All opinions are welcome.
All opinions are welcome.
I suggest you reverse this question "...will it end closer to its side?s rear battlefield edge?" to say "...will it end further from its side?s rear battlefield edge?" as this is more in tune with the spirit of the rules in which the move straight ahead is the default option.
IF you do that you change the outcome when the move will end the same distance from its side's rear battlefield edge.
I think this is the basic logic with all the decision points identified. If correct it's easy enough to add the bullet text for you.
I noticed a wrong result (my fault, not Martin's). If I select:I think this fixes this but creates another problem:
End closer to visible enemy ---> Select either option ---> Consider bullet points ----> No-----> Remain in place
...the other option is not considered, so a player could choose not to move because no bullet is eligible while it could go straight ahead. :-\
IF you do that you change the outcome when the move will end the same distance from its side's rear battlefield edge.
Que? If the straight ahead a move is across the table it ends up the same distance from both table rear edges by definition. Reversing the question changes nothing.
If straight ahead:
would contact enemy in front or
end closer to closest enemywould go closer to
own table edgestraight ahead is bullets are yes yes permitted only if matching a bullet,
otherwise forbiddenpermitted yes no compusory forbidden no yes forbidden compuslory no no permitted permitted
A move must be made if any is possible.
If all compusory or permitted options are impossible, remain in place and count as having moved.
That would be "End no closer to own rear edge?", or equivalently "End closer to, or same distance from, enemy rear edge?".
That would be "End no closer to own rear edge?", or equivalently "End closer to, or same distance from, enemy rear edge?".
Will change to former but the double negative is very poor style so will have to think about this.
The use if them in DBMM makes me think the rules must be complicated.
The use if them in DBMM makes me think the rules must be complicated.
To me they create a bad impression on any newcomer.
I think there may be an error in the latest version. Can you spot it?
BTW, I read in your blog that you definitely left DBMM.
Just curiosity, what is "aligned logic"?
All the "Yes" answers move you down and all "No" answers move you to the right.
I'm going to post this on my blog, before I do is everyone happy that the last version is correct? Lawrence?
The logic looks correct although I would be tempted to swap the "end closer to enemy rear edge" with "move parallel to rear edge". That way the most common situation is a straight path down the page.
I also have some diagrams that I'd like to post - http://bit.ly/fdjA1y - anyone spot anything wrong with them?
Before you ask the diagrams were done before v2.0 was finalised and have been lying around ever since. I thought I may as well publish them at the same time as the flow chart.
As I was editing #7 in the original document I realised that I'd already reached the same conclusion but never uploaded a newer version. The final version on my PC also has examples #8 & #9 and example numbers.
Try this version - http://bit.ly/h0Nxp4
8 and 9 look OK.Thanks.
I'd be tempted to add #10 for completeness in which a column sponnos straight ahead onto a corner and stops there as it has no need to EMTLU (therefore can't EMTLU).Life's too short - don't forget I'm a FOG player now. :)
2nd example, [3] is illegal, must move as a column if possible.It occurred to be that a halt is also legal in #2.
Yes, I believe so.2nd example, [3] is illegal, must move as a column if possible.It occurred to be that a halt is also legal in #2.