it must avoid that entity. It must move in straight lines until clear of the entitiy and the sum of the segments that the front corners follow are added to get the total distance moved.

So a second rank element must move to the side until clear of the blocking entity and then it can move freely. If a second rank element was only going to end next to the front rank element then only 1 corner would need to deviate from a straight path and the straight line path from front corner start to finish can be measured. If the end position requries more corners to deviate, then the segments must be measured.

You never measure the rear corners. You measure the segments followed by the front corners. Thus a side move of 40mm, then a forward move of however much is needed to reach the end point of the front corner that moves more.

Originally posted by Andrechin:

So, now two questions:
 do I understand correctly that measuring the path of all four corners is something you get from HOTT, but nothing like that is mentioned in the written DBA rules? OK, I have to measure the movement of all four corners, may I use the sum of the straight segments, i.e. the front corners move 40+20=60mm, and the rear corners 63+20=83 mm (if my math is correct)?I accept using HOTT as a reference where DBA is silent, but I would also like to use straight segments whenever possible, as measuring a curved path is not easy and prone to discussions. [/QB]

imported_JLogan

10-21-2003, 01:25 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob.:

"If a second rank element was only going to end next to the front rank element then only 1 corner would need to deviate from a straight path and the straight line path from front corner start to finish can be measured. If the end position requries more corners to deviate, then the segments must be measured."

My issue with this Bob, is that under this HOTT rules borrowing, a second rank Sp (or blade) moving to align with a front rank Sp (or blade) can thus "appear" to have one corner (only) pass thru the front element and so it is "allowed". Yet (presumably) a second rank Sp, with a Ps element in front, could not, since now two corner elements of the (shallower based) Sp must pass thru the front rank Ps. So Sp can appear to interpentrate Sp, but not Sp interpentrate Ps. Seems counter-intuitive to me?

In my view, UNDER DBA (as opposed to HOTT), neither above is allowed, and in both cases the segment paths around the friendly element need to be measured. I disagree that the DBA rules are silent on this situation. It clearly states when interpentration is allowed; Sp thru Sp is not, so I don't see why a 2nd rank Sp can move to align with a front rank Sp and just simply measure the straight distance, which clearly requires it to interpenetrate (and with front edge/corners too...)? I recognize that apparently PB may have told you and/or others that allowing the Sp thru Sp oblique move was his "intent"; but it's not what his rules as currently written say...........?

Michael Fischer

10-21-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Bob.:
If there is something in the path of the element that keeps it from moving from where it is to where it wants to be and more than 1 corner must deviate from a straight path, then it must avoid that entity. It must move in straight lines until clear of the entitiy and the sum of the segments that the front corners follow are added to get the total distance moved.

So a second rank element must move to the side until clear of the blocking entity and then it can move freely.So what's happening in El Jocko's example?
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsheriff/dba10c.gif Ax2 finds an obstacle in its path (Ax1). If it wanted to go directly to its desired target position two corners (front-left and rear-left) would pass through Ax1 -- so this is a no go.
So it starts moving in segments. A 40mm [60mm] segment, no corner crossing any obstacle, each corner moving in a straight path, brings it into the position front facing left, left flank aligned with rear of Ax1. Now there's no obstacle near nor far, and a 20mm [30mm] segment brings it into flank close combat contact with the enemy Wb.
Obviously a large part of the front edge is apparently moving through Ax1. But the same is true in the famous 2nd rank to flank example (it's worse, the left flank moves through the element in front, too). And the HOTT rule doesn't mention edges, just corners.
 Second rank to flank (allowed according to Bob): one corner and two edges move through an obstacle. El Jocko Tango (not allowed according to Bob): no corner, but one edge moves through an obstacle. Bob, your interp is beyond me!

Hannibal Ad Portas

10-21-2003, 05:20 PM

"If a second rank element was only going to end next to the front rank element then only 1 corner would need to deviate from a straight path and the straight line path from front corner start to finish can be measured. If the end position requries more corners to deviate, then the segments must be measured."

Michael, I think the above quote is the reason the El Jocko move can't work. If I understand it, then the left front corner definitely deviated from a straight path twice, first when it pivots and then when it now slides up. I think the right front corner has changed its straight path because it started facing up and ended up facing to the left after the pivot, therefore it deviated from its straight path.

No matter how you look at it though, there sure is a lot of movement in there to imagine it should only cost 60mm!!

El' Jocko

10-21-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:
My purpose in doing the Commentary is to offer players an option to follow if they cannot agree between themselves. If both players want to follow the process suggested by Jack then they certainly can. I think this is too liberal for the game and prefer the HOTT process as the model to follow. Keeps all the games at least somewhat similar.But Bob, my contention all along has been that the move is legal according to the HOTT rule. The only reason you don't see this in HOTT is that there is a different rule restricting when you can make flank or rear contact.

- Jack

imported_JLogan

10-21-2003, 07:41 PM

Once again I think El Jocko makes an excellent point here and it is the reason why I feel we have to be very careful about 'adopting' certain rules from, say, HOTT, because we believe DBA is silent or unclear on an issue, without also considering the totality of other interlated rules in HOTT.

The 'one corner is ok' rule in HOTT is not the whole story; other rules, such as those regarding when are flank/rear attacks permissible, complete the story. So should we adopt one HOTT rule, which then will apparently allow in DBA other things as a consequence, which HOTT would not because it has other explicit rules (also not in DBA) to prevent them? I for one, would be very cautious about doing so.

I got to play HOTT for the first time a few weeks ago (Big thankyou to Bill Bennett!), largely on the strength that it was very similar to DBA. Yet I was surprised to find out how many things were explicitly different e.g. defender moves first; not attacker, etc. Similarly, in DBM , many rules appear to be quite different to DBA (e.g. mutual shooting target rules). This is presumably why PB apparently cautions 'extending' from one to another.

David Kuijt

10-21-2003, 08:02 PM

Bob, I can't see why you think El'Jocko's move (as shown in Michael Fischer's picture) is illegal. It looks perfectly legal to me!

Think about it this way -- suppose the purple enemy warband is facing up, not down, and that friendly Ax1 does not exist. Why can't Ax2 move exactly as shown? It seems perfectly legal to me.

xeswop

10-21-2003, 08:34 PM

to JLogan: Your are correct in your assessemnt of the way elements move In HOTT. If there is a shallower element behind a deeper one, such as a Spear behind an Ax, then if the Spear wanted to align with side and front edge of the Ax, it would have to make the move in segments, sideways and then forward because more than 1 corner must deviate from a straight path to reach that position -- both right corners if the move is to the right.

to David: In Jack's example, more than 1 corner of the back rank Ax must deviate from a straight path to avoid the front element. The totality of the move must be taken into account. Consider where the element starts and where it ends. Do more than 1 of the corners deviate from a straight path? Consider the actual path followed by the element as it moves. It seems to me they do. I cannot move an element in from the position shown at the start to the position at the end without making more than 1 corner deviate from a straight path. The corners follow a curve as they move around the front element. Thus the move must be mesured in straight segments, first left then forward.

[ October 21, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Bob. ]

Zekestrom

10-21-2003, 08:51 PM

Well, first off, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who's confused by my interpretation of both the rules and the interpretations.

I do see your point concerning the directions that the corners move, Bob, but I want to re-iterate again why there's a problem here.

In this example, absollutely NONE of Aux2's four corners ever has to "deviate from a straight path to avoid other troops."

They do not all travel IDENTICAL paths, but the path each corner takes is indeed straight, they do not bend or curve at any point to avoid an obstruction. Draw out the lines between all four corners in the FIRST HALF ONLY. I could accept it if the corner-vectors crossed over through an obstacle, but they don't.

There's nothing I can see (in either rules set) that implies such movement "around an obstacle" must be performed with all corner-vectors being parallel, I think the rules are saying that when you draw the four lines (corner to corner, start of move to end of move), no more than one of those lines can pass through an obstacle. If it does then you have to move such that ALL lines drawn corner-to-corner (for all portions) have to clear the obstacle, and you have to measure the total move. Again, in this case, none of the corners moves through ANYTHING...only the unit edge.

The problem is that the rule SHOULD have some provision for checking edge movement. That would, however, be even MORE confusing to try and explain, I think...and this is about the only real case where it would be important. And in HOTT, this situation is overruled by the "can't flank if not starting in flank" rule anyway.

Sorry to throw people off with the "measuring rear corners" thing, also. Yes, in 2.0 only the front corners are checked. This was not always so, as in 1.x all four corners were checked and, amazingly, all these oddities never came up. (In 1.x the rule reads "The maximum distance any base corner of a single element or element of a group can move"

The 2.0 and HOTT rule that only looks at front corners is more consistent and easier to work in practice. It expands the movement capabilities for individual elements, but the added flexibility leads to things like this move and the Martian Flip, which seem counter-intuitive on the battlefield. The real question is, was the tradeoff worth it?

By the way, trying to figure out EXACTLY what is meant by the examples in the HOTT book has had me scratching my head since the new edition came out ... this example in particular. The wording is NOT clear, nor do the pictures make the intent of the rule obvious. Not so much a complaint as it is an admission that this whole issue of "how much can you move through something" has been annoyingly vague to me for some time.

I'm spending WAY too much effort trying to argue that the rules allow an action that I would HATE to see ruled legal. smile.gif

-Dave Zecchini

El' Jocko

10-21-2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Zekestrom:
I'm spending WAY too much effort trying to argue that the rules allow an action that I would HATE to see ruled legal. smile.gif

-Dave Zecchini Good point. I don't know that anyone is contending that this move SHOULD be legal. Perhaps, instead of continuing to discuss the implications of the current add-on rule, adopted from HOTT, we should come up with a new add-on rule that fits our expectations. It would need to:

1. Continue to allow moves that are generally accepted to be legal.

2. Disallow moves such as the one I've described.

3. Be sufficiently clear and unambiguous as to reduce the potential for misunderstanding and surprises.

I happen to have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which the margin is too narrow to contain. Perhaps a new topic is warranted.

- Jack

[ October 21, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

xeswop

10-21-2003, 09:31 PM

I might well be wrong here, not the first time I've misunderstood the rules, consider the bit about crossing a front!

What I am saying is take the actual physical element. Move the element along the path it must take to reach the final position. Plot each point the corners occupy as they make the move. I see a curve from that plotting.

How can the element go from facing forward to facing the flank of Ax1 and move only in a straight line.

If the element moved straight to the side I do not see a curve but a straigh line move.

Originally posted by Zekestrom:

In this example, absollutely NONE of Aux2's four corners ever has to "deviate from a straight path to avoid other troops."

T
-Dave Zecchini

El' Jocko

10-21-2003, 09:43 PM

Bob, it's the same as this move, but going around a friendly element instead of an enemy BWD.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsheriff/DBA12a.gif

1. The front corners follow a perfectly straight line.

2. The rear corners follow a curve, but not to avoid the friendly element or enemy BWD.

My hunch is that it is impossible (geometrically speaking) for the element to rotate and keep all of the corners in a straight line. I don't have a proof of this, however.

3. The front edge does cross through the friendly element or BWD. But the rule only addresses corners, not edges.

In a nutshell, that is why I am contending that the HOTT rule does not disallow this move.

- Jack

[ October 21, 2003, 18:45: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

David Kuijt

10-21-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by El' Jocko:

I happen to have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which the margin is too narrow to contain.Hah! Mathematical history in-joke reference!

Zekestrom

10-21-2003, 10:36 PM

(I hate to keep putting these long posts out, but hey, I'm long-winded ... sue me smile.gif )

Let me try and give you a "middle frame" to show you what I mean. It think that the key problem is that you're visualizing the element moving with NO PORTION of it crossing over the Aux in front.

What we're talking about is a movement in which a chopped-out portion of the front of the unit does indeed cross over the Aux in front ... but not the corners. This is why I feel that the INTENT was to avoid this, but the rules (which focus exclusively on the corners) fail to support it.

Observe:

Step 1 & 2:
http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum01.jpg http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum02.jpg

Step 3 & 4:
http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum03.jpg http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum04.jpg

Movement Vectors for all corners:
http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/ConundrumFin.jpg

Ok, for sake of expedience, let me play Devil's Advocate here and shoot myself down in argument.

ARGUMENTS THAT THE MOVE IS ILLEGAL:

1. More than one corner deviates from a straight path to avoid other troops.

1a. None of the corners deviates from a straight path. They do take DIFFERENT paths (not all moving in parallel), but all the paths are straight and do not intersect any portion of another element.

2. Yeah, but to do that you have to move part of the element through the element in front of it.

2a. Sure, but the simplified "corner to corner" measurement system allows for that. Consider the case of moving forward from rear rank to fill a gap.

3. Yes, but too much of the element has to pass through the element in front.

3a. For one thing, the definition of "too much" isn't very clearly spelled out. In fact, if the examples are to be read as they stand, then the definition resolves entirely on the number of corners which must deviate from a straight path...and as we saw above, none of them ever try and move through the object, only the edge of the element.

But, for sake of argument, let's compare it to a known example. See the diagram below:

http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/ConundrumSurface.jpg

The case on the left is our "point of deepest penetration" during the move. The case on the right is the specific example (in both HOTT and DBA) which is listed as legal. If you do the math, the surface areas of the "overlap triangles" in each case are actually identical (50% of the total surface area of the element). So neither one "moves through more" than the other.

4. Well, the intent was that an entire edge can't move through like that, it's too much, so the element has to measure all its movement and add it up. Since the entire element must clear, it won't have enough movement.

4a. Ok, if we accept that as true, let's look at the letter of the rules (which are, even in this case, written exclusively around the movement of corners).

"In such cases, all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction."

Once again, the ruling fails us. All four CORNERS do avoid the obstruction in the first place. The example SHOULD say "All PORTIONS of the moving element must clear the obstruction" but it doesn't.

CONCLUSION

This is about the time that someone from the crowd breaks a 2' x 2' styrofoam play board over my head and yells "GET A LIFE!" Be that as it may, SOMEBODY shoot me down before an opponent of mine uses these arguments against me...

-Dave Zecchini

Hannibal Ad Portas

10-21-2003, 10:52 PM

David....your drawings are great! However, I don't think Auxilia can interpenetrate friends...so how can this work?

The way I understood El Jocko's move was the rear auxilia pivoted backwards on its right front corner and then slid into place....to me that is a valid move, but should be costed as the pivot and then the slide....certainly not a 60mm move!

Zekestrom

10-21-2003, 11:10 PM

A good point, but this is an issue completely unrelated to interpenetration.

The argument comes about because of the simplified method of measuring movement that allows "amoeba like" movement of troops in various situations. This is mentioned in the DBA rules, and has clearer examples in HOTT.

Bob's commentaries go over this, I've linked to both the commentaries in general and to the diagram that shows these kinds of moves and their rationale...

Quick Link to Commentaries (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts3.html)
Specific Diagram (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/dbapics/mvthru.gif)

These are moves which can apply equally to ANY troop type, though most foot will be too slow to take dramatic advantage of them.

Very nice supporting argument, El Jocko ... I was trying to think of another case but you beat me to the punch. (Love the theorem ref, too...)

-Dave Zecchini

Parmenio

10-21-2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Zekestrom:
...

Movement Vectors for all corners:
http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/ConundrumFin.jpg

Ok, for sake of expedience, let me play Devil's Advocate here and shoot myself down in argument.

ARGUMENTS THAT THE MOVE IS ILLEGAL:

1. More than one corner deviates from a straight path to avoid other troops.

1a. None of the corners deviates from a straight path. They do take DIFFERENT paths (not all moving in parallel), but all the paths are straight and do not intersect any portion of another element.

...

"In such cases, all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction."

Once again, the ruling fails us. All four CORNERS do avoid the obstruction in the first place. The example SHOULD say "All PORTIONS of the moving element must clear the obstruction" but it doesn't.

...

-Dave Zecchini Dave, thanks for the diagrams. I think they help a lot.

My understanding: If we digress from DBA to discuss the HOTT rule, then I think you are incorrect regarding the corners' paths. The start-to-final position vector is indeed straight (as any line connecting two points will be). But the path (the "history" of the position travelled) by the two rear corners is NOT straight. However, the way I read the HOTT rule, it says "look at each individual corner. If that corner must follow a curved path so that IT avoids stuff, then you have to measure movement by segments."

I think Bob is reading this rule as "if a corner moves in a curved path because a DIFFERENT corner is trying to avoid stuff, then measure movement by segments."

A very confused,
Parmenio

P.S. I totally agree that the rule should be changed to say "All portions..."!!!

[ October 21, 2003, 20:26: Message edited by: Parmenio ]

Zekestrom

10-21-2003, 11:38 PM

Agreed that the rear-corner path is actually a curve (I see the point that's being made there), though neither of the corners themselves is avoiding an obstruction. The main intent of showing the vectors of the rear corners was to point out that neither of them crossed the Aux in front.

As El Jocko points out, it's probably impossible to rotate an element during ANY move without the rear corners moving through a curvature...if that's the way the rule is to be interpreted, I'd think it would disallow a lot of moves which we would otherwise consider legal.

(P.S. Forgive the change in Avatar, I finally got around to uploading this one smile.gif )

[ October 21, 2003, 21:27: Message edited by: Zekestrom ]

imported_JLogan

10-22-2003, 12:44 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zekestrom:
[QB] A good point, but this is an issue completely unrelated to interpenetration.

The argument comes about because of the simplified method of measuring movement that allows "amoeba like" movement of troops in various situations. This is mentioned in the DBA rules, and has clearer examples in HOTT.

The only mention in DBA in fact is the line " 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 or do not vary their position" This is a far cry from "amoeba like" movement. Certainly Bob's (excellent) commantaries go over this; but it doesn't make it the rule. To me, if the DBA rules alone (not HOTT, etc.) are referenced on this issue, the interpenetration rules clearly prevent the straight line measurement of both maneovers; including the second rank move to align with front obliquely; which in fact is nowhere in the DBA rules listed as a specific example that is legal; only in Bob's (and other's) commentaries. I accept PB may have told people that is his intent, but it's not in the rules, and what is in the rules, in the interpenetation provisions, clearly prevents it. I don't see, in the absence of explicit rules to the contrary, that "this is an issue completely unrelated to interpenetration"?

So why can't we just all agree to play it the way the rules indicate? Neither of these manoevers can be completed for the straight line measurement we are debating about (and most of us don't want to be legal anyway!) They can be completed, provided you measure the segments. Why do we have an issue ageeing that is what the DBA rules tell us on this?

Zekestrom

10-22-2003, 02:17 AM

So why can't we just all agree to play it the way the rules indicate? Neither of these manoevers can be completed for the straight line measurement we are debating about (and most of us don't want to be legal anyway!) I think it's a great idea, except of course that it's never going to happen. The rules are way too sparse to take on their own, there are too many questions exactly like this which get in the way.

Consider further the following:

a.) The author has produced/collaborated on two other rulesets (DBM and HOTT), both of which show examples allowing the "front oblique" as a concept. (DBM has it in both versions 2.0 and 3.0) Thus making a strict-interpretation DBA the only one of his rules that's the exception.

b.) When asked to provide a few more sentences in the DBA rules which would clarify these sorts of things, the author responded with Some of your points dealt with wording that as far as I know have never been misunderstood in 10 years of DBA and DBM. What are we to make of this? What is the "obvious" answer that causes us all to disagree on this? I've seen players of DBM and HOTT who would argue that one little sentence does indeed indicate that it would be allowed, since it seems to be Phil's intent.

*shrug* I'm just trying to consider all the arguments when someone says "Can he really do that?" And at SOME point, SOMEONE will (has already happened in fact...)

Hannibal Ad Portas

10-22-2003, 03:06 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zekestrom:
A good point, but this is an issue completely unrelated to interpenetration.

I don't see that as being the case. Why else would the rules include specific situations where interpenetration is allowed or disallowed? They can't be ignored just because we would like to ignore them. Bob Beattie's commentaries are not the written rules and just because Phil Barker flip-flops on what is written and that goes into the commentaries does not mean we should then accept unfortunate consequences such as this rather clever El Jocko move interpretation or the equally funky Martian Flip. I have not seen these moves on a DBA table, but I fear that they will come up in the large tourneys. This is the kind of thing that can hurt the DBA community and lead us down the too-competitive, rules-lawyering path that larger ancients games have so ignominiously travelled.....

If we don't like these dumb moves, and even the current supporters don't like them.....then let's throw them out!!!

GAZMAN

10-22-2003, 07:23 AM

I see interpenetration has reared it's head here, during a recent discussion it became apparent that interpretation can only be achieved in a direction perpendicular to the front edge of the element being interpenetrated.
I don't think this is a case of interpenetration, but if we apply the interpenetration rule then it does clearly prevent the El Jocko twist.
Also if the element moves in an ameoba type fashin then it actualy cuts itself in half at the mid point - the rear corner of Ax 1 touched the rear edge of Ax 2. I think if you cut an ameoba in half it doesn't tend to like it.

I have seen DBA players trying to move from rear support to flank support positions with 200P troops and placing the element slightly back from the front corner to front corner position because 'The movement rate is not enough to make the corner to corner contact'

I think there is a clear case for a SPECIAL movement rules section in DBA to allow things that are geometrically impossible and outside the normal movement measuremnt regime.

To my mind these are the special cases that need illustrating and defining.

1 - close the door manouvre on to flank.
2 - Move from rear to flank support (if the intention is that this should be a possible move)
3 - moving through a gap smaller than the elements frontage.
4 - Entering the AREA with front edge not parallel to the AREA exuding element.

S

xeswop

10-22-2003, 07:23 PM

If players do not use the "non-rigid element" concept, then elements cannot pivot to hit the flank (close the door) of an enemy if they are in a line with friend to the side they are not pivoting to and they cannot pivot through an element wide gap in the enemy line. This type of pivot on to an enemy flank has been part of the oral tradition, at least, of the game since the early days.

A second part of that tradition has been the allowing of a second rank element of same or greater depth to move forward to align with the side of the first rank. A shallower element cannot do so with a deeper element in front. Thus second rank spear can move sideways and forward to align with spear.

The third part has been to otherwise move in straight lines to move around objects, move left, move right. The non-rigid element concept had tacit agreement among players to be used in only limit situations, I think just the two I mentioned -- closing the door thru a gap in enemy line with there are elements next to the gap or next to the mover and back rank to front rank alignment.

These actions are not written in the rules but have been played for years. Should we now dismiss them because they are not explicit in the rules? I think it more reasonable to keep to the previous un-written tradition of the game and try to write it up so people who need something to refer to will have it. Players would always be free to agree between themselves how they want to play the game -- strict or loose.

There can be a compromise between the strict readers who say the two situations I mention are not covered in the rules so all moves are in straight line segments and cannot interpenetrate at angles and the loose readers who say since nothing is mentioned, let there be full oozing of the non-rigid element. Debate on the various options will get us no where as this cannot be resolved by logical argument.

Regarding the curved path I was describing. I was assuming that the back rank Ax was not at all be passing through the front Ax as shown below. Move the Ax2 so it slides around Ax1. I never thought of the back rank moving through the front rank. Can someone draw the back element moving a little to the right and then a little downward and then a little more right and a little more down until it has moved around the front element to reach the position in the last diagram. In that process, do not all the corners follow a curve?

Anyway, there seems to be some agreement that more than 1 corner deviates from a straight path as the element moves in the illustrated example. This satisfies the HOTT definition of needing to move in straight line segments to avoid the front element.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zekestrom:
Observe:

Step 1 & 2:
http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum01.jpg http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum02.jpg

Step 3 & 4:
http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum03.jpg http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/Conundrum04.jpg

Movement Vectors for all corners:
http://home.fuse.net/VoightKampff/Transit/ConundrumFin.jpg

-Dave Zecchini/QUOTE]

Joe Mauloni

10-22-2003, 08:20 PM

hi Bob:
The non-rigid element concept had tacit agreement among players to be used in only limit situations, I think just the two I mentioned -- closing the door thru a gap in enemy line with there are elements next to the gap or next to the mover and back rank to front rank alignment. There's also the pass through a gap as wide as the leading edge provision. I assume this is still in effect as per your commentary.
Just out of curiosity (as I have never used the move) how is that measured?
regards, Joe

imported_JLogan

10-22-2003, 09:11 PM

Bob;
I respect this "oral tradition" and even use one -the 'closing the door', as it seems intuitive and un-obtrusive; after all, only a TINY part of an elements REAR corners are in question. I'm even willing to go with the second rank spear to align with front so long as it's recognized as a unique exception to allow elements who otherwise would not have sufficient movement (i.e. those only allowed to move 200 paces) to be able to align with only one PIP; exactly as the overlap to flank move is specifically stated in the rules as an exception to otherwise measuring movement.

The problem for me arises when the "exceptions" of this oral tradition are used to extend to other situations such as these and justify them. Even more so when people mistakenly believe these exceptions are actually written in the rules, and so point to that as justification.

So I have a major problem allowing these two, by themselves, fairly benign, oral tradition "exceptions", to justify El Jocko's second rank Aux move (in only 60mm) to the flank of an enemy in frontal contact with it's front rank Aux. If we are to allow this as requiring only 60mm of movement, through stretching the "non-rigid" concept, then we will have to allow the madness to go further.

Consider EL Jocko's example, but now assume the second rank element is a LH. In 60mm it can get to the flank, just as the Aux supposedly can. So now, following this logic,it can move another 60mm (all within it's 500 pace allowance) and move onto the enemy's rear? Does this not seem a bit much?

Andrechin

10-22-2003, 09:30 PM

I am again completely lost, therefore I made this sketch and sent it to the HOTT yahoo groups.
Anyhow, what people in this forum think about the following?
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/sneakingaround.gif

From Bob's comment, I think that he would accept to measure the distance as the front corners path in a), b) or c).
If my math is right, in c) both front corners travel for 69.5 mm.

I would still argue that d) is also a perfectly valid path, but I'll stay with the majority here.

By the way, if we had started the discussion about elements attacking on the front, instead than on the flank, would that have caused so much ado?

imported_JLogan

10-22-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Zekestrom:
Consider further the following:

a.) The author has produced/collaborated on two other rulesets (DBM and HOTT), both of which show examples allowing the "front oblique" as a concept. (DBM has it in both versions 2.0 and 3.0) Thus making a strict-interpretation DBA the only one of his rules that's the exception.
[/QB]Dave;
I acknowledge your point. But this is indeed the problem; on some things DBA IS the exception. Consider for example, that both DBM and HOTT have specific rules that prevent elements that start a move in front of an enemy, being able to make a legal contact on it's rear, and sometimes even it's flank (even if it has the movement allowance to otherwise do so). We must be careful against picking and choosing from DBM/HOTT, without recognizing the totality of those rules and other provisions within them that often modify the provision being "picked".

DBM, for example, specifically states that to count as an overlap, a friendly element must not only be in front corner to front corner contact with the friend it is giving the overlap support to (just as DBA does); it goes further, and says it must also be in full side edge contact with that friend. It even has a diagram that shows a corner contact only overlap as not legal. Yet DBA does not have this, and apparently allows this as a valid overlap situation, precisely the example that DBM says is not. Certainly Bob's commentaries specifically claims it is allowed in DBA, and based on how the DBA rule is written, I would agree with Bob.

So, just because DBM shows an example of "front oblique" movement as specifically allowed, does not neccessarily mean it must therefore be in DBA (though I accept it may be). And PB is known to insist that people should not infer that a rule in one , neccesarily extends to the others. Of course, as you rightly point out, he's also (notoriously) known for insisting sometimes that some truth's are self-evident, even when for most of the rest of us plebians, they patently are not............. smile.gif

Zekestrom

10-22-2003, 10:31 PM

Well, Bob, I think your read of the HOTT rule is, in fact, not exactly how it should be. You're saying, in effect, "if an element is moving to avoid an obstacle and more than one of of its corners moves in a curve, then it must measure individual movement and all corners must clear."

I don't think that's what the rule is actually saying ... I believe it's more an analysis of final corner-to-corner vectors (as in Attilio's diagram), but this is really an argument more for the HOTT list than here. Besides, that one HOTT movement example has confused me more than anything else in any Phil Barker rule set. (I'd like to point out that there is no way that you can have EXACTLY ONE corner travel in a curved path...you can move none, two, or three, but not one, so I don't think that's how the sentence should be interpreted.)

I think the MOST IMPORTANT thing you've said is the following:

The non-rigid element concept had tacit agreement among players to be used in only limit situations, I think just the two I mentioned -- closing the door thru a gap in enemy line with there are elements next to the gap or next to the mover and back rank to front rank alignment. I don't think we're going to really find a "rules case" that limits these properly (though keep trying on the corner-move thing, you might convince me ;) ). Assuming we can't get a.) The Word According to Phil, or b.) A Clear Precedent in the Rules, I'd be happy enough just to see the above paragraph stated in the commentaries and be done with it.

P.S.: JLogan - "And PB is known to insist that people should not infer that a rule in one , neccesarily extends to the others." (snuck in on me while I was replying)

Excellent points on the DBM differences, It just seems to me that the "forward oblique" fell into the category of "obvious to Phil" along with "closing the door." I may very well have been wrong there and Phil's intent wasn't to allow it in the game, BUT most of the DBA players I've played with seem to either use it or be OK with it. *shrug*

I'm gonna take up a game with fewer rules and stuff ... and no dice ... where's my chessboard?

[ October 22, 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: Zekestrom ]

Parmenio

10-23-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Bob.:

Anyway, there seems to be some agreement that more than 1 corner deviates from a straight path as the element moves in the illustrated example. This satisfies the HOTT definition of needing to move in straight line segments to avoid the front element.

Bob,

You have not convinced me that you are interpretating the HOTT rule correctly. It has been a LONG time since I've had to diagram a sentence in an English class, but I think I'm doing it correctly. The phrase "to avoid ..." is a list of conditions that is describing the corner's path. I don't see the rear corners trying to avoid anything in the list in El Jocko's example so it doesn't matter if their path is straight or not. The rule does not apply and therefore only the straight path distances of the front corners needs to be measured.

Please correct my English if I'm wrong.

Or is there another HOTT rule that states no portion of an element can pass through another element during a move?

Parmenio

[ October 22, 2003, 22:28: Message edited by: Parmenio ]

DBAse

10-23-2003, 03:03 AM

On behalf of all non-native English speaking DBA players...

We look on in miscomprehension and frustration.

DBAse

PS: Is miscomprehension a word?

Ares

10-23-2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by DBAse:
PS: Is miscomprehension a word? DBAse,

That would be "incomprehension." smile.gif

If it makes you feel any better, there's _at_least_ one native English speaker who looks on some of these discussions with "miscomprehension and frustration." :confused:

Eric

xeswop

10-23-2003, 05:05 PM

Here is the rule and diagram from HOTT. In the first case one corner of the top center back element must deviate from a straight path to reach the new position. However, instead of making the element take the extra distance into account, it is allowed to make a straight move. In the lower right case, the element must avoid the enemy BWD and so must clear the space with all corners.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/dbapics/hottmove.gif

Originally posted by Parmenio:

You have not convinced me that you are interpretating the HOTT rule correctly. It has been a LONG time since I've had to diagram a sentence in an English class, but I think I'm doing it correctly. The phrase "to avoid ..." is a list of conditions that is describing the corner's path. I don't see the rear corners trying to avoid anything in the list in El Jocko's example so it doesn't matter if their path is straight or not. The rule does not apply and therefore only the straight path distances of the front corners needs to be measured.

Please correct my English if I'm wrong.

Or is there another HOTT rule that states no portion of an element can pass through another element during a move?

Parmenio

Parmenio

10-23-2003, 06:47 PM

Bob,

Your examples are not helping me understand the HOTT rule (which I think we all hope to use to clarify DBA...).

How do you interpret the phrase "to avoid other troops"? Do you apply it to ONLY the path the corners take?

OR

As your figures suggest, it applies to any portion of the element such that to make any portion of the element "avoid other troops" the corners will have to move in curved paths?

If it is "only the path the corners take", how is the El Jocko example illegal because none of the corners pass through another troop...?

If it is "any portion", where does it say that in the rules?

Parmenio

[ October 23, 2003, 15:51: Message edited by: Parmenio ]

xeswop

10-23-2003, 08:23 PM

These are not "my" diagrams. These are the exact diagrams from the HOTT rule book. They mean what they say. Maybe someone else can make them clearer. To me it means that if more than one corner of an element must move around something then you must move the element in straight lines, not like an amobea. If only one corner will pass thru something, then you can move thru it in a straight line.

Zekestrom

10-23-2003, 09:52 PM

Thanks for continuing the commentary here, Bob. I still not sure how this affects the original situation, though. Not trying to be critical, just making sure we have the same concept for how the rule plays out.

You say that "if more than one corner of an element must move around something then you must move the element in straight lines, not like an amobea" ... which corner (in the original example) would be attempting to move through something, and must therefore "go around"? (To me, they seem to avoid the obstruction altogether) Or are you rather saying that "part of the element" is moving through something, and therefore the corners (in this case the rear corners) cannot "curve" in their move ("deviates from a straight path")?

If the latter is the case, then that basically says that elements moving like an amoeba must always move parallel, and cannot turn during such a move. Checking whether one or more corners moves "through" is easy in that case, and the original move would be completely ruled out from the start.

The "closing the door" maneuver gets a little confusing under that interpretation, though...since one corner is attempting to avoid "moving through" the element in front, yet the element is obviously turning in mid-move (three corners "curve" in mid-move).

I'm willing to accept "parallelism" as the spirit of the rule, but it's an AWFULLY difficult leap to make from just looking at the text. Probably one reason why this very example has always confused me.

Parmenio

10-24-2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Bob:

These are not "my" diagrams. These are the exact diagrams from the HOTT rule book. Originally posted by Parmenio:
Bob,

Your examples are not helping me understand the HOTT rule (which I think we all hope to use to clarify DBA...).

How do you interpret the phrase "to avoid other troops"? Do you apply it to ONLY the path the corners take?

OR

As your figures suggest, it applies to any portion of the element such that to make any portion of the element "avoid other troops" the corners will have to move in curved paths?

If it is "only the path the corners take", how is the El Jocko example illegal because none of the corners pass through another troop...?

If it is "any portion", where does it say that in the rules?

Parmenio Bob,

Sorry. Let me re-phrase:

The examples from the HOTT rulebook are not helping me understand the HOTT rule (which I think we all hope to use to clarify DBA...).

If the DBA community adopted the HOTT rules, how do you interpret the phrase "to avoid other troops"? Would you apply it to ONLY the path that each individual corner takes?

If it is "only the path the corners take", how is the El Jocko example illegal because none of the corners pass through another troop...?

Originally posted by Bob:

... They mean what they say. Maybe someone else can make them clearer. To me it means that if more than one corner of an element must move around something then you must move the element in straight lines, not like an amobea. If only one corner will pass thru something, then you can move thru it in a straight line. I understand your point completely. I don't understand how El Jocko's example of moving around an element, BWD zone, forest, or obstacle has any corner moving through anything other than good going. As multiple posts and diagrams on this thread have shown, SIGNIFICANT edge and center portions of the element would pass through the obstruction. If you cite some interpenetration rule restriction or a movement rule that restricts any portion of an element from passing through things, then I would accept the illegality of the move -- but then as others have pointed out, the 2nd rank of spear moving to align with the front rank would be an inconsistent application of the rule.

When the rule was measure the distance of any corner, the edges were taken care of because any edge is always between two corners. Now when you only have to measure the front two corners and there is no restriction on the front edge passing through obstacles, I think both the HOTT and DBA movement systems have a very, very serious flaw.

Parmenio

P.S. These issues must be clarified if someone ever hopes to program DBA v2.0 movement rules...

[ October 24, 2003, 04:21: Message edited by: Parmenio ]

Andrechin

10-24-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:
These are not "my" diagrams. These are the exact diagrams from the HOTT rule book. Actually the first diagram in "Measuring Single element Move Distances. 2" and the text are different from what I have on page 67 of my HOTT 2.0 rulebook.

The real one supports your view that
 either "oozing" is possible from the starting position to the ending positions of the move; or it is not possible on any part of the move.
Unfortunately the one you posted here just shows the opposite!

As far as I am concerned, I would agree your understanding is sensible and what I drew as path (c) is probably the right way to measure such a movement.

One may be extremely pedantic and insist to measure along the very exact curved path, but this is extremely impractical.

Parmenio

10-24-2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Andrechin:
...
The real one supports your view that
 either "oozing" is possible from the starting position to the ending positions of the move; or it is not possible on any part of the move.
Unfortunately the one you posted here just shows the opposite!
I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what you mean by your "either" and "or" statements above. Could you explain with more detail?

Originally posted by Andrechin:
...
As far as I am concerned, I would agree your understanding is sensible and what I drew as path (c) is probably the right way to measure such a movement.

One may be extremely pedantic and insist to measure along the very exact curved path, but this is extremely impractical. Your option (c) makes the most sense to me. But I don't see the rule (yet) that forces you to move that way. If the rule is not clear, then misunderstandings are bound to occur. (sigh)

I believe the HOTT rule is clear enough that you DON'T have to measure the very exact curved path -- just enough straight line paths to avoid the obstacles (whatever THAT means) and to get from where you are to where you want to be.

[ October 24, 2003, 15:49: Message edited by: Parmenio ]

Andrechin

10-25-2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Parmenio:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Andrechin:
...
The real one supports your view that
 either "oozing" is possible from the starting position to the ending positions of the move; or it is not possible on any part of the move.
Unfortunately the one you posted here just shows the opposite!
I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what you mean by your "either" and "or" statements above. Could you explain with more detail?
[/QUOTE]Sorry if my English is not good enough.
I meant the two situation are exclusive:
you check if you can reach the end position from the start position with straight line, with no more than pone corner crossing obstructions.
 if you can, you are allowed to "ooze" from the start to the end position. if you cannot you have to follow a path, with no "oozing" allowed in any part of the path.

Parmenio

10-26-2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Andrechin:
Sorry if my English is not good enough.
I meant the two situation are exclusive:
you check if you can reach the end position from the start position with straight line, with no more than one corner crossing obstructions.
 if you can, you are allowed to "ooze" from the start to the end position. if you cannot you have to follow a path, with no "oozing" allowed in any part of the path.No, your English is fine -- my skull is just too thick!

I understand your point now. Is there a way you can show us the diagram from your HOTT rulebook so that we can compare it to the figure Bob posted?

(Or try to describe the difference?)

Thanks!

P.S. In your diagram, for example (d), would you consider just the FIRST part to be a legal move? (Meaning, the element doesn't slide to face the enemy element -- just stops after moving to the side.)

[ October 26, 2003, 00:48: Message edited by: Parmenio ]

Andrechin

10-26-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Parmenio:

I understand your point now. Is there a way you can show us the diagram from your HOTT rulebook so that we can compare it to the figure Bob posted?

(Or try to describe the difference?)
Don't be too picky about the "distances":
 in Bob's drawing the rear element makes first a sideway shift of ~1 cm to align directly behind to the front one and then a diagonal movement to align at the side of the front one. in the one in my HOTT 2.0 copy the rear elements makes a sideway shift of 5 cm, and than advances straight forward, therefore making a longer path, to completely clear the obstruction.

P.S. In your diagram, for example (d), would you consider just the FIRST part to be a legal move? (Meaning, the element doesn't slide to face the enemy element -- just stops after moving to the side.) Yes: if you stop there to me it is fine and the distance travelled in 4 cm.

Parmenio

10-26-2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Andrechin:
...
in the one in my HOTT 2.0 copy the rear elements makes a sideway shift of 5 cm, and than advances straight forward, therefore making a longer path, to completely clear the obstruction.
...
Yes, I now see how the figure Bob posted is inconsistent with the HOTT 2.0 rulebook figure. I wonder if Bob got his figure from an older rulebook?

A couple of questions, if you don't mind:

1) Is there general agreement in the HOTT community that everyone follows the figure in the HOTT 2.0 rulebook?
2) How do players play this way?

It seems that you have to know where you will end up and then draw lines back to your starting position and keep checking that no more than 1 corner went through an obstacle. Then if more than 1 corner went through an obstacle, you have to back up and modify your movement-by-segments such that NO CORNER EVER goes through anything.

Is the pratical answer that players just get in the habit of moving such that no corners go through anything? (In fact this is how I'm used to playing, but I can see that a strict interpretation of the DBA 2.1 rules allows a much larger range of movement options due to the vagueness of the rules.)

Thanks,
Parmenio

xeswop

10-27-2003, 07:20 PM

Indeed, my diagram is not as published. I must have take a copy from a near final draft. Such a subtle difference. Attilio had sharp eyes to see the difference.

This whole issue is difficult enough to follow without me adding bad info. Below is the correct version of the bottom left HOTT movement diagram
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/dbapics/hott4mov.gif

It seems the author himself was confused about this stuff. It now seems clear, however, comparing these two versions that the strict application of the straight line moves with no corner passing through an element holds. In the wrong example, one corner passes through but this was changed to allow no corner to pass when other movement is used.

Thus there is either an "ooze" move with one corner allowed to penetrate OR there is all straight line moves. Not a combination of the two. Seeing the early draft picture and the final version clarifies this very well.

Parmenio

10-27-2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:
....

Thus there is either an "ooze" move with one corner allowed to penetrate OR there is all straight line moves. Not a combination of the two. Seeing the early draft picture and the final version clarifies this very well. Thanks Bob! I definitely feel a convergence in my understanding. The "one corner only" interpenetration gets me back to a style of play that I'm much more comfortable with -- not that this was an important issue for anyone but me! smile.gif

What does it take to adopt HOTT movement rules for DBA? Only House Rules? House and Tournament Rules? Or do we have to wait for DBA v2.2?

Could we also adopt the HOTT rule about restrictions on contacting the flank and rear?

Parmenio

Zekestrom

10-28-2003, 07:04 AM

Thanks, Bob, for such excellent information. Your interpretation ("ooze or no ooze, dependent on no more than one corner", must measure entire tactical move) is essentially how I had concluded the rule was supposed to be read (after a GREAT MANY HOURS of disturbed thought).

To get back to the original question, however, what does this mean with regards to the rear-rank Auxilia move ... how precisely does it prevent it?

I think the concensus agreement is that you cannot "ooze" for part of a move and then "move free and clear" for the rest, which would prevent you from "oozing" during the first portion. There's still the sticky matter, however, of the alternative rule ("all four corners of the moving element must clear the obstruction") only addressing corner movement. Is it your feeling that it should read "all portions of the moving element must clear the obstruction" instead? I would argue that's the intent.

I would have a tough time arguing that Attilio's "Diagram D" violates that rule as written. Any further thoughts on how we could smash this thing once and for all?

xeswop

10-28-2003, 03:44 PM

Until such time as Phil wants to officially explain how to move around things, all such clarifications are but House Rules or Referee Rulings. I plan to do this for the NASAMW tournaments.

Re the flank and rear rule. Here is a bit of history for you. When HOTT first came out I had been playing must DBA, including running turnaments. I thought most of the changes in HOTT should be applied to DBA. I told a Historicon group that we were going to use the HOTT flank rule and I was shouted down and almost tossed out of the room. All the players wanted to keep the DBA looser rule!
Phil has been asked at the time of 1.1, 1.2, 1.22, 2.0, and 2.1 to change this and he has always said NO. Thus I would really hesitate to make such a change at this time.

Re Attilio's useful diagrams. I believe that only A is correct as it has only straight line moves. I have trouble seeing how b and c and d are different. In all cases the back element slides halfway to the right, then pivots in the middle, and then slides the rest of the way to cover the front of the enemy. C seems acceptable as you are measuing the actual path the front left corner takes. D and B do not actually measure the path. According to my measurement, a and c are the same distance.

The actual path of the front corner that moves the farthest must be what is measured. In d, the back element is just picked up and set down and the distance between start and end corners is measured.

Andrechin

10-29-2003, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Bob.:

Re Attilio's useful diagrams. I believe that only A is correct as it has only straight line moves.
I do not understand this statement.
First of all, A has not only straight line moves, since to turn on the flank you have to rotate the element.
Second, one has to completely clear the obstruction moving has a rigid body, but there is nothing to compel you to move through a longer path if by pivoting you can reach the same place along a shorter path. At most the problem is how to measure the shorter path

I have trouble seeing how b and c and d are different. In all cases the back element slides halfway to the right, then pivots in the middle, and then slides the rest of the way to cover the front of the enemy. C seems acceptable as you are measuing the actual path the front left corner takes. D and B do not actually measure the path.

According to my measurement, a and c are the same distance.
Sorry, I dit not put the arrows on part of B and D.
Anyhow the path lengths are different:
A is 4 cm + 7.2 cm = 11.2 cm
B is 2 cm + 2.8 cm + 4 cm = 8.8 cm
C is 2.95 cm + 2 cm +2 cm for the front left and
2cm + 2.95cm + 2 cm for the front right =6.95 cm for both corners.
A big difference for auxilia.

I cannot see anything wrong with A, B, or C.
I understand D as sort of cheating, because the real path the element can take is C and you are trying to avoid measuring this intermediate step.

One may be picky and ask to measure the exact "curved" path travelled by each front corner. For example that changes a bit path B from 8.8 cm to 9.2 cm. I would avoid that step because:
1) it is unpractical for less straightforward paths like C
2) there is no support on the rule for measuring along curved path.

xeswop

10-29-2003, 02:38 PM

yes, (a) has a curved move to reach the flank. I meant to say that the back element uses a straight line move to clear the obstacle and then it can move freely as it no longer needs consider the front element. In the other cases the back rank is using a curved move to get around the obstacle.

I remeasured and agree and see how (a) and (c) are different.

However, I do not see how (b) is different from (c). In (b), the element moves halfway across the front element, but then must pivot on the center to end up pointed toward the front element. In (c) the element does the same.

Can you draw these two larger and show the actual line that tracks the path the left corner takes, not just "snapshots" along the way as you have. It seems to me that in (c) the corner moves both rightward and upward. Thanks.

Did you send these to Phil and ask him to say which he thinks is the appropriate one? It seems the few that commented from the HOTT group chose (a)

Andrechin

10-29-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Bob.:

Did you send these to Phil and ask him to say which he thinks is the appropriate one?
I sent once a question to Phil (was about shooting from BUA).
He answered telling that one should use common sense to solve the situation.
I replied telling that common sense was quite uncommon and that different people when posed that question gave different answers, that's why I asked him.
No reply.
No reply also to a couple of other questions I sent...
I feel on a sort of black list. :(

It seems the few that commented from the HOTT group chose (a) I got the impression that initially the reaction was: "Of course (a)!", but later posts (mainly from Bill Bennet, who seems quite competent) were more on the side that all four paths were viable. Unless we read differently the same posts, like we read differently the same rule! smile.gif

[ October 29, 2003, 14:31: Message edited by: Andrechin ]

Andrechin

10-29-2003, 05:43 PM

Bob, at the beginning I did not understand your view of path (b) and (c), but now I guess I got your point.

Here is a magnification of the movement. I have put as a continuos line the real movement of the element and as dashed line the "shortcut" I took when drawing the examples.

http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/sneakingaround2.gif

You can see by eye that (c) is shorter than (b), but on the table I'll never be able to measure exactly (c). Taking the 45 degree position as the intermediate measurement point seems to me a reasonable trade-off between accuracy and simplicity.

Unfortunately the exact length of path (c) is just around 300 paces, maybe it is slightly less, maybe it is slightly more.

xeswop

10-29-2003, 08:06 PM

Excellent diagrams. Exactly what I was looking for. What graphics tool do you use?

I cannot say, based on the rules which is more right, or if either is more right than (a).

Let's hear from the 1400-some other members of the group.

The only question is, I guess, if an element must move around something can it rotate to avoid the obstacle and then move freely or must it move in a straight line to clear the obstacle and then move freely?

Andrechin

10-30-2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Bob.:
Excellent diagrams. Exactly what I was looking for. What graphics tool do you use?
Just plain Powerpoint. But StarOffice or OpenOffice have almost the same functionalities.

I cannot say, based on the rules which is more right, or if either is more right than (a).
I do not think of them as right or wrong: to go from one place to another there are many possible paths. No one is a priori right or wrong. But length may different, nearby element or obstruction may prevent some paths, and so on.

Let's hear from the 1400-some other members of the group.

The only question is, I guess, if an element must move around something can it rotate to avoid the obstacle and then move freely or must it move in a straight line to clear the obstacle and then move freely? Is there something in the movement description giving this restriction? In the single element move description I have the feeling that a single element is allowed to move almost freely.

I cannot see any problem in these movements. I see only a question on how to measure them.

Zekestrom

10-31-2003, 09:36 AM

By my calculations (programatic, working on the calculus of it over the weekend hopefully), diagram (C) works out to be approx. 72.93728 mm movement total (2.8715") which would be well inside of the Auxilia's maximum movement. That's interpolated at a granularity of 1mm moving across the front of Aux2 with a constant angular shift.

I also agree that there's nothing in the rules that would prevent it. Movement of single elements, especially when all portions clear all obstacles, is pretty non-restrictive. It seems if the move can successfully be measured in any legitimate way, it should be legitimate.

Drat :( .

[ October 31, 2003, 12:10: Message edited by: Zekestrom ]

DBAse

11-03-2003, 02:15 AM

Beware that we are making an assumption about B's base depth to calculate the length of movementin both pictures.

For example in picture (B)

The actual movement is basewidth/2 + (Pi * basewidth/2) + (40mm + (basedepth of B - 20mm)).

So assuming element B is 20mm deep the move is approx. 91.4mm in length.

DBAse

[ November 02, 2003, 23:17: Message edited by: DBAse ]

Zekestrom

11-04-2003, 08:23 AM

Just to be clear, I did factor in the base depth of Auxilia B as 20mm when I computed the distance for diagram (C). The programmatic calculation came out to 52.93728 mm, to which the final 20mm for the "slide" were added.

As a follow-up, taking the interpolation out to 1000 steps, the value doesn't shift much ... 52.94608 for a total move of 72.94608 (2.87189").

I'd do the calculus, but differentiation and integration of trigonometric functions really turns my brain to putty smile.gif .

Pthomas

11-07-2003, 12:14 PM

So after 101 messages the consensus is this is legal and we should be prepared to defend against this ooze attack by Psi and Aux.

Thanks everyone, I will begin hanging someone's butt over my flanks to try and prevent this.

Pthomas

[ November 07, 2003, 09:22: Message edited by: Pthomas ]

Hannibal Ad Portas

11-08-2003, 03:03 AM

Nope....don't think that was the consensus at all....and I believe that Bob Beattie ruled against it....

xeswop

11-09-2003, 07:03 PM

There is but one who Rules and his name is Phil. All praise be to Phil. He rules and we are all but appliers of the Rules.

However, until he makes known to us his Rules, we sometime must make interim "rules" (notice the small letter "r').

The NASAMW Prophet of Phil, All praise to Phil, is but a Bob.

Bob says that when individual elements move in one direction, one corner may pass through another element -friendly or enemy. Thus a second rank spear can move to be next to the front rank spear. Measure the diagonal line from the back row to the front row.
see here, item B
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/dbapics/move1.jpeg

Also, if in a line of friends, an element with an element width hole in the enemy line in front can pivot on one corner to enter that space; to end up on the flank of the enemy it was overlapping. This can occur if one corner of the flanking element passes through an adjacent friend or an enemy on the other side of the space. The pivot is a move in one direction.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/dbapics/mvthru.gif

If an element is making a move in more than one direction then it cannot pass through any part of an enemy or friend and you must measure the full distance it moves. You can slide and twist and roll and turn to get from where you are to where you want to be but you cannot have any part of the element cross a friend, and enemy or the base width distance in front of an enemy,

So if an element is behind a friend who is facing an enemy, the back element can slide, say, for example, right, and tilt over the back corner of the front friend, and twist, and turn so that it ends up perpendicular to the front element and it can then slide down the side of the front element into the flank of the enemy in front. All of the distance the front corner moves must be measured. An element need not slide all the way clear of the front friend and then move to contact the enemy flank. See examples
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/sneakingaround2.gif

Maybe someone with goof math can post the actual distance all types of base depths move to accomplish this.

Do note that as is the case in all interim rules and clarifications by Bob, these are used when players cannot agree on what to do. If both players agree to do something else, then they are certainly free to do so. Apply the clarifications only when there is dispute or lack of knowledge of what to do.

[ November 09, 2003, 16:09: Message edited by: Bob. ]

Zekestrom

11-10-2003, 06:29 AM

I hate to say it, Hannibal, but there is no ruling required here. A clear case has been found, mathematically, where Auxilia A can completely clear Auxilia B and slide into the flank without any portion of its surface area ever having to cross/interpenetrate/defile Auxilia B's surface, thus negating the whole "amoeba movement" and "corner slide through" arguments completely.

In Bob's final link below, diagram (b) (assuming 20mm base depths for all elements) comes out to a total of 91.4159mm (approx. 2.8"). (Slide 20mm right, quarter-circle 31.459mm, Slide north 40mm to final destination). Base depth of the moving element is irrelevent, because back corners are not measured. If the base depth of the front element B is only 15mm, then the total becomes 86.4159mm (approx. 3.4"). In neither of these cases will an Auxilia have enough movement (though another troop type might), so Diagram (b) does not allow for the move.

Diagram (c) requires a more indepth analysis that I'm too tired to diagram here, but if we assume that as element A "crawls across" the right-rear corner of element B at an even rate, the corner "cuts its frontage" from 40mm to 0mm over the course of the move. Simultaneously, element A is rotating around the right-rear corner from 0 degrees to 90 degrees. Therefore, with each step a right-triangle is formed which can be used to generate the x and y coordinates of either of element A's front corners.

This can be represented by an integral equation to determine the length of the curve (which is a somewhat complex derivation/integration), OR it can be computed programmatically by simulation through a spreadsheet or other software. I have done the latter, because I am just not that good at the former. Performing the latter provides a total movement distance for (c) of 52.94608mm (rotation and move) + 20mm (slide to final destination) for a total move of 72.94608mm (2.87189"). This coincides with Attilio's approximated measurements of the path of (c) below. If anyone has conflicting data, please post it as soon as you can.

Like it or not, an Auxilia in this position has enough movement to contact the flank without ever having to interpenetrate any portion through any other element, and does not rely on even the most liberal interpretations of the "amoeba movement" rule.

The only way this can be prevented is by a.) adopting the HOTT rule that prohibits flank contact when not already left/right of the side edges, or b.) measuring rear-corner movement. The former is a HOTT-only context that I doubt will ever end up in DBA in any form (even an official ruling). The latter is old DBA 1.x measurement which I also do not expect to reappear. So add this to the "Martian flip" as oddities that we'll just have to put up with as long as we ignore rear corners when measuring movement.

-Zekestrom

Hannibal Ad Portas

11-11-2003, 03:10 AM

Zekestrom wrote:
I hate to say it, Hannibal, but there is no ruling required here. A clear case has been found, mathematically, where Auxilia A can completely clear Auxilia B and slide into the flank without any portion of its surface area ever having to cross/interpenetrate/defile Auxilia B's surface, thus negating the whole "amoeba movement" and "corner slide through" arguments completely.

Ah....play it as you will. I will specifically outlaw this move and the "flip" in tournaments that I run. I am sure we can even find more crazy legal (but unanticipated by the designer, I would wager) moves if we try hard enough (maybe we can turn the elements on their sides prior to movement and thus change the depth for a potential recoil?)!! I think that most folks will probably shy away from the crazy moves like the "flip." In our local tourneys, moves like this and the "flip" aren't even an issue. I can't say that I care for having to use advanced mathematics to figure out a movement problem in a fast play ancients game. Such machinations are counterproductive and suck the fun out of the game. Rules lawyering is what led to the demise of WRG 6th and 7th (yeah, some folks still play it....but is is not nearly as popular as DBA!!). It is stuff like this that will destroy DBA if we let it. I don't know why Phil Barker even keeps trying....

xeswop

11-11-2003, 01:54 PM

Hannibal,
Instead of going with your own rules, why not write a strong letter to Phil, making clear what you want the rules for these situations to be and get his imput. Maybe go back to measuring any corner for max move.

I will ask this question of you. If you have an element facing north and it wants to just turn south along the same frontage, how do you do it? See below, two elements 1 and 2, both face north, 1 wants to face south and keep its front edge in line with 2. How to do if you do not use the Flip.

north

Front Edge1Front edge2
Back EdgexBack edge 2

south

to this

north
Back Edge1
Front edge1Front edge2
xxxxxxxxxxBack edge 2

south

Hannibal Ad Portas

11-12-2003, 03:40 AM

Bob Beattie wrote:
I will ask this question of you. If you have an element facing north and it wants to just turn south along the same frontage, how do you do it? See below, two elements 1 and 2, both face north, 1 wants to face south and keep its front edge in line with 2. How to do if you do not use the Flip.

I hate to do this, but how about this question as an answer: Why have you been outmaneuvered to the point that this move is necessary?? Shouldn't you face the consequences if your unwieldy and slow units are outmaneuvered?? I don't think most ancient battlelines were quite that nimble.

I think the rule is quite clear. If you have enough movement to pivot 180 degrees, then that is how you change your frontage. You don't pivot on your front line.....This is a game and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Why are we always seeking a way to defeat/alter/manipulate the rules? I know they aren't necessarily well-written, but we often can divine the author's intent and come to a common sense conclusion. Yet even when the author has made clear that he does not approve of certain maneuvers (the Flip for one), we all just trash him and ignore his judgement.

Many elements can pivot 180 degrees. Some of them can execute that pivot and still have movement left over. Those units are highly maneuverable (e.g. light horse). Other elements are unwieldy....heavy foot, war wagons, 8 BW,
6 KN. I think their lack of maneuverability is part of the reason that they have deep bases...not just because the bases had to be big to accomodate the element. Indeed, a war wagon could be modeled on a 40mm square base if the horses are omitted. I see no reason to believe that such an element can pivot on its front centerpoint for 40mm of move cost. That is ridiculous. War wagons are certainly not easily maneuverable elements. Heck, in the flip, you allow the rear corners of the war wagon to swap and move well over 160 mm (over 6 inches!!). That is just ludicrous.

xeswop

11-12-2003, 03:10 PM

All elements can pivot 180degrees on their front edge, at the center.

Below is a 25mm element. Facing north. A is its left corner
B is its right corner.

A2345B

pivot on center to face south

B5432A

Measure from where B starts to where B ends, 60mm or 150 paces.

If this is not a pivot, what do you consider a pivot?

Hannibal Ad Portas

11-13-2003, 02:41 AM

I see you are ignoring the issue of big bases again.....I think those elements that have large depth bases (such as WWG, 8BW, 6KN...) have that base depth for a reason. It makes them somewhat unwieldy.

The argument is not whether or not an element can pivot on its front center. It certainly can do this if the movement allowance allows it. I just don't think that such a move should cost 40mm for any element when the flip is executed.....it makes each element cost the same to execute the maneuver, regardless of type...My main argument is against moves like the flip...a war wagon pivoting on its front center to face 180 degrees is ridiculous, especially if you think this should only cost 40mm of movement since the front corners swapped places. That is ignoring the massive distance the rest of the base moved through. I think pivots shoul be measured like wheels. The way we did it before was to take the diagonal of the base as the movement cost to pivot 180 degrees. I always understood that to be a pivot on the element's centrepoint though....not on the center of its front line though. I would think an element pivot on its front center should be measured in the same way as a group's wheel.....but I realize the change in 2.1 to measuring front corners has caused all this needless bickering......

I like the idea of grafting the HOTT movement system to DBA....at least it sounds like it is more straight forward and better organized!

Andrechin

11-13-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:

I like the idea of grafting the HOTT movement system to DBA....at least it sounds like it is more straight forward and better organized! A part from the fact that in HOTT the "Martian flip" is perfectly legal as in DBA... Moreover, since HOTT gives only "minimum" base depth, the situation you do not like is even more likely to happen.

Actually, the best would be the DBM 3 rule: there you use only the front corner, but for Art and WarWagon, which use all four corners.

Michael Fischer

11-17-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
I see you are ignoring the issue of big bases again.....I think those elements that have large depth bases (such as WWG, 8BW, 6KN...) have that base depth for a reason. It makes them somewhat unwieldy. Yes, it's the reason to make use of figures based for DBM in a DBA pickup.

A DBA element is "usually representing 6 to 8 ranks of close-formed foot, 4 or 5 ranks of most mounted troops or of skirmishers, or a single rank of elephants, scythed chariots, artillery or wagons." (DBA p.2)

A DBM element represents "128 to 256 riders or foot formed in a 4 man deep block, or sometimes in wedges or rhomboids, or a lesser number of more specialised troops formed in a single rank". (DBM p.3).

A double-based DBM element of non-skirmisher foot (eg. Bd (X) DB, Bw (X) DB) represents 8 ranks, as does each other DBA element of Spears, Pikes, Blades, Auxilia, Bows, or Warband.

So there is no reason whatever to penalise the movement of 6Bd or 8Bw. (BTW IMHO the most logical way to go were to use only double-depth infantry in DBA.)

I admit that WWg are a different kettle of fish. To represent 25 wagons in a single file you really need the base depth, but a minor fraction of the frontage. To have them shoot and battle to the front is a joke.