meeting and break-off

[Andrechin]

In the past we discussed a lot about the meaning of "meeting" enemy and friends during a recoil.

Here is a situation it happened yesterday during a tournement:
http://www.mi.infn.it/~andreazz/DBA/meet4.png

The green player wanted to break off element B by moving it backward 200p, so that it could constitute an overlap against the 6Kn element. The red player objected against that, since he told the element was ending the move in contact with its 6Kn.

The rule says "A single element tactical move can be used by an element to break-off from enemy in contact with its front but only if ... will not ... meet either friends it cannot pass through or enemy."

Since in a recoil the movement suggested by the green player would have not be considered meeting enemy, I think the movement is legal and B will overlap the 6Kn element. Is that correct?

Just to add some heretic thought: the rule say "enemy in contact with its front". So to a strict reading this rule does not apply only to elements in front-edge to front-edge close combact, but also to elements in close combat with the flank or rear of enemy also in close combat on its front. Never seen anybody trying to do that anyhow...

[ January 31, 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: Andrechin ]

[imported_JLogan]

Andrechin;
Excellent question. My view; perfectly legal move. The break off rule specifically only prevents if enemy front edge in contact with breaking off elements flank or rear. Also, ending in contact with side edge here is not 'meeting' enemy, since the breaking off element started in side edge contact anyway.

John

[Macbeth]

Nicely put John,

that then leaves the question, what if element B and its unlabled enemy were further forward (relative to the green army) such that the rear corner of B was a fly's whatsit beyond the rear corner of the 6Kn. Would the breakoff by B and subsequent overlap of the 6Kn still be legal. In this case B is coming into contact - even if it is only side edge contact.

Cheers

[xeswop]

This situation points up an interesting difference between DBA and HOTT. The rule in HOTT reads
"BREAKING OFF FROM CLOSE COMBAT
A single element can use a tactical move to break off from enemy in contact with its front, but only if all of the following apply:
snip.
* It does not end in contact with enemy.".

DBA uses the term "will not ... meet."

Contact means any contact while meet seems to me to mean to come upon or enounter in a face to face manner. That is leading edge (rear edge in this case) to enemy edge. Not side to side contact. The authors seem to know the difference in the meaning of contact and meet. If they meant contact for DBA in the breakoff they would have said it, as they did in the Art and WWg moving into contact rule.

Is there any question that elements in overlap with enemy cannot move out of that situation?

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Bob.:
The authors seem to know the difference in the meaning of contact and meet. If they meant contact for DBA in the breakoff they would have said it, as they did in the Art and WWg moving into contact rule. Wow, that seems like a pretty large leap of faith to me given how precise :rolleyes: the authors are with all the other terms.

For me, contact and meet have always been synonomous.

[xeswop]

If you are walking down a street and meet a person, that is very different from contacting them. These two words are similar in meaning but not the same.

Consider this recoil rule:
"A recoiling element ... that meets enemy ... is destroyed."

Do you play that if a recoiling element touches an enemy in side edge to side edge contact that is a "meet" and results in a destroy?

How about
"A recoiling element moves its own base depth (width if less) to its rear without turning. If it is Elephants, friends met are destroyed. "

If an Elephant rubs past a friend, is the friend destroyed?

Notice how "meet" is used here (in the past tense)

"Recoilers can pass through friends facing in exactly the same direction to a clear space immediately behind the first element met, but only if mounted troops recoiling into any friends except Pikes or Elephants, Blades recoiling into Blades or Spears, Pikes or Bows recoiling into Blades, or Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi. "

Does meet/met mean contact/contacted here?

There is a clear consistency in the use of the word "meet" and "met" to mean something like "run into" or a special type of contact that implies contacting with the leading edge.

Contact is used to refer to elements touching on any edge or corner.

Can you really say "meet" and "contact" are synonymous in the rules? Meet is a specific type of contact.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Bob.:
If you are walking down a street and meet a person, that is very different from contacting them. These two words are similar in meaning but not the same.Hmm. OK. Though I think Mr. Barker has reversed thesse meanings in the rules then.

Thinking things through a bit more thoroughly, sliding along in edge-to-edge contact while recoiling does not cause destruction.

But I don't think "meet" is just face to face, wouldn't it be any trajectory that continued movement would carry you through some portion of the base of the enemy, regardless of the facing of either unit? Think of it as "slam into" rather than the politesse of "meet".

[xeswop]

I fully agree that "meet" is not the best word here.

Keep contact but indicate that it is a leading edge moving into contact with enemy edge that would cause the enemy to be dislodged if the movement continued. The rules need a glossery and then "Meet" could be defined as one element running into another, not side to side or corner to corner. Other DB rules use "meet" in this same way. Encountering an element that is in the way of continued movement.

[Andrechin]

After a VERY bad tournement today, I started to make my mind about rule interpretation for the next Euro-DBA tournement. And I wanted to post a question here.

Before doing that, I made a search for "breakoff" and I found I already posted it four years ago.

So, I am getting old and my memory is falling apart, :( but, at least I found the answer, without having to restart the discussion from scratch! :D

Thanks to all the community here! :up

Attilio

[Bob. (and his dog)]

attilio, are you getting to be like Phil, lose by a rule so you change it:)
do not leave us hanging, tell us what it was that made you want an interpretation. what is it/

After a VERY bad tournement today, I started to make my mind about rule interpretation for the next Euro-DBA tournement. And I wanted to post a question here.

Before doing that, I made a search for "breakoff" and I found I already posted it four years ago.

So, I am getting old and my memory is falling apart, :( but, at least I found the answer, without having to restart the discussion from scratch! :D

Thanks to all the community here! :up

Attilio