DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: william on March 18, 2009, 10:25:38 PM
-
;D Yes Richard is attempting to teach me to move properly once more { on the games table that is } ( and it is not sinking in ).
What is this measure as crow flies chatter, there also seems to be some chat about dog-legging around TZ, can some one please enlighten me as to what this is, how and why not to do it so not to get into trouble.
Do single elements ( not expendables or naval { the complicated ones } ), wheel and pivot or measure starting to final positions of all corners?
confused as usual,
William
-
Can o' worms time! :)
There are many esoteric arguments about wording, etc, but what it boils down to, IMO, is het following:
1/ all moves are measured straight line except as per 2.
2/ you must measure around any physical obstacles that you cannot move through eg enemy elements, friends you cannot interpenetrate
3/ you cannot measure around TZ's unless except where the TZ coincides with something you can measure around per item 2 - and even then you can only measure around thatpart of a TZ that is actually occupied.
Now I hasten to add that these are my own "distilled" rules about how to play it - it's what I use for my own guidance, and I make no claims that it solves every weird case that every rules lawyer can dream up.....but it seems to work pretty well for normal people! ;D
-
I agree in the main with Mike's point 1 and 2 (except I would also add terrain etc as other things to measure around) but I have no problem whatsoever with measuring around a TZ - purely my opinion, nothing more. This is backed up by one of the diagrams where a Cav element manoeuvres outside of the TZ.
-
If you play as Dave Mather and myself do, in that you measure a straight line from where you start to where you intend finishing, that is not only the fairest way of doing it, but also provides a number of tactical considerations to be taken into account.
-
If you play as Dave Mather and myself do, in that you measure a straight line from where you start to where you intend finishing, that is not only the fairest way of doing it, but also provides a number of tactical considerations to be taken into account.
But that way is exactly what brings in the teleporting elements problem (and yes you do have to put common sense to one side on this).
e.g. Two lines of troops 10 elements wide fighting each other. You have a reserve element behind the middle of your line. You move it to behind the enemies centre elements. Measure a straight line between corners and it has not exceeded its move. The fact that to get there it must have shifted 22cm left, at least 3 cm forward and then another 22cm back down the line is irrelevant using your statement above.
-
If you play as Dave Mather and myself do, in that you measure a straight line from where you start to where you intend finishing, that is not only the fairest way of doing it, but also provides a number of tactical considerations to be taken into account.
But that way is exactly what brings in the teleporting elements problem (and yes you do have to put common sense to one side on this).
e.g. Two lines of troops 10 elements wide fighting each other. You have a reserve element behind the middle of your line. You move it to behind the enemies centre elements. Measure a straight line between corners and it has not exceeded its move. The fact that to get there it must have shifted 22cm left, at least 3 cm forward and then another 22cm back down the line is irrelevant using your statement above.
Then the reserve element could not do the move as to do so it would have to cross a TZ of an enemy element to its front. It can only move to the left or right behind the front line as long as it does not move through any enemy TZ's to do so.
-
If you play as Dave Mather and myself do, in that you measure a straight line from where you start to where you intend finishing, that is not only the fairest way of doing it, but also provides a number of tactical considerations to be taken into account.
But that way is exactly what brings in the teleporting elements problem (and yes you do have to put common sense to one side on this).
e.g. Two lines of troops 10 elements wide fighting each other. You have a reserve element behind the middle of your line. You move it to behind the enemies centre elements. Measure a straight line between corners and it has not exceeded its move. The fact that to get there it must have shifted 22cm left, at least 3 cm forward and then another 22cm back down the line is irrelevant using your statement above.
Then the reserve element could not do the move as to do so it would have to cross a TZ of an enemy element to its front. It can only move to the left or right behind the front line as long as it does not move through any enemy TZ's to do so.
Of course it could - assume it is 41mm from the enemy element..... you then end up with the "tunnelling light horse" syndrome so many others have cited as an issue.
Don't for one minute think that I agree with doing this, but if you just measure straight lines through any intervening elements etc as you suggest than the above is the result - and yes it is just plain daft.
In my opinion you have to measure around intervening elements that you cannot interpenetrate. You have to make sure the total distance measured/moved does not exceed the move distance of the moving element. If you just measure start point to finish point of the element in a straight line regardless of intervening elements, terrain etc then you turn DBMM into a very silly game.
Another example - you have a line of Kn(S) facing me, 41mm behind them is a line of Cv(S) facing the opposite direction so no TZ is involved. I have a line of Cv(S) facing you 41mm from your Kn(S). Using your interpretation I move into contact with your Cv(S), avoiding the Kn(S) completely. I don't care that I can't interpenetrate them, in fact as far as I am concerned they are not even there. I get there by moving sideways as far as necessary, forward so I am past your line, sideways again into contact with rear of the Cv(S). This means my element has actually travelled loads, 3 metres if necessary but as the straight line movement for my elements is only 112mm (41mm+30mm+41mm) measured through your line of Kn(S) and my move is 120mm then under your interpretation there is no problem ! Well to me this is a huge problem..... Loads of 3(S) vs 1(O) with quick kill combats later, your command/army is broken - stupid isn't it ? Or do you see this as one of your tactical considerations ?
-
I don't think I made myself entirely clear.
How we play it is like this-
If you draw a straight line from A to B, and at no point does that line cross a enemy TZ, then you can make the move. So, in your example even if the reserve was 41mm behind the front line none of the reserve elements could move around and hit any of the enemy elements to their front in the rear/flank as to do so they would either have to pass through an enemy element, or pass through a TZ.
Phil did respond to a similar post on the DBMM yahoo group forum and this is how he said he plays it (but comments from Ladywood indicated he perhaps forgot this!)
-
I don't think I made myself entirely clear.
How we play it is like this-
If you draw a straight line from A to B, and at no point does that line cross a enemy TZ, then you can make the move. So, in your example even if the reserve was 41mm behind the front line none of the reserve elements could move around and hit any of the enemy elements to their front in the rear/flank as to do so they would either have to pass through an enemy element, or pass through a TZ.
Phil did respond to a similar post on the DBMM yahoo group forum and this is how he said he plays it (but comments from Ladywood indicated he perhaps forgot this!)
OK - that is a little less extreme.... however to me it is still counter intuitive.
If the element cannot enter the TZ except per the rules restrictions it therefore has to move around it.
If the element cannot interpenetrate the other elements then it has to move around it.
An element has a maximum move explicitly stated in the rules. It should never be able to physically move further than it's maximum move.
If it is moving around things then it can end up moving further than its maximum move, even if the straight line distance is within its move limit.... totally counter intuitive.
e.g.Two Blades behind each other per the attached picture. The straight line distance from Blade Two to the second enemy element is less than 8cm. The sideways move and forward move together is 10.5cm. Do you think the Blade is allowed to move into contact ?
-
e.g.Two Blades behind each other per the attached picture. The straight line distance from Blade Two to the second enemy element is less than 8cm. The sideways move and forward move together is 10.5cm. Do you think the Blade is allowed to move into contact ?
Sorry Richard example would not come up for me.
Any way apart from interpenetraions/TZ/doglegs etc. how do individual elements ( not train/expendables ), measuring as crows fly or wheeling and rotating etc.
Thanks in advance ( and yes I know what your answer will be Richard ).
William
-
Hi
nice example...
I would say the second blade can move to the right, then advance straight into combat.
The dog leg exceeds the maximum move distance but the diagonal does not and but the rules say to measure the diagonal.
The commentries do comment on this point and state that, as a playing convention "At no point during its move should any point of the moving element be more that its maximum move
distance away from its initial position." This prevents the exteme form of "tunnelling" mentioned earlier (didn?t realise there were so many physicists out there ;)).
The measuring in straight lines does have advantages.
There are PIP penalties for moving short.
If a column could wiggle as much as it liked and always measured the outside curve, it would effectively mean that a column could move short without penalty. The same would apply whilst marching, creating all sorts of weird wiggle dances to try and optimize the distance to the enemy.
neil fox
-
Hi Neil
The column example doesn't stand up to examination I think. You are specifically only allowed one wheel during a move. So you could wheel one direction in the first move but not in the other. In the next march move you could wheel in the other direction - but no jigging (I am in Ireland) in the same move....
I can live with the doglegs but you measure the straight line - as long as quantum tunnelling can't happen ie it has to be a move that the element could make. However in my example the dog leg avoids elements and TZ's but the straight line move goes through a TZ. Is this allowed ?
Also William has asked the question about elements turning 180 degrees - I think you measure the straight line across the diagonal. But this would mean an element leaving the middle of a column and turning 180 degrees would not quite clear the column. Do you agree?
BTW are you considering coming to Lisbon in September ?
Regards
Richard
-
Richard, I don't believe the blade element behind the first one can move into contact. Two reasons, firstly, if using straight line movement it would mean making a wheel through a TZ to get to the other enemy element, which is not allowed. It would also mean wheeling through the blade in front, which you also cannot do. What you could do I suppose is to move both blades forward and the one behind then slides 80p to its right so as to line up in front of the other one.
I thought columns could make more than one wheel per move?
-
Richard, I don't believe the blade element behind the first one can move into contact. Two reasons, firstly, if using straight line movement it would mean making a wheel through a TZ to get to the other enemy element, which is not allowed. It would also mean wheeling through the blade in front, which you also cannot do.
This would make sense to me - but if you only measure straight line movement what actually prevents it ? Your measurement of straight line movement doesn't care about intervening troops or TZ's...
I thought columns could make more than one wheel per move?
Apologies your right - one wheel for a group, any number for a column.
Regards
Richard
-
Personally, reading strictly what is in the rules and not what other people have said outside the rules (including Phil!):-
1. All movement is measured "as the crow flies", start point to end point and measuring front corners (not back corners, which means that a single element that turns a 180 in the course of its move appears to gain/lose a base depth).
2. There is nothing in the rules themselves about not dog-legging around a TZ. Personally, I think Fig 9a shows the Cv dog-legging outside a TZ in order to avoid the effect of Bd A's TZ. If there is a strict rule against dog-legging around TZs, getting a reserve line into combat is normally impossible. For example, two ranks of Reg Bd approach enemy who are (as is normally the case), parallel but slightly offset. Rank 1 hits and conforms to the enemy with a shift to one side. Rank 2 is now unable to move into any casualty-gaps in one move, as a dog-leg is required to line up. Don't even try to have an effective reserve of Cv/LH that is less than a full battle-line's worth.
Phil may well add something in for DBMM v.2 once Book 4 is published!
3. The Commentary has added a Suggested Playing Convention that elements should not move further than their allowed move from their starting position. It's not an ideal solution but does remove the worst of the "quantum tunnelling effect".
4. In competition-play, an umpire ought to step in to resolve any situations where an unscrupulous player might be trying to take an unfair advantage.
Playing this way, I have never seen anyone try to "quantum-tunnel". Fears of such activities are groundless, IME (i.e. I have never yet met an unscrupulous player and don't currently expect to, at least on the UK competition scene). The closest I have seen is an incident at Milton Keynes when an element of Cv moved from the front of a group to the rear of the same group (miles away from enemy TZs). Measuring "DBM-style" it exceeded its move. Measuring straight-line it was fine. The effect was that it appeared to the literal-minded to interpenetrate its friends. In practice, if you imagine the troops making the move actually riding around their friends to take up their position it was perfectly logical.
Just do the maths at some stage and work out how fast troops are actually moving in the 10 minutes of each bound and you'll see that even LH don't break the dizzy heights of 1mph (320pp at 2.5 feet/pace = c.267 yds in 10 minutes = 1600 yards/hour. There are 1760 yards/mile. Of course, since elements don't move in the opposition bound, you can in fact halve even this blistering pace...). As you can see there's a lot of scope within the game-model for elements exceeding their "permitted" move allowance in terms of the path followed without breaching the laws of reality!
DBM(M) is a very abstracted game, don't get too hung up on assuming that troops have their feet nailed onto 60-metre wide bits of board and wheeled around a battlefield on castors, and try imagining that they are a group of individuals (and their mounts) going and doing what their unit commanders tell them to do. The troops within elements "flow" in reality, the sub-units charge and follow the easiest path to get to where they want. Move distances are a game-construct which in no way reflect maximum actual man/horse speed.
Tim Child
-
I agree in the main with Mike's point 1 and 2 (except I would also add terrain etc as other things to measure around) but I have no problem whatsoever with measuring around a TZ - purely my opinion, nothing more. This is backed up by one of the diagrams where a Cav element manoeuvres outside of the TZ.
Manouvring outside the TZ is not the same as measuring around it tho - I also have no problems with manouvreing outside - but Phil has repeatedly said that you cannot measure around it - ie you cannot measure so as to avoid it.
-
Have you got a link Mike? And the difference between moving and manoeuvring outside a TZ is....?
-
It's not measuring outside that's prohibited - it's measuring AROUND - ie changing a path so that you avoid the zone altogether.
In the cases shown in the rule diagrams - the elements still pass through the TZ - they do not avoid it - therefore such manouvring is legal.
see http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/60111
or http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/88714
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/88687
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/87187
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/87186
-
Thanks for the links Mike. The 1st and 4th links make it quite clear the author's intention is you cannot dog leg around a TZ. This is of course on the proviso that there is not something else there that must be avoided. And on the proviso that there aren't other links or discussions from the author which state the opposite. Interestingly, the last link tells you how to do this legally: by first inter-posing an element.
However, it does seem at odds with the Cav diagram. If we measure the positions of the initial and final corners then it appears the Cav wheeled through the TZ of the element initially to the front, and such a move is not permitted. A fine line I'm sure but I think this diagram doesn't help the debate at all given Phil has stated the TZ is an artificial construct that cannot be seen - in which case how did the Cav know to first move backwards, wheel and then forwards? I view such manoeuvring as no different to dog-legging and either all such manoeuvres should be allowed or disallowed so there is no confusion whatsoever.
Cheers
Andrew
-
Hi
The links were very illuminating, though not perhaps in that they made the rules clear.
It seems to me that there is deviance between what was intended and what was written in the rules.
Dog legging around a TZ seems to be illegal by intention, but it is not forbidden in the rules.
Phil seems very keen on allowing elements to get into combat...
Perhaps it makes a difference if you dog leg around one elements TZ so as to contact another element, as in Robs example with the Blades ? :-\
I would agree with Tim and, if asked as an umpire, rule that doglegging around TZs is legal.
I would not have a problem if it became illegal in DBMM 1.1 but would also not have a problem if it became explicitly legal. ;)
Richard:
I will not be in Lisbon, we have a big birthday in the family at that time and I would have a bad (enviromental) conscience flying all that way just to play tin soldiers anyway. If the event moves towards more central Europe I will try to get there. If you visit Karlsruhe again, drop me a line and we should be able to organise a game. I have a cellar full of figures and a spare room.
neil