HOTT for DBA

[Andrechin]

The long discussion on movement and Bob's idea to use HOTT to "clarify" what is not defined in DBA, make me think about the many things are not strictly defined in DBA, but are on HOTT.

Do people here actually play as in HOTT or use other "definitions"?

I will skip the "oozing" rule, since it has already its own thread. :D

Roads (will become important in 2.1!!!!):
DBA
"...they can be depicted as pale brown tracks less than and element width wide, troops moving astride rather then on them."
What means moving astride?
HOTT answer:
"To count as moving entirely along a road, all elements of a column must be at least partly on road throughout the move. The front element of the column must face along the road and straddle it. (The same applies to a single element.)"

Regarding shooting, one cannot shoot
DBA:
"...or if another element is even partly between the shooting edge and the target edge."
What means to be between two edges?
HOTT answer:
"If any other troop element is even partly between (uncrossed) straight lines joining the front corners of the shooting element to the corners of the target edge, or if either of these lines passes through the target element."


Also you are restricted in movements in front of enemy if
DBA:
"...not at least partially separated from it by another element"
What means to be partially separated?
HOTT answer:
"A moving element is partly separated from an enemy element's front by another element if any part of the latter is between (uncrossed) straight lines joining the front corners of the enemy element to the corners of the nearest edge of the moving element.
A moving element is partially separated from an enemy stronghold by another element if any part of the latter is between (uncrossed) straight lines drawn perpendicularly to the stronghold from the corners of the nearest edge of the moving element."
You just need to replace stronghold with BUA or Camp.

Since in HOTT strongholds cannot shoot, there is no definition on how to decide if an element is partly between a target edge and a BUA, camp or War Wagon (please note the 2.1 amendments do not say that WarWagons shoot out of any edge, but that they shoot at 360 degrees like BUA or camp, so shooting from a war wagon must be treated as shooting from a BUA or camp). Anyhow, I think that in such a case the above definition of partly separated could be used.

Any other thing for which a definition is missing in DBA?

[xeswop]

Very useful work to show these expansions in HOTT that were not in DBA. The shooting example below is exactly what I had been trying to get at when we had the very long discussion about shooting on the rear of an element in August, '03. (more after HOTT text)

Originally posted by Andrechin:
Regarding shooting, one cannot shoot
DBA:
"...or if another element is even partly between the shooting edge and the target edge."
What means to be between two edges?
HOTT answer:
"If any other troop element is even partly between (uncrossed) straight lines joining the front corners of the shooting element to the corners of the target edge, or if either of these lines passes through the target element."
The current DBA rule is
" A recoiling element ... that recoils from shooting entirely on its rear edge unless from a BUA, ... is destroyed.

People wanted to know how you can tell if an element is shot entirely on its rear. The rules do not say how with the same clarity of HOTT. Thus first we must assume the front edge of the shooting element is the shooting edge. There is no rule about what edge is a target edge so why not allow the shooter to pick one. Elements can shoot at any one enemy edge.

So if un-crossed straight lines can be drawn from the corners of the the shooter's front edge to the corners of the shooters chosen edge of the target then a shot can be made. If the shooting player picks the target's rear edge and the procedure can be done then the shooting is entirely on the rear edge.

Shooters can hit only one edge at a time per shooter. If one or all shooters can target the rear edge then the target is destroyed if it must recoil.

Are there flaws in this arguement?

[Badger]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Shooters can hit only one edge at a time per shooter. If one or all shooters can target the rear edge then the target is destroyed if it must recoil.

Are there flaws in this arguement?Given the drastic consequences of being fired upon in the rear, I think there is a flaw. I would prefer an amendment like the following, which I think would require less 'getting out the tape measure or ruler to decide' in practice than in description.

"If a shooting element could by this description shoot at either the target's flank or rear edge, the shooting will count as being upon the target's rear edge only if the sum of the lengths of the two non-crossing, corner-to-corner lines is less when measured to the target's rear edge corners than to its flank edge corners".

Or maybe another way of putting it would be...

"If a shooting element could by this description shoot at either the target's flank or rear edge, the shooting will count as being upon the target's rear edge only if the target's rear edge is closer to being parallel with the shooter's front edge than is the target's flank edge."

My purpose here is to avoid blatant limburger/gorgonzola/your-favorite-stinky-cheese-here arising from "rear-edge" shots so extremely oblique that, in the absence of any vested interests in a rear-vs.-flank-edge shot, anyone would say, "yeah that target would probably be being hit more in the flank than the rear".

Neither of these definitions is perfect; consider the following situation, where "BBBB" is a blade unit facing upwards, and "AAA" is a archer unit facing right (periods are merely spacers).

.BBBB
A
A
A

The shooting would pretty clearly be across the rear edge, but not by either ruling suggested above.

Do people see the point I'm trying to make, though, and how would you reword these to solve the problem illustrated below?

A
A....BBBB
A

This could technically by Bob's wording be a rear edge shot, but it seems pretty clearly a flank shot to me.

[ October 24, 2003, 18:20: Message edited by: Badger ]

[Asterix]

For my games I take it as a rear shot only if the target element recoils towards or closer to the firing element.

So...

.BBBB
A
A
A

would clearly be a rear shot, and

A
A....BBBB
A

would not.

Just my two cents worth.

Asterix.

[Andrechin]

Actually I did not start the topic thinking to discuss shooting on the rear: that has already been discussed quite a while and I think Bob and Phil Barker have cleared that issue (whether people like that or not).

I am mainly interested in the moving along the road and shooting from/to a BUA/Camp/WarWagon issue, since road and BUA will become more frequent.

If the HOTT rules are satisfactory for everybody, maybe Bob can insert then in his precious commentaries.