DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: landmeister on December 28, 2008, 10:44:14 AM
-
Dear all,
Found the situation shown at diagram enclosed in my last game. Enemy column A-D was following the shore of a sea on its right side. My element 1 wants to contact it. I know that I can't contact the flank of A due to the TZ of B so I decide to frontally contact B (I cannot contact B's flank due to C's TZ, of course).
My opponent tells me that no element can enter into gap like that between A and B. Touch?. My response was that geometric ploys cannot be used to avoid contact and he apparently accepted. Then element A was blocking element 1 to line up aganinst B so I moved A forward the minimum needed to do that, so that my rear corner was in contact with A's rear. Then my opponent said that an enemy blocking element can only be moved out of the way by moving it behind other, shiftining sideways or pivoting, not by moving it forward. Then I thought I could move the column B-D rearwards without moving A, but it was not permitted either.
The question is easy. Are kinked columns untouchable? :-\ ???
Thank you very much in advance.
-
You could contact the front of A.
Alternatively:
You could enter the gap between A and B because you can enter a narrow gap by sliding sideways to line up in front edge to front edge combat. You would start by lining up corner to corner with opposite facing, then slide sideways into the gap.
Then you have contacted his front edge and can trigger the third bullet under "Front edge" on page 33.
THis means either
A would have to move sideways, pivot or be placed behind another element to make room. This is limited to 80p of movement, so pivot is the most likely option, but the others may be possible. It looks (from your diagram) as though a pivot forward by A around its front left corner would make enough space.
or B can be made to do the 80p move to line up, being dragged out of the column. THis may invalidate the entry into the gap as it is now not you that is lining up, but I think it is within the spirit of the "geometric ploys cannot be used to avoid contact " rule.
-
Hello Lawrence,
Your wisdom is allways appreciated, thank you.
You could contact the front of A.
Right, but this ould not be possible if A was behind another element in a longer column. This would still mean that kinked columns are untouchable.
Alternatively:
You could enter the gap between A and B because you can enter a narrow gap by sliding sideways to line up in front edge to front edge combat. You would start by lining up corner to corner with opposite facing, then slide sideways into the gap.
Well, this is open to debate, as IIRC the current consensus is that a corner to corner contact only does not trigger the 80 p free move (remember that overlapping elements would immediately be shifted after its companions were recoiled, destroyed, etc. And this is not the intention of the game.
Then you have contacted his front edge and can trigger the third bullet under "Front edge" on page 33.
THis means either
A would have to move sideways, pivot or be placed behind another element to make room. This is limited to 80p of movement, so pivot is the most likely option, but the others may be possible. It looks (from your diagram) as though a pivot forward by A around its front left corner would make enough space.
Excellent! This was the answer I was looking for. Thank you. ;) But remember that The Phil must clarify the previous point in order to accept this ;D
or B can be made to do the 80p move to line up, being dragged out of the column. THis may invalidate the entry into the gap as it is now not you that is lining up, but I think it is within the spirit of the "geometric ploys cannot be used to avoid contact " rule.
Same as before. Certainly it is a possible correct solution, but again conditioned to a previous corner to corner contact. Isn't there any other option avoiding this contact?
-
Page 29 states "Each element of a column wheels in succession on arrival at the place where the first wheeled. Until all have done so, the column will have a bend at that point, but each element is still treated as if lined up behind that in front." So B is deemed to be directly behind A so you can contact the flank of A.
-
Well, this is open to debate, as IIRC the current consensus is that a corner to corner contact only does not trigger the 80 p free move (remember that overlapping elements would immediately be shifted after its companions were recoiled, destroyed, etc. And this is not the intention of the game.
There is nothing to stop you using some of your normal movement to start the slide into the gap.
-
By the way
IMO the width of a gap needs to be measured perpendicular to the direction of movement. Otherwise lots of sensible moves become impossible.
For example
consider a line of Cv, Bd, Cv with their front edges lined up.
Now try to move another Bd in behind the first one.
The gap between the rear corner of the Cv and the centre of the rear edge of the front Bd is less than 80p.
-
Page 29 states "Each element of a column wheels in succession on arrival at the place where the first wheeled. Until all have done so, the column will have a bend at that point, but each element is still treated as if lined up behind that in front." So B is deemed to be directly behind A so you can contact the flank of A.
I'm afraid I disagree. I cannot ignore (never) an active enemy TZ. No matter thay are considered a column. All TZ are applicable.
-
There is nothing to stop you using some of your normal movement to start the slide into the gap.
Yes, there is in this case. No element can enter into a gap less than 80 p unless moving in a way that you could pass through friends, etc. Sliding sideways is never a legal way to pass through (except for Train, of course). In this case I cannot enter into the gap unless sliding :-\
-
By the way
IMO the width of a gap needs to be measured perpendicular to the direction of movement. Otherwise lots of sensible moves become impossible.
Another clarification request for the Oracle? ;D
For example
consider a line of Cv, Bd, Cv with their front edges lined up.
Now try to move another Bd in behind the first one.
The gap between the rear corner of the Cv and the centre of the rear edge of the front Bd is less than 80p.
Yes, I agree. A clear definition of gap would be appreciated.
-
I agree with Andrew. The column is contiguous and B is deemed to be behind A, so the TZ that B seems to have does not exist.
In fact, since if B would normally be directly behind A, so when your element contacts the flank of A, B will have to turn and get behind A.
If it is a waterway, then A can't recoil, so -1.
Don't let geometry get in the way. The very first rule on p33 is "Troops that would move into close combat in real life must do so in the game". This is the overriding rule.
Hope this helps,
G^is,
John
-
Page 29 states "Each element of a column wheels in succession on arrival at the place where the first wheeled. Until all have done so, the column will have a bend at that point, but each element is still treated as if lined up behind that in front." So B is deemed to be directly behind A so you can contact the flank of A.
IMO this rule wording does not mean that you treat the element as if it was physically lined up behind the other one, allowing you to notionally contact it in its "treated as" position, or pass through the space it occupies or ignore the TZ exerted in its "real" position. The element is where it is. The rule means it qualifies for benefits that apply to an element that is lined up behind another one (such as giving rear support).
-
I disagree - the wording is all-inclusive and has no exceptions - the elements are ".....treated as if lined up behind that in front." - period.
-
I disagree - the wording is all-inclusive and has no exceptions - the elements are ".....treated as if lined up behind that in front." - period.
I don't necessarily agree with you, but...
Would you treat the third element in the column as lined up behind B's actual position, or its "treated as" position?
-
IMO this rule wording does not mean that you treat the element as if it was physically lined up behind the other one, allowing you to notionally contact it in its "treated as" position, or pass through the space it occupies or ignore the TZ exerted in its "real" position. The element is where it is. The rule means it qualifies for benefits that apply to an element that is lined up behind another one (such as giving rear support).
This is my view too. The element is where it is and facing towards it is facing... :-\
-
I disagree - the wording is all-inclusive and has no exceptions - the elements are ".....treated as if lined up behind that in front." - period.
I don't necessarily agree with you, but...
Would you treat the third element in the column as lined up behind B's actual position, or its "treated as" position?
IMO "that in front" is the front element of the formation that iw wheeling - so hte 3rd element is "reated as" being behind that front element - this is hte case for all the elements that have "partly wheeled".
-
so if I put an enemy element to A's right,
facing the opposite direction to A
so the "real" positions of B, C are in its TZ
but the "treated as" positions of BC are not in the TZ
then B, C are not TZed ?
-
if you're saying what I think you're saying, then yes - it cuts both ways - the "treated as" positions are where they are affected by TZ's and where their own TZ's apply from.
-
OK, so I could move the enemy element straight ahead through the "real" positions then, treating B and C as if they were off to the side?
-
Can't see why not.
Using more and more extreme examples will not change what the words mean.
Either you play to the simple meaning of the wording, or you do not....and if you do not then feel free to rewrite the rest of the rules too......
-
Can't see why not.
Using more and more extreme examples will not change what the words mean.
Either you play to the simple meaning of the wording, or you do not....and if you do not then feel free to rewrite the rest of the rules too......
OK, so if column ABC is marching along a curved road through difficult terrain then the group must use the off-road movement speed because B and C are not on the road.
Apart from falling foul of reductio ad absurdum, if the rule had the meaning you use, there would be no need for kinks to be allowed at all.
I'll play using the simplest meaning that actually makes sense.
OF course, if Phil had worded it more clearly in the first place then we would not have needed to go through this process.
-
OK, so if column ABC is marching along a curved road through difficult terrain then the group must use the off-road movement speed because B and C are not on the road.
no - not at all... if in column then only the move of the front element need be measured and hte remainder of the elements in the column are trested as moving the same distance (page 29 the para starting "Each element of a column....") - so they all get to move at road speed even with this.
good try tho :)
-
OK, so if column ABC is marching along a curved road through difficult terrain then the group must use the off-road movement speed because B and C are not on the road.
no - not at all... if in column then only the move of the front element need be measured and hte remainder of the elements in the column are trested as moving the same distance (page 29 the para starting "Each element of a column....") - so they all get to move at road speed even with this.
good try tho :)
page 28 "A group move cannot exceed the maximum move distance of its slowest element", which would be one of those off-road.
-
The bit I pointed out on page 29 says that they all get to move the same distance as the front element - hence the slowest move is as far as the front element moves.
-
The bit I pointed out on page 29 says that they all get to move the same distance as the front element - hence the slowest move is as far as the front element moves.
No, the bit on p29 says they count as having moved the same distance as the front element ("treated as if moving the same distance").
It does not say that the maximum distance they are allowed to move is the maximum distance the front element is allowed to move.
The front element cannot move more than the max distance allowed to the other elements. If it did, they would count as having moved further than their allowed maximum distance (which is obviously not allowed).
-
How does "treated as if moving the same distance" mean anything other than they move the same distance?
I think you are clutching at straws.
Going back to the orignal point that elements in a bent column are treated as being behind the element in front - you don't like the implications so you are doing whatever you can in order to make it appear unreasonable.
IMO you are the one being unreasonable - the situations you have tried to bring up to discredit the position are covered by it without much bother if you accept it as it is written. There is no need to try to make them unworkable - that's just counter-productive and is the kind of thing that gives Phil's rules whatever bad name they have - they cover what htey need to but people don't like them and persist in arguing them long after their point is lost.
could they be better written - of course they could - much of DBMM is like that. Could the rule be changed so as to reflect whatever it is you'd prefer? Sure - and if it is that'll be fine too. but there's nothing wrong with it as it is either.
But now you are going out of your way to try to make them not work. there is just no need to do so. I'm sorry you don't like the rule, but you really should just accept that it is what it is and get on with the game.
-
How does "treated as if moving the same distance" mean anything other than they move the same distance?
People used to get this wrong in DBM as well. It's a rather subtle distinction between "move" as in distance you actually move and "move" as used in a wargames sense of how far you are allowed to move, often called "movement allowance" in game rules, but carrying the physical sense of "speed".
I don't think it means exactly "they move the same distance" and it does not mean "it is given the same movement allowance". I'll explain what I think it does mean by way of an example:
Consider a column of 2 elements of chariot Cv, A and B with A in front. Lets say it has turned right 45 degrees and stopped straight after the wheel, so the rear right corner of A is touching the front edge of B somewhere near its left hand end.
Next bound, A advances straight ahead 240 p.
If B "moves the same distance", its front left corner will not reach A's rear left corner. There will be a gap between the elements. So it certainly does not mean "they move the same distance".
What you are supposed to do is wheel B at the line of the original wheel and then butt it up against the rear of A. In reality, it has moved further than A. However, it is "treated as if moving the same distance", i.e. treated as having moved in this case 240p. THe max move distance for Cv is 240p, so this is OK.
Now suppose B is Kn. The max move distance for Kn is 200 p . If B followed A in the column, it would count as having moved 240p. That exceeds its maximum move, so it is not legal. To move this column, A moves 200p and B is butted up against its rear. B has actually moved about 220p, but is treated as moving the same as A, i.e. 200p. This is its max move distance so this move is allowed.
"Treated as if moving the same distance" does not mean they have the same movement allowance. If you have a column of LH in front and Art(S) behind, it does not allow the Art(S) to move at LH speed. It constrains the LH to move at Art(S) speed, but allows the Art(S) to exceed its normal move enough to catch up the extra distance caused by the kink.
-
Lawrence I am a prety simple sort of person - and I find your explaination complicated, difficult to follow, and unconvincing.
So I'm going to stick with my nice easy version instead.
-
Lawrence I am a prety simple sort of person - and I find your explaination complicated, difficult to follow, and unconvincing.
So I'm going to stick with my nice easy version instead.
OK. I'll stick with my nice easy version too.
-
What's easy about the bent column being "un-attackable" from the flank?
-
;D As a matter of interest from the initial question, could element 1 contact the front corner and part of the front edge of B ( would be front edge to front edge within a zone of control ) forcing B to line up with 1 immediatatly ? If this were to happen would B still be in a column ? Would B have to conform ( because it is in a group contacted on an outside corner, Therefore chose to fight in place but count as overlapped ?
William
-
Hi William
I don't believe you can contact the front of an element in a column (excluding the lead element) because the rules treat element B as being lined up behind element A. Let's say however that you (legally) contact the flank of B, then I would say element C (being the next element in the column behind B) would have to fall in behind B, unless the length of the side edge of element B was longer than, or equal to, the length of your front edge (e.g. Chariot, Elephant, Train). Although I probably wouldn't do this without first protecting the flank of my element.......
Andrew
-
;D As a matter of interest from the initial question, could element 1 contact the front corner and part of the front edge of B ( would be front edge to front edge within a zone of control ) forcing B to line up with 1 immediatatly ? If this were to happen would B still be in a column ? Would B have to conform ( because it is in a group contacted on an outside corner, Therefore chose to fight in place but count as overlapped ?
William
As we currently have two ways of interpreting elements in a column being treated as "lined up behind" each other, there is no definitive answer to this.
If you favour Mike's interpretation, then you can't do this, but you can contact the notional position of B's flank.
If you favour my interpretation then you can do this, but you can't contact the actual flank as it is in C's TZ.