Forward movement inside zone of control

[Maerk]

After having read the official DBA 2.2 rules as well as "Bob's commentary on DBA 2.2" and "Tactical movement in DBA 2.0" from jerboa, I'm still not sure about the correct movement of an element once inside an opponents ZOC :

Upon the very moment the single element "A" enters an opponent's (element "B") ZOC,

- element A may proceed straight forward but must not leave the ZOC or contact element B

or

- element A may only proceed forward after having lined up facing element B ?

I'm not sure if this question is of very high importance for the game, but I'd like to play it correctly.

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by Maerk:
After having read the official DBA 2.2 rules as well as "Bob's commentary on DBA 2.2" and "Tactical movement in DBA 2.0" from jerboa, I'm still not sure about the correct movement of an element once inside an opponents ZOC :

Upon the very moment the single element "A" enters an opponent's (element "B") ZOC,

- element A may proceed straight forward but must not leave the ZOC or contact element B

or

- element A may only proceed forward after having lined up facing element B ?
The way I understand Bob's commentary and how it is played in Italy is that, provided you have enough movement allowance, if you enter a ZOC, you must end the move aligned or in contact.

So it is something like your second option, but it is not a 3-way process: start out of the ZOC, align, move forward into the ZOC,
but a 2-way process: start out of the ZOC, end aligned or in contact inside the ZOC.


I'm not sure if this question is of very high importance for the game, but I'd like to play it correctly. It has some relevance. Without this limitation you could enter with a single element tilted in front of a group and force your opponent to split the group to contact you or to proceed against you, resulting in a terrible pip drain.

Other DBx games have different ways to deal with this problem.

[xeswop]

I intended to be more liberal in the interpretation. I think you that once a part of an element is inside the Base Width Distance Area of an enemy, that it must move only toward aligning with the enemy or toward legal contact. Alignment comes prior to contact but you can move toward both at the same time. Thus the further you move toward the enemy, the more you align. Or you align without moving toward contact.

The rule uses the term -- line up facing. This means the front edges are parallel and the side edges are in line.

"CROSSING AN ENEMY ELEMENTS FRONT
An element directly in front of an enemy element or an enemy-controlled BUA or camp at or closer than 1 base width with no other element even partially between, can move only to contact or line up facing 1 such element or contact that BUA or camp, or directly to its own rear without changing direction, or as an outcome move."

The word "to" is used in the sense of "toward." Once line up facing, an element can move "toward" contact but it need not end the move in contact.

An element can enter the Base Width Distance Area with less than enough movement to end the move lined up facing or in contact, but it must be moving to achieve that orientation.

I think the diagram below shows the appropriate options - A or B.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/bmc/moveBWDA.gif

[Roland Fricke]

Originally posted by Bob.:
I intended to be more liberal in the interpretation. I think you that once a part of an element is inside the Base Width Distance Area of an enemy, that it must move only toward aligning with the enemy or toward legal contact. Alignment comes prior to contact but you can move toward both at the same time. Thus the further you move toward the enemy, the more you align. Or you align without moving toward contact. If you enter the base width distance with one corner and at an angle do you need to align first before moving any further forward or could you proceed a little further and stop without changing your angle - as long as you keep moving toward the element exterting the BWD (ZOC).

Example: Units A and B are moving down toward XY. A wants to contact X using B to overlap but B needs to enter Y's base width distance with its outside corner (Note Y is at an angle facing up essentially a convex line of battle)

AAAABBBB
XXXX
. . . Y
. . . . Y
. . . . . Y
. . . . . . Y


We didn't allow it this weekend figuring that B was not trying to make contact with Y even though it was moving forward toward Y. But i could be convinced otherwise.

[ December 20, 2004, 11:38: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[xeswop]

An interesting variation in the problem from Roland, below.
AAAABBBB
XXXX
. . . Y
. . . . Y
. . . . . Y
. . . . . . Y


Groups moving into contact with elements not in groups have some special considerations. I think this rule applies

"Other troops can move into contact with enemy elements only if a single element or at least one element of a group ends in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge, contact with an enemy element or overlaps enemy already in close combat. If there is a gap between enemy elements less than an element base width wide, some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound. "

This would be the case if the configuration were like this
AAAABBBB
XXXX YYYY

So A lines up facing X and into contact and B sticks with A and can ignore Y. This is one of the few cases where an element (but part of a group with one element making legal contact or alignment) can ignore an enemy Base Width Distance Area.

Maybe I got the situation wrong. Let me know, thanks

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
So A lines up facing X and into contact and B sticks with A and can ignore Y. This is one of the few cases where an element (but part of a group with one element making legal contact or alignment) can ignore an enemy Base Width Distance Area.I don't think that particular rule applies here. A and B are allowed to move forward into contact with X, but only because B is making a legal move with respect to Y's ZOC. In other words, even if A and X weren't there, B would be allowed to make that move.

But you can't ignore Y's ZOC. For example, what if you had this situation:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">AAAABBBB Y
Y
Y
Y
XXXX</pre>[/QUOTE]A and B face down, X faces up, Y faces left.

Even if A and B move as a group to contact X, they can't ignore Y's ZOC. In this situation, B cannot advance to overlap X. You have to evaluate each element's move with respect to all of the enemy ZOC's to get the right answer.

- Jack

[xeswop]

Jack, Do you say that this move is not allowed

AAAABBBB

YYYY XXXX

to

AAAABBBB
YYYY XXXX

This is the straight ahead move that lets B ignore the BWDA of X.

After we resolve this we can move to the other case of moving into an L shape situation.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Jack, Do you say that this move is not allowed

AAAABBBB

YYYY XXXX

to

AAAABBBB
YYYY XXXX

This is the straight ahead move that lets B ignore the BWDA of X.

After we resolve this we can move to the other case of moving into an L shape situation. That move is perfectly fine. B does not cross the front of X, and the contact is allowed (even though B and X are not corner-to-corner) because of the rule that you had previously quoted.

Bring on the L! smile.gif

- Jack

[Martian]

Originally posted by Bob.:
An interesting variation in the problem from Roland, below.
AAAABBBB
XXXX
. . . Y
. . . . Y
. . . . . Y
. . . . . . Y

With respect to Roland, in this case I believe Bob is correct. For the simple reason that B is in this case still moving closer to Y as part of the group.

Jack is entirely correct however regardly the situation he presents.

Marty

[ December 21, 2004, 13:01: Message edited by: Martian ]

[Roland Fricke]

I can agree with that. At the time we were unsure and so made a quick (incorrect) decision. Allowing B to continue its move seems to make sense and match some of the wording in the rules. I can also see how in the L shaped situation B would be blocked blocked since it would be crossing.

[Andrechin]

I would like to understand better the discussion here.

From Bob's commentary I get:

13. There may appear to be a conflict between the rule that allows a group to shift sideways to allow one element to align with an enemy, with the group then moving into contact with that element and some others ahead and the rule that does not allow movement within a BWD except as noted in the Crossing the Front rule. If the elements of the group are only affected by the elements ahead, then the group may shift and move to contact. If members of the group must pass through the BWD of enemy not directly ahead, then those specific elements must respond to the terms in the Crossing the Front rule.
The basis of that is that the following move, in which B crosses the front of D is definitely allowed:
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross1.gif

By direct extention, I think that also this slightly modified one should be allowed:
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross2.gif

From the discussion here and from Bob's comments, it also seems that you can ignore the enemy BWD if the enemy is directly to the front, even if it is at a certain angle like in the two following positions:
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross3.gif
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross4.gif

My problem is, how far we can go on that? For example in the current example D is still party directly in front of B, so is that movement allowed or not?
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif

[xeswop]

In all the examples below, the only one directly covered by the rules is the first. Note that the rule about a group aligning on one element ahead is

"Other troops can move into contact with enemy elements only if a single element or at least one element of a group ends in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge, contact with an enemy element or overlaps enemy already in close combat. If there is a gap between enemy elements less than an element base width wide, some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound"

The important part is "some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact." So this rule applies directly, only to cases where elements of the moving group end in contact with the split elements ahead.

Thus either Phil has not thought through the cases of groups passing through the Base Width Distance Areas of elements not contacted or he wants the Crossing the Front rules to apply.

Anyone's guess is good here. How about someone writing to Phil and asking him what he really meant.

In the meantime, in order to speed up play and give precedence to a moving group, I wrote what I did as an interpretation. I would hold to that in all cases of an element in front until that front element is 90 degrees or more to the movers and fully ahead of the element being contacted.

This is a very loose interpretation. A stricter view would impose the crossing the front rules on all cases except the first below.

This year I want to make all questionable situations lean toward an easy interpretation favoring groups moving into contact.

Unless we get a comment from Phil to the contrary.

[Roland Fricke]

In the last example at some point B's front corner crosses the line projecting from D's left edge - the side of the BWD - at that point I think B has become partially aligned with D and should not be able to continue past this point without facing D. In the other situations B's front corner never lined up during the move. Nothing in the rules or Bob's interps on this (and I don't expect to find anyhting in the text detailed enough that will define this) but its just a suggestion. And I'm sure that for every methodology there are obscure situations where it won't work . .

[ January 03, 2005, 09:44: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[El' Jocko]

Is even the first example allowed? I don't believe that it is. We have to be careful not to get the different rules mixed up here. Clearly, element B must cross the front of element D to get to its final position. And moving as a single element it would not be allowed to do so.

Does the Moving Into Contact With Enemy rule override the Crossing An Element's Front rule? I don't think that it does. All it allows is for a group of elements to make contact in an otherwise illegal position (i.e., where an element is in contact but not in corner-to-corner contact). It doesn't allow an element to cross an element's front to get to that position.

Therefore, none of the examples are allowed, and there is no paradox.

- Jack

[ January 03, 2005, 10:47: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[Roland Fricke]

Assuming that the first example is a group move,
I though that there was a section of the book that specifically allowed the first example - something about allowing a gap to exist and there would be non-combat contact.

As a single element move, I would not allow the first example to happen as it would be crossing the front.

[ January 03, 2005, 11:40: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by Bob.:

In the meantime, in order to speed up play and give precedence to a moving group, I wrote what I did as an interpretation. I would hold to that in all cases of an element in front until that front element is 90 degrees or more to the movers and fully ahead of the element being contacted.
That was exactly the point I was addressing: how far your interpretation holds. This a missing item in your comments.

I like Roland's approach, but I find difficult to write a short sentence describing it clearly.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Roland Fricke:
Assuming that the first example is a group move,
I though that there was a section of the book that specifically allowed the first example - something about allowing a gap to exist and there would be non-combat contact. There is a rule that allows the gap to exist and for there to still be contact. But the rule does not provide an exemption for crossing the front. So if elements A and B were moving directly forward into contact with C and D, that would be allowed. The rule allows element B to make contact with element D, but it doesn't allow element B to cross element D's front.

- Jack

[Roland Fricke]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
So if elements A and B were moving directly forward into contact with C and D, that would be allowed. The rule allows element B to make contact with element D, but it doesn't allow element B to cross element D's front.
How do we justify the up to half a element width group slide to align. All the elements in the group would be in violation because they are sliding away from one element to contact another.

And just to illustrate further a moving group of two elements contacts a group of 3 elements. The group of two would like to use the group slide to align but doing this they move out of frontal contact with one element of the nonmoving 3 element group (giving an overlap to the 3 eleemnt group). Would this not be allowed?
eg.

AAAABBBBDDDD
..XXXXYYYY

Can moving group XY slide across D's BWD to make legal conact with Aand B? If we allow this then I think its reasonable to allow this if theres a gap in the line.

[ January 03, 2005, 15:17: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[xeswop]

Is this a case of applying Ockham's Razon? Make a simple solution to a problem.

There is a specific rule
"MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY
Artillery or War Wagons cannot move into edge or corner contact with an enemy element or an enemy-controlled BUA or camp. Other troops can move into contact with enemy elements only if a single element or at least one element of a group ends in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge, contact with an enemy element or overlaps enemy already in close combat. If there is a gap between enemy elements less than an element base width wide, some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound."
.

The bold text must mean that if a group moves toward two or more elements that are not in side edge contact to form a group, then the moving group may slide as stated in the group move section to line up with one of the elements and ignore the other stationary elements. This was the author's intent, anyway. He did not want elements less than a base width apart to prevent groups from moving into contact.

If not this, then what does the rule mean. The specific rule for a special move by a group into contact with non-group elements overides the general crossing the front rule to achieve the goal of letting groups keep together while moving into combat.


Originally posted by El' Jocko:
Is even the first example allowed? I don't believe that it is. We have to be careful not to get the different rules mixed up here. Clearly, element B must cross the front of element D to get to its final position. And moving as a single element it would not be allowed to do so.

Does the Moving Into Contact With Enemy rule override the Crossing An Element's Front rule? I don't think that it does. All it allows is for a group of elements to make contact in an otherwise illegal position (i.e., where an element is in contact but not in corner-to-corner contact). It doesn't allow an element to cross an element's front to get to that position.

Therefore, none of the examples are allowed, and there is no paradox.

- JackIf there is a gap between enemy elements less than an element base width wide, some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound."

[xeswop]

Do note that when elements in a group move toward another group but are not aligned, then the moving elements enter the Base Width Distance Area of two elements. The moving elements in the BWDA of two enemy elements may align with either of those enemy. Thus the slide in a group-to-group situation should have no problems. The problem arises when a group moves into the BWDA of single elements that are not a group. Now read my comments below on what to do in that situation.

Originally posted by Roland Fricke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by El' Jocko:
So if elements A and B were moving directly forward into contact with C and D, that would be allowed. The rule allows element B to make contact with element D, but it doesn't allow element B to cross element D's front.
How do we justify the up to half a element width group slide to align. All the elements in the group would be in violation because they are sliding away from one element to contact another.

And just to illustrate further a moving group of two elements contacts a group of 3 elements. The group of two would like to use the group slide to align but doing this they move out of frontal contact with one element of the nonmoving 3 element group (giving an overlap to the 3 eleemnt group). Would this not be allowed?
eg.

AAAABBBBDDDD
..XXXXYYYY

Can moving group XY slide across D's BWD to make legal conact with Aand B? If we allow this then I think its reasonable to allow this if theres a gap in the line.</font>[/QUOTE]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
There is a specific rule
"MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY
Artillery or War Wagons cannot move into edge or corner contact with an enemy element or an enemy-controlled BUA or camp. Other troops can move into contact with enemy elements only if a single element or at least one element of a group ends in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge, contact with an enemy element or overlaps enemy already in close combat. If there is a gap between enemy elements less than an element base width wide, some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound."
.

The bold text must mean that if a group moves toward two or more elements that are not in side edge contact to form a group, then the moving group may slide as stated in the group move section to line up with one of the elements and ignore the other stationary elements. This was the author's intent, anyway. He did not want elements less than a base width apart to prevent groups from moving into contact.

If not this, then what does the rule mean. The specific rule for a special move by a group into contact with non-group elements overides the general crossing the front rule to achieve the goal of letting groups keep together while moving into combat.What the rule means is that the contact in the final position is legal. Normally, a player may not move an element into contact with an enemy element, unless it is in one of the legal corner-to-corner positions. This rule allows a non-corner-to-corner contact under very specific conditions.

The rule doesn't say that you can violate other rules to reach that position. No one would suggest that the contact rule would allow an element of a group to move through bad going. So why should it allow an element of a group to make an otherwise illegal move across the front of an enemy element?

And just to be clear, there are situations where this rule comes into play and the move is legal. Illustrated below, situations 1 and 2 involve non-corner-to-corner contact without violating the BWD rules. Situation 3 would require a violation of the BWD rules.

https://home.comcast.net/~jsheriff/DBA22a.gif


- Jack

[ January 03, 2005, 18:01: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[Dave Crowell]

So is Situation 3 a legal or illegal move into contact?

I'm feeling a bit dazed and confused.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Dave Crowell:
So is Situation 3 a legal or illegal move into contact?

I'm feeling a bit dazed and confused. Sorry to sow confusion. :(

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

</font> I contend that Situation 3 is an illegal move.</font> Bob has been contending that Situation 3 is a legal move.</font> I hope to change his mind through deft rhetorical flourishes, nifty coloured diagrams, and precise Platonic logic.</font>
- Jack

[Dave Crowell]

Ah, so the question is still an open one. I understand. :cool:

[xeswop]

Taking a strict interpretation of the Crossing the Front rule, and assuming it is paramount among rules where there is a conflict among rules, then all of Jack's examples are not valid moves for a group. The Crossing the Front rule says

"CROSSING AN ENEMY ELEMENTS FRONT
An element directly in front of an enemy element or an enemy-controlled BUA or camp at or closer than 1 base width with no other element even partially between, can move only to contact or line up facing 1 such element or contact that BUA or camp, or directly to its own rear without changing direction, or as an outcome move."

Thus in all three cases below, element B is directly in front of D so it must either end lined up facing or it must end in contact - a legal contact for an element. If it moved as a single element this would apply.

Groups in DBA get some special allowances. They can slide up to half a base width so one of their members can line up with an enemy. Also a member of a group can end in contact that is not legal for a single element. The purpose of that special contact rule is to prevent a player from breaking up enemy groups by placing his elements slightly apart. Single elements follow rules for single elements, group get exceptions.

Jack mentions a case of a group moving in bad going being able to make a slide and special contact. This is spurious to the discussion because there is a further special rule for group moves in bad going. Group lines do not move for a PIP, their elements move as single elements and thus single element move rules apply.

Thus I stand by my interpretation, until we have a ruling from Phil to clarify the rules.

In the meantime, in order to speed up play and give precedence to a moving group, I would hold that

A group can move into contact with an enemy to its front and ignore gaps less than a base width between elements ahead as long as the one member of the moving group can contact or line up facing an enemy element whose Base Width Distance Area is breached before the BWDA of an enemy element that is itself less than a base width from the targeted enemy element.

The group shifts when the contacting element first enters the BWDA of the element it plans to contact, before the other elements in the group are in the BWDA of another enemy element.

So in Attilio's examples below, and in all of Jacks, the group move takes precedence except in this situation.
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif

In this case, D is more than a base width from C where B would contact C. Thus B cannot ignore D

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by Bob.:
So in Attilio's examples below, and in all of Jacks, the group move takes precedence except in this situation.
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif

In this case, D is more than a base width from C where B would contact C. Thus B cannot ignore D I am not sure I understand how you are measuring distances in this situation. To me the distance between (left front corner of) C and (right fron corner of) D is less than a BWD. I think this is the way you use to measure the gap between elements in all the other examples.

I agree that this move looks very very very illegal, but I would like to get a proper wording to clarify when you pass from an acceptable to a not acceptable move.

The "direct ahead" in the current commentary does not work. "Distance" in the usual meaning does not work either.

[<jldiii>]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif

In this case, D is more than a base width from C where B would contact C. Thus B cannot ignore D I agree that this move looks very very very illegal, but I would like to get a proper wording to clarify when you pass from an acceptable to a not acceptable move.

The "direct ahead" in the current commentary does not work. "Distance" in the usual meaning does not work either. </font>[/QUOTE]There are problably some instances where this wouldn't work, but when I try to conceptualize what Bob is describing, I actually think of the template used to determine whether a target is in bowfire range or not. The template looks like half a football stadium--the width on each side of the bow unit extends out one BWD, and the half oval marks the edge of the 200p range. Now, invert the bow template so that instead of resting on the element's front edge facing forward, it rests on the front edge facing backward. If a second friendly element (D) is within this area and its BWD extends so that element (B) will enter it while moving as a group with element (A) into contact with element (C), then the group move rule applies and the BWD of (D) can essentially be ignored. If, however, element (D) is outside this area, then the BWD cannot be ignored.

Now the Bowfire area with a 200 pace distance is probably too big to use--perhaps assuming a range of 40/60mm (depending on whether one is using 15 or 25mm scale bases) would provide a smaller half oval area that coveres the situation appropriately.

Having thrown this idea out, I of course think of a related but not exactly similar situation in which (A) and (B) are already in contact with (C). If (B) is within the BWD of (D), can it turn from an overlap to a flank on (C)? In my games neither I nor my opponent have allowed (B) to move to a flank position against (C).

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by &lt;jldiii&gt;:
There are problably some instances where this wouldn't work, but when I try to conceptualize what Bob is describing, I actually think of the template used to determine whether a target is in bowfire range or not. The template looks like half a football stadium--the width on each side of the bow unit extends out one BWD, and the half oval marks the edge of the 200p range. Now, invert the bow template so that instead of resting on the element's front edge facing forward, it rests on the front edge facing backward. If a second friendly element (D) is within this area and its BWD extends so that element (B) will enter it while moving as a group with element (A) into contact with element (C), then the group move rule applies and the BWD of (D) can essentially be ignored. If, however, element (D) is outside this area, then the BWD cannot be ignored.

Now the Bowfire area with a 200 pace distance is probably too big to use--perhaps assuming a range of 40/60mm (depending on whether one is using 15 or 25mm scale bases) would provide a smaller half oval area that coveres the situation appropriately.
Let me also try a possible description.
D restriction do not apply to a group move if:
at the end of the move D is at least partly directly in front of B
AND
D is entirely behind a line extending C front.


Having thrown this idea out, I of course think of a related but not exactly similar situation in which (A) and (B) are already in contact with (C). If (B) is within the BWD of (D), can it turn from an overlap to a flank on (C)? In my games neither I nor my opponent have allowed (B) to move to a flank position against (C). I understand this discussion is focused providing more allowance for group moves. Pivoting from overlap to flank is a single element move. Don't expect any exception for single element moves.

[konstantinius]

I will accept #3 as being legal. I'm not sure about the technicalities of the "crossing the front" rule. Technically #3 seems to be a violation; but so does #2. In #2 B is crossing the front (or entering ZOC) with intention to provide overlap, not to line up, meet, or back up from the enemy element. According to a strict interpretation of the rule, it is illegal. As a matter of fact, they all seem to be illegal. So, a LARGE and very important question arises: can groups move at all in this fashion or not? The danger here is that by detaching one or more elements (and a smart player would choose one other than Ps or LH) and placing them off to the right or left, a player could stall his opponent's advance of the entire group with elements in the group braking up in order to conform to indivindual enemy ZOC's. Personally I wouldn't like that.
Perhaps ALL indivinduals elements should have to conform to a larger group when contacted, not just Ps or LH. Of course this doesn't solve the ZOC question prior to contact. Whatever the wording might be, the ability of groups to advance and contact in line has to be preserved.

[imported_JLogan]

Topic:Groups moving within a base width of enemy (http://www.fanaticus.org/boards/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000529)

Seems like we had this same discussion just under a year ago. Back then Bob, I think you felt that more than a base width gap was irrelevant; groups could still ignore...... A definite topic for 2.3 to address/clear up?

John

[xeswop]

In the diagram below, it seems to my eye that D is more than a base width from C where B contacts C. Am I wrong? B is a base width wide, right. D is beyond B so it must be a base width away.

The rule for group contact is
"If there is a gap between enemy elements less than an element base width wide, some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound."

This is written in Phil's backward style. Clearer might be
"A group can move into contact with elements that are in line but less than a base width apart as long as one element in the group is in legal contact with one of the enemy elements. Other members of the moving group may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound."

Do we agree this what Phil's sentence means? Next we must assume that if enemy elements are more than a base width apart at the point of contact, then the moving group members must conform to the BWDA or the actual edge of the enemy elements. Thus B cannot cross the front of D in the diagram because there is not a gap less than a base width between C and D where the group makes contact.

The intent of Phil's sentence is to prevent a player from benefitting from placing a line of single elements that are not touching (but aligned along the front).

A GROUP TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER SINGLE ELEMENTS.

The moving group can align one element with one of the enemy elements (using the group slide rule) and the other members of the group just stay with that element and are not pulled away by other single enemy elements.

This idea can be expanded to cover single enemy elements that are NOT aligned along the front. This is not addressed by Phil so we must infer, starting from the idea that the group takes precedence over the single element. We can apply the interpretation to all cases when the enemy elements are less than a base width apart. When the enemy elements are more than a base width apart, this group move interpretation does not hold. A strict interpretation might be: If enemy elements in the path of a moving group are less than a base width apart but not aligned, the moving group can align one of its elements on the enemy whose Base Width Distance Area is encountered first.

Less strict would be to allow the group to align with any of the enemy elements, but this leads to some conformation problems.

Now we can divide the world into those who believe the group takes precedence over the single element and those who believe the opposite. Groupists and elementists. The Groupists think the game plays better according to their belief.

Originally posted by Andrechin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob.:
So in Attilio's examples below, and in all of Jacks, the group move takes precedence except in this situation.
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif

In this case, D is more than a base width from C where B would contact C. Thus B cannot ignore D
I am not sure I understand how you are measuring distances in this situation. To me the distance between (left front corner of) C and (right front corner of) D is less than a BWD. I think this is the way you use to measure the gap between elements in all the other examples.

I agree that this move looks very very very illegal, but I would like to get a proper wording to clarify when you pass from an acceptable to a not acceptable move.

The "direct ahead" in the current commentary does not work. "Distance" in the usual meaning does not work either. </font>[/QUOTE]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by JLogan:
Topic:Groups moving within a base width of enemy (http://www.fanaticus.org/boards/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000529)

Seems like we had this same discussion just under a year ago. Back then Bob, I think you felt that more than a base width gap was irrelevant; groups could still ignore...... A definite topic for 2.3 to address/clear up?

John Hmm. I seem to have been arguing the opposite point of view last time. I hate it when I do that. smile.gif

- Jack

[xeswop]

Jack, you are always good on either side of a debate! Now convert to Groupism

[konstantinius]

I'm a "Groupist", I guess. Now, what happens if the detached element is more than a BWD away? Can the group still move to contact?

[imported_JLogan]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JLogan:
Topic:Groups moving within a base width of enemy (http://www.fanaticus.org/boards/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000529)

Hmm. I seem to have been arguing the opposite point of view last time. I hate it when I do that. smile.gif

- Jack </font>[/QUOTE]Jack;
Don't feel bad, you were not the only one; seems to me Bob was too when it came to groups meeting enemy elements seperated by MORE than a base width. smile.gif He felt then groups could still ignore one or the other, I believe.

John

[xeswop]

Originally posted by konstantinius:
I'm a "Groupist", I guess. Now, what happens if the detached element is more than a BWD away? Can the group still move to contact? Thanks for raising this. This year I now think that the group takes precedence only as long as detached elements are less than a base width away. There is one very big exception that I have considered.

Phil's rule is:
"If there is a gap between enemy elements less than an element base width wide, some may be in edge but not corner-to-corner contact, so will not take part in combat this bound."

His intent was to prevent players from putting out single elements that would break up a group and prevent overlaps. It is this preventing overlaps part that we have not yet discussed. If two enemy elements are a base width or more apart, then two elements can contact one of the enemy elements and have an overlap. This is what the rule is to provide for.

Consider that the main principle of the Groupist belief is that the top priority of the rules is to allow a group to get into combat with a single enemy. A group of at least two can then attack an enemy with one overlap.

Any placement of single elements by the enemy should, in geneeral, not prevent a group from making an attack on an enemy. In this new DBMM rules, Phil has a comment very appropriate here about group moves.
"Silly geometric ploys must not be used to prevent an opponent making contact. "

If were were to ask if this were true for DBA I am sure he would agree. In DBMM he goes to great lengths to allow a group to get into contact.

Thus I now think that a group with one element in frontal contact and with one or two overlaps takes precedence. Thus Attilo's fourth situation is now allowed because D should not stop B as an overlap for A.

http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif

So how to formulate this into an operational phrase for tournament play. Note that I am only interested in getting these situations resolved for tournaments. Other play can be governed by however players want to do things.

1. If a player is moving a group forward to attack elements that are ahead; not in side edge contact, but front edges in line, then the group can shift up to half an element base width sideways to line up with 1 enemy element if within 1 element base width ahead.
2. If a group has one element that is within 1 element base width of an enemy element ahead, a player may shift up to half an element base width sideways a group consisting of one element with one or 2 elements to its side who will be overlapers to line up with the enemy element. The overlappers may continue to move with the group and pass through the Base Width Distance Area of other enemy elements This special group move can only occur if one member of the group is already within 1 element base width of the enemy element ahead. If not, then elements in the group cannot freely pass through the BWDA of other enemy elements.

I think 2 covers Attilio's diagram above. How does this interpretation handle last year's diagrams?

[xeswop]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/dbapics/DBAjlogGroup.GIF

I will answer my own question below with my interpretation below. In both cases A and B move to attack Enemy 1. In 1 Enemy 2 is over a base width from Enemy 1 so C must contact it or at least C is restricted by E2. In 2, C is restricted by E2 because C cannot not get into combat as frontal or overlap against E1.

[Gary Pomeroyq]

Originally posted by Bob.:

In 1 Enemy 2 is over a base width from Enemy 1 so C must contact it or at least C is restricted by E2. In 2, C is restricted by E2 because C cannot not get into combat as frontal or overlap against E1. Sorry if I'm being dense here, but are you saying that example 1 is a legal move by ABC and that C may move straight ahead without needing to "line up" with E2 while in example 2 only AB may move straight and C must obey the Crossing an Element's Front restrictions?

Gary
(aka He who should not read this stuff before his 2nd cup of coffee)

[xeswop]

It's the text that's dense, not the readers ;)

In both cases A and B move to attack Enemy 1. C does not.

In 1, Enemy 2 is over a base width from Enemy 1
so C must contact it or at least C is restricted by E2.
Thus ABC cannot all shift to line up with E1. C is restricted becasue E2 is MORE than a base width from E1. This is not a "Philsillygeoploy"

In 2, C is restricted by E2 because C cannot not get into combat as frontal or overlap against E1. If C does not add to the combat of the AB group then no reason it cannot be restricted. The group precendence applies only to the elements that actually will get into combat.

So to make a short reply to Gary
"Sorry if I'm being dense here, but are you saying that example 1 is a legal move by ABC and that C may move straight ahead without needing to "line up" with E2 while in example 2 only AB may move straight and C must obey the Crossing an Element's Front restrictions?"

Example 1 is NOT a legal move for ABC, C must respond to E2.

[Jeff Caruso]

In 1b, why doesn't C have to line up with Enemy 2?

Jeff

[imported_JLogan]

Originally posted by Bob.:


So to make a short reply to Gary

Example 1 is NOT a legal move for ABC, C must respond to E2. Bob; I'm smiling of course smile.gif because this is a change from your view a year ago when we first discussed this, which is why I had created this diagram back then (that you've very kindly re-surfaced below). So my hats off to you for being willing to reconsider!

However, I still don't think your interp above on Situation 1 is yet quite right; my contention still is (because the gap is more than a base width) that B can only elect to stay with C and be an overlap with C against Enemy 2. NOT stay with A as an overlap against Enemy 1. Reason being that otherwise B completely contravenes the BWD crossing the front rule, by starting IN Enemy 2's BWD and then ending it's move completely OUT of it. I don't believe Phil's half move sideways exception was intended to allow that kind of exception?

In a LESS than Base width situation, I would agree B could chose to stay with A, since geometrically, in such a case, it would not move completely out of Enemy 2's BWD. But in the specific case here, where the gap is MORE than a base width, I believe B's only option is to stay with C; or move to contact Enemy 2 directly itself. Your thoughts?

John

[ January 06, 2005, 18:53: Message edited by: JLogan ]

[konstantinius]

Yes, in 1.b C should brake from the group and contact E2. Faulty graphics perhaps?
I think that we're nearing (and I am in total agreement) a solution: elements in a group should be allowed to disregard an enemy element's ZOC IF they're going to provide overlaps to the contacting element of their group.
I think this is becoming clear from Bob's schematics below in which only C is restricted because C does not provide an overlap.

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by Bob.:
In the diagram below, it seems to my eye that D is more than a base width from C where B contacts C. Am I wrong? B is a base width wide, right. D is beyond B so it must be a base width away.Bob, I have added to the picture the indication of which is the "gap" between the elements, in both cases it is less than a BWD.

http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross4.gif
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by Bob.:

Any placement of single elements by the enemy should, in geneeral, not prevent a group from making an attack on an enemy. In this new DBMM rules, Phil has a comment very appropriate here about group moves.
"Silly geometric ploys must not be used to prevent an opponent making contact. "
I agree with the principle, but, what is the difference between a silly geometric ploy and an acceptable tactic?

In this example, I am not sure if you can say the red player put D in this position to speculate on geometry or because he thought that in such a way D will guard the flank of its line and the blue player will have to dismiss D in some way before rolling over C.
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif


So how to formulate this into an operational phrase for tournament play. Note that I am only interested in getting these situations resolved for tournaments. Other play can be governed by however players want to do things.

1. If a player is moving a group forward to attack elements that are ahead; not in side edge contact, but front edges in line, then the group can shift up to half an element base width sideways to line up with 1 enemy element if within 1 element base width ahead.
That is how always interpreted the rule in the book.


2. If a group has one element that is within 1 element base width of an enemy element ahead, a player may shift up to half an element base width sideways a group consisting of one element with one or 2 elements to its side who will be overlapers to line up with the enemy element. The overlappers may continue to move with the group and pass through the Base Width Distance Area of other enemy elements (omissis)
I think you are going to be a bit too radical here.

It is already difficult to find in the text of the rules a support for reduction of the BWDA restriction in some cases, but to allow to ignore the BWDA of all enemy elements, even if they are fully on the rear or on the side of the group seems really like writing new rules.

Just for increase playability in tournements, I would propose:
The overlappers may continue to move with the group and pass through the Base Width Distance Area of other enemy elements separated from the contacted one by a gap of less than one BWD.

Now, if you think that in the above diagram B should be able to move to an overlap position, this situation will be covered by such a interpretation.

[xeswop]

***I wrote a long note last Friday but then when I was looking at the preview, I accidently closed the text screen. Chris B, can we get a warning message, do you really want to close you reply screen***

I could not bring myself to re-do my note but I will give a short reply based on info up to Attilio's notes.

I agree with John L below because the gap between the two enemy is greater than a base width. I was thinking it was less. The special group move to contact ingnoring gaps applies only if the gap is less than a base width. Thus, B must move with C to align with Enemy 2.

C could move first to be in front of E2 and allow B to pass behind it. But unless that is done, then B cannot ignore E2.

I have been thinking of the case where the enemy elements are less than a base width apart. See here

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/bmc/image001.gif

In this case B can move with A and C can come along so A can line up with E1 Also, B could move to line up with E2 and get two overlappers.

I will study Attilio's diagrams and respond to those later.

[xeswop]

For the first Diagram, I am saying that D cannot stop B from being an OVERLAP as B is moving with A but certainly D can stop B from FLANKING the enemy.

Regarading (2) in the second point. Attilio's suggestion is very close to what I am trying to get to. The condiditions to allow an element in a group to ignore the BWDA of an enemy element are
1. The element will provide overlap support for the one moving into combat contact with an enemy element.
2. The element moving to frontal contact is already within the BWDA of the enemy it will contact.

Attilio wants to add
enemy elements being passed through are separated from the combat contacted one by a gap of less than one BWD.

Do we need to add: somewhere ahead of the moving group. ?


Originally posted by Andrechin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob.:

Any placement of single elements by the enemy should, in geneeral, not prevent a group from making an attack on an enemy. In this new DBMM rules, Phil has a comment very appropriate here about group moves.
"Silly geometric ploys must not be used to prevent an opponent making contact. "
I agree with the principle, but, what is the difference between a silly geometric ploy and an acceptable tactic?

In this example, I am not sure if you can say the red player put D in this position to speculate on geometry or because he thought that in such a way D will guard the flank of its line and the blue player will have to dismiss D in some way before rolling over C.
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/groupcross5.gif


So how to formulate this into an operational phrase for tournament play. Note that I am only interested in getting these situations resolved for tournaments. Other play can be governed by however players want to do things.

1. If a player is moving a group forward to attack elements that are ahead; not in side edge contact, but front edges in line, then the group can shift up to half an element base width sideways to line up with 1 enemy element if within 1 element base width ahead.
That is how always interpreted the rule in the book.

2. If a group has one element that is within 1 element base width of an enemy element ahead, a player may shift up to half an element base width sideways a group consisting of one element with one or 2 elements to its side who will be overlapers to line up with the enemy element. The overlappers may continue to move with the group and pass through the Base Width Distance Area of other enemy elements (omissis)
I think you are going to be a bit too radical here.

It is already difficult to find in the text of the rules a support for reduction of the BWDA restriction in some cases, but to allow to ignore the BWDA of all enemy elements, even if they are fully on the rear or on the side of the group seems really like writing new rules.

Just for increase playability in tournements, I would propose:
The overlappers may continue to move with the group and pass through the Base Width Distance Area of other enemy elements separated from the contacted one by a gap of less than one BWD.

Now, if you think that in the above diagram B should be able to move to an overlap position, this situation will be covered by such a interpretation. </font>[/QUOTE]

[ January 10, 2005, 12:59: Message edited by: Bob. ]

[imported_JLogan]

Originally posted by Bob.:
***I wrote a long note last Friday but then when I was looking at the preview, I accidently closed the text screen. Chris B, can we get a warning message, do you really want to close you reply screen***

I could not bring myself to re-do my note but I will give a short reply based on info up to Attilio's notes.

I agree with John L below because the gap between the two enemy is greater than a base width. I was thinking it was less. The special group move to contact ingnoring gaps applies only if the gap is less than a base width. Thus, B must move with C to align with Enemy 2.

C could move first to be in front of E2 and allow B to pass behind it. But unless that is done, then B cannot ignore E2.

Bob;
Many thanks. I agree with what you now say on these; both on where the gap is a BWD or more, and where it is less.

BTW, I sympathize with you losing your post; that has happened several times to me also. A warning such as you suggest would indeed be very helpful.

John