measured based on all 4 corners?

[yettie]

I saw this in another thread

Originally posted by JLogan:

So for example, I know that since 2.2, the rules now (unfortunately) make clear movement should be measured based on all 4 corners. I think this is a bad rule. If I were to become aware that a new DBA update was being prepared by PB, I would lobby him to change it. Meanwhile, I ignore the rule in play, and no one , including in tourney’s, has ever yet challenged me on it; mainly I believe because most active DBA players share my dislike of the new rule. However, if they ever did and requested I apply the 4 corner rule, I would comply without question, since I acknowledge it is now the rule.Now I have seen references to this on other occasions, and coming right to the point I don't get it.

Could you guys explain to me the significance of "measured based on all 4 corners" as opposed to what?, Oh and feel free to talk slow, maybe even draw me a few pictures

[imported_adsarf]

No good at pictures, I'm afraid.

In previous versions of the rules, movement was measured based on the front two corners only. This meant that when deep-based elements (WWg, 6Cv and the like) turned 90 degrees or more, the rear end of the base often grossly violated the element's movement allowance. The most extreme case is clled the 'Martian Flip' where a WWG turns to face in the opposite direction at small cost in movement - because the huge movement of the rear corners was not measured.

Now that we measure all 4 corners, deep-based elements cannot turn easily to a flank and are much less agile in all kinds of ways. For WWg this may be appropriate but for most other element types, the base depth is over-scale and the effect seems too great to most people. In other words, the cure was worse than the disease.

Does that help?

Andrew

[xeswop]

It is not correct that "In previous versions of the rules, movement was measured based on the front two corners only. " This first came in Version 2.0. So for 10 years people played the game measuring from the corner that moved the furthest. People had no trouble playing the game as it was written. Phil decided to return to that previous method in version 2.2.

As I have often said, play the game as written or lobby for a change but do not subvert the rules.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by adsarf:
Now that we measure all 4 corners, deep-based elements cannot turn easily to a flank and are much less agile in all kinds of ways. For WWg this may be appropriate but for most other element types, the base depth is over-scale and the effect seems too great to most people. In other words, the cure was worse than the disease.While measuring all 4 corners does have a large affect on deep elements, that isn't why I dislike the 4 corner rule. I dislike it because it makes the game much harder to play. Most of the time, it's obvious which of the front corners has to move farther, and it's easy to measure. When you throw in the rear corners also, everything gets more complicated. It slows the game down considerably. This is true for all elements, not just the deep ones.

- Jack

[Roland Fricke]

Measuring only the front corners makes it easy to see if you're in range. By including the back corner you need to now measure over or through the figure base (or replace it with a flat base) to get a close measurement. The nice wheeling templates now become difficult to use since you now measure to a point thats some where in space or over the figures. Measure from my front corner to the enemy eleemnt front corner is easier.

I think Phil might have made it front corners only in 2.0, because of the deeper elements also being introduced in that version - or maybe Phil always measured front corners? I don't have 1.1 but 1.0 did not define how you measured movement - it just said the maximum an element could move. The whole flap over the flip I guessed caused him to define it as all four corners so he wouldn't be pestered any more.

And its not just the WWg or 6KN/Cv, even HCh and Elephants cannot simply wheel 90 degrees on a front corner - that takes 80mm - 4mm over their allowance.

[ May 24, 2005, 17:13: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[konstantinius]

I've always-and still do-measured from the corner that moves the furthest. Why this rule needed to be changed, I don't understand.

[xeswop]

1.0 " The maximum distance any single element or element of a group can move unless added to by unused movement die points is:"

1.1 "The maximum distance any base corner of a single element or element of a group can move unless added to by unused movemen die points is:"

2.0 "The maximum distance between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element or any element of a group and that corner's final position is "

2.2 "The maximum distance between the starting point of any base corner of a single element or any element of a group and that corner's final position is "

[Martian]

Judge: The witness will compose himself!

Martian: I'm sorry, your honor. I'm so, so, so, very sorry.

All I did was point out something in the rules and post it on Fanaticus (http://www.fanaticus.org/boards/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000469#000014).

I didn't send it to Phil!

It was...It was someone else.

Bob knows! I don't...I really don't! (http://www.fanaticus.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000580)

Judge: Bailiff, to the dungeon with him!

[Macbeth]

Maybe I've missed something.

If we assume that an element represents a block of troops x ranks deep.

When they turn 180 degrees doesn't the first rank become rank x and rank x become rank 1 rather than rank 1 turning and then moving back into front position.

If this is the case then a turn (as opposed to a wheel) does not represent the corners moving, but a repositioning of the troops within an element. After all if you have two elements (E1 and E2 facing North) in column and they both turn 180 degrees, you don't reposition them such that E1 is in front facing south.

I admit that this theory doesn't work for 8Bw elements.

For the time being I will be playing the rules as written, but did this point come up in the discussions? or were we all too busy forming a lynch mob for Martian.
;) :D
Cheers

[ May 24, 2005, 18:32: Message edited by: Macbeth ]

[Timurilank]

Macbeth wrote:
If this is the case then a turn (as opposed to a wheel) does not represent the corners moving, but a repositioning of the troops within an element. After all if you have two elements (E1 and E2 facing North) in column and they both turn 180 degrees, you don't reposition them such that E1 is in front facing south. I agree here, and in addition this should not be as frequent a situation that should necessarily slow the game down. I do, however, have the impression that some gamers are moving too many individual elements as an over reaction to threats by the enemy player. If this be the case then efforts should be directed toward sound tactics.

cheers,

[xeswop]

Martian discovered the anomoly and published it here, but he did not tell Phil about it.

[yettie]

Originally posted by adsarf:
No good at pictures, I'm afraid.

In previous versions of the rules, movement was measured based on the front two corners only. This meant that when deep-based elements (WWg, 6Cv and the like) turned 90 degrees or more, the rear end of the base often grossly violated the element's movement allowance. The most extreme case is clled the 'Martian Flip' where a WWG turns to face in the opposite direction at small cost in movement - because the huge movement of the rear corners was not measured......

Does that help?

Andrew Yes it does thank you Andrew

But I was looking at the rules and the maximum distance allowed is measured from the "Starting point of any base corner..and that corners finial postion"

Now I can see how this impacts wheels, The deeper the base the further the rear edge moves in relation to the front edge...OK


But in turns?

http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/INyTQpdSlJ47ljSizzLuPV0LhqT63J6gDA86tzVd5Z112KHhg-GYTZoN7YG5kAknukLHr_HJql1EAmZqcN-tN4QLhJxyyA/turning.GIF

In this 180% turn (about face or "martian flip") the distance moved would be the same no matter what corner is used to make the measurement, or am I not seeing something here?


Now If I use any corner to measure movement I do gain the distance of the base depth, but I don't think this is what we are talking about

http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/INyTQohxpzY7ljSimnzh_ZkcF0HzzeWCQ4LX5E6kDJxes_aeJX n3_3ccrRoBpeqH_3GPjwxyD5l8_0kAYw_eVIo6DqyaMQ/meas_move.GIF

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

I don't see any great "difficulty" in measuring which corner moved the furthest. I think the real complaint (kind of hidden behind the other complaints ;) )is that it disadvantages deep-based elements. It also eliminates other "creative" moves. As Bob Beattie pointed out, this method of measurement has been around longer than the front corner measurement....I just don't see the big deal here. If the real problem is the movement of elements on deep bases, then maybe base depth is what needs to be changed. I don't see a need for that though. It seems logical that war wagons, artillery, litters and even chariots present relatively unwieldy elements when compared to other element types. It seems that base depth is a good way to model it. I know that folks complain that it is a carry over from DBM....but if so, then didn't the base depth in DBM have some sort of game rationale as well? Another complaint is that the base sizes for some elements were created just to support the models. Well, with war wagon that might be true....but isn't it a happy coincidence that most of us don't think of war wagon formations as very maneuverable?

[yettie]

OK I've been thinking this over a bit and I think I see what I'm missing

http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MOqTQjP2VF8QDXEMc5yQPXXoptCBydeE9AHULTCr6rY-kUl5dqd7dUqFnDFcoWucg5xXhxxURVGQO0AUX6e_Gn-1Y3vAow/M_flip.GIF

So I guess the last example is what would be called a "Martian flip"

[ May 25, 2005, 00:06: Message edited by: yettie ]

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
I don't see any great "difficulty" in measuring which corner moved the furthest. I think the real complaint (kind of hidden behind the other complaints ;) )is that it disadvantages deep-based elements. It also eliminates other "creative" moves. I disagree. I think El Jocko hit the nail squarely on the head. It's just simpler and faster to measure front corners. We certainly are capable of measuring furthest any corner, but this seems to unnecessarily complicate measurement and slow the game down.

Secondarily, I think loss of "creative moves" is a factor. Things we got used to being able to do in 2.1 were taken away -- and now we miss them.

I think the lowest issue is deep elements. Primarily because there just aren't that many war wagons and 6 kns, etc. But it is much less fun to play the Medieval Germans now.

I suspect many of the people that say they don't mind measuring any corner are not very careful about measurement. Or they never enjoyed the pleasure of measuring further front corner. smile.gif

Oh, and by the way, the cumbersome nature of war wagons is accounted for in the extra pip required to move them. They don't need to be penalized again.

[ May 25, 2005, 07:16: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[David Schlanger]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
I disagree. I think El Jocko hit the nail squarely on the head. It's just simpler and faster to measure front corners. We certainly are capable of measuring furthest any corner, but this seems to unnecessarily complicate measurement and slow the game down.I very much agree with Pozanias on this, as well as El Jocko. It is simpler and faster. Even so I have witnessed players struggling with measuring furthest front corner at Cold Wars and Historicon. So what would they do with furthest any corner? They would NEVER get it correct. That would greatly SLOW gameplay, as I struggle to politely "encourage" them to make legal movement.

Originally posted by Pozanias:
Secondarily, I think loss of "creative moves" is a factor. Things we got used to being able to do in 2.1 were taken away -- and now we miss them.
I agree with this, and think it goes hand and hand with the next issue.

Originally posted by Pozanias:
I think the lowest issue is deep elements. Primarily because there just aren't that many war wagons and 6 kns, etc. But it is much less fun to play the Medieval Germans now.This is right on target, but I think it isn't even necessary to look at the deeper elements introduced in 2.0 - just look at chariots.

Originally posted by Pozanias:
I suspect many of the people that say they don't mind measuring any corner are not very careful about measurement. Or they never enjoyed the pleasure of measuring further front corner.Your suspicion is an absolute certainty, in my honest opinion.

Originally posted by Pozanias:
Oh, and by the way, the cumbersome nature of war wagons is accounted for in the extra pip required to move them. They don't need to be penalized again. I think people need to get beyond their frustrations with war wagons. The extra pip does severely penalize them, as does the inability to move into any contact with enemy - even as part of a group.

DS

[yettie]

Originally posted by yettie:
I saw this in another thread

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JLogan:

So for example, I know that since 2.2, the rules now (unfortunately) make clear movement should be measured based on all 4 corners. I think this is a bad rule. If I were to become aware that a new DBA update was being prepared by PB, I would lobby him to change it. Meanwhile, I ignore the rule in play, and no one , including in tourney’s, has ever yet challenged me on it; mainly I believe because most active DBA players share my dislike of the new rule. However, if they ever did and requested I apply the 4 corner rule, I would comply without question, since I acknowledge it is now the rule.Now I have seen references to this on other occasions, and coming right to the point I don't get it.

Could you guys explain to me the significance of "measured based on all 4 corners" as opposed to what?, Oh and feel free to talk slow, maybe even draw me a few pictures </font>[/QUOTE]

[ June 02, 2005, 00:31: Message edited by: yettie ]