DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: landmeister on August 29, 2011, 01:51:34 PM
-
Question raised in my last game Please look at the diagram:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/wlak4w.png)
White elements are a long line of Blades fighting against grey Pikes and a lonely Ax. Column 5-8 has to move sponno against element C. Columns 9-12 and 13-16 are disheartened, so they don't move. How should lining up be done in this case? I found these problems.
1. Column 9-12 cannot be moved sideways due to the presence of column 13-16.
2. Column 9-12 cannot me moved behind column 5-8 because of the presence of that single Ax element.
3. Pivoting is pointless in this situation.
Any suggestions? :-\
Thank you in advance.
-
What was column 1-4 doing?
LES
-
p.33: "It is an absolute requirement that troops that would move into close combat in real life must do so in the game. Geometric ploys cannot be used to prevent enemy contact."
The question is not, therefore, whether column 5-8 can contact the Bd, but only how best to rearrange the other Pk and Ax bases to do so.
As umpire, I would allow all of 9-16 to be moved sideways (i.e. to EMTLU to Bd D). Column 13-16, if it obstructs 9-12 from getting out of 5-8's way, are themselves obstructing elements and can therefore be moved the minimum distance necessary (in this case a bit sideways) to get them out of the way. In practice, it's just the same effect as a huge line of troops EMTLUing sideways when just the end one makes contact.
Likewise, if the problem were not column 13-16 but only the Ax (e.g. if column 13-16 were already in combat and therefore couldn't be moved), the Ax could be shifted out of the way as an obstructing element.
-
What was column 1-4 doing?
LES
Sorry. I forgot to tell they were disheartened too (Please, don't ask ;D)
-
As umpire, I would allow all of 9-16 to be moved sideways (i.e. to EMTLU to Bd D). Column 13-16, if it obstructs 9-12 from getting out of 5-8's way, are themselves obstructing elements and can therefore be moved the minimum distance necessary (in this case a bit sideways) to get them out of the way. In practice, it's just the same effect as a huge line of troops EMTLUing sideways when just the end one makes contact.
This is what I was looking for. How many obstructing elements can we find in this case? All on the right of 5-8. Is this what the rules truly say? Can we move an infinite number of elements that are NOT obstructing the moving column but just obstructing those who are obstructing them? If Ax element was not there, wouldn't we put 9-12 behind 5-8 after contact?
Even better, assuming there's enough space, wouldn't we put element 5 in contact with C so that the column 5-8 would be broken?
Likewise, if the problem were not column 13-16 but only the Ax (e.g. if column 13-16 were already in combat and therefore couldn't be moved), the Ax could be shifted out of the way as an obstructing element.
Same situation as before. Can the obstruction of an obstruction be moved out of the way?
Thank you for your response
-
If the Blade column numbered 1 to 4 is within 80p of the pikes in front of them then surely they should line up with Pikes B as they are the most to the front, pushing column 5 to 8 further to the right, and similarly column 9 to 12 should line up with Pikes D, presumably pushing column 13 to 16 to the right?
-
In my example only column 5-8 can move into contact, this is why I would like to know how to deal with this situation.
-
In my example only column 5-8 can move into contact, this is why I would like to know how to deal with this situation.
Yes, but if the other columns are within 80p of the pikes in front of them they must line up as soon as they can i.e. before column 5-8 moves.
-
Yes, but if the other columns are within 80p of the pikes in front of them they must line up as soon as they can i.e. before column 5-8 moves.
But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.
-
But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.
[it] Would this be deemed an outcome move (indirectly an outcome of Column 5-8's compulsory spontaneous advance) and permitted per the last bullet point on p32?
Cheers,
Ivan.
-
Yes, but if the other columns are within 80p of the pikes in front of them they must line up as soon as they can i.e. before column 5-8 moves.
But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.
Under this circumstance I would have consulted my opponent first and come to a gentleman's agreement about where the whole group shifts (column 5-8 is still part of the group because it is both in side edge to side edge and front edge to rear edge contact with other elements of the group). The move that does not give either an advantage or disadvantage to either player is to move the group to the left so that column 1-4 is facing Pikes A etc. However, this does go against the rules as technically the group should shift right as they overhang more of the right side pike elements than they do the left. I'm sure that under this scenario I would have agreed to the left shift, as I suspect would 99% of most other players.
-
Under this circumstance I would have consulted my opponent first and come to a gentleman's agreement about where the whole group shifts (column 5-8 is still part of the group because it is both in side edge to side edge and front edge to rear edge contact with other elements of the group). The move that does not give either an advantage or disadvantage to either player is to move the group to the left so that column 1-4 is facing Pikes A etc. However, this does go against the rules as technically the group should shift right as they overhang more of the right side pike elements than they do the left. I'm sure that under this scenario I would have agreed to the left shift, as I suspect would 99% of most other players.
I think this would be the best option, but I'm a bit disppointed with it. :-\ I would prefer a "global" solution for it instead of a particular players agreement, but I guess nothing is perfect, including DBMM. ;)
-
But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.
[it] Would this be deemed an outcome move (indirectly an outcome of Column 5-8's compulsory spontaneous advance) and permitted per the last bullet point on p32?
Cheers,
Ivan.
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. ???
-
Under this circumstance I would have consulted my opponent first and come to a gentleman's agreement about where the whole group shifts (column 5-8 is still part of the group because it is both in side edge to side edge and front edge to rear edge contact with other elements of the group). The move that does not give either an advantage or disadvantage to either player is to move the group to the left so that column 1-4 is facing Pikes A etc. However, this does go against the rules as technically the group should shift right as they overhang more of the right side pike elements than they do the left. I'm sure that under this scenario I would have agreed to the left shift, as I suspect would 99% of most other players.
I think this would be the best option, but I'm a bit disppointed with it. :-\ I would prefer a "global" solution for it instead of a particular players agreement, but I guess nothing is perfect, including DBMM. ;)
The 'global solution' as you put it is already there, the whole group shifts to the right, which is allowed even if it takes column 13-16 out of TZ. However, as this does give an advantage to the Bd group as the first combat will no doubt be fought on Pike D due to the overlap created when column 13-16 is shunted to the right, I would say that the best overall solution would be for the blade group to shift left so that the line up leads to no advantage on either side. It all does rest on the Blades player being a 'gentleman' though...!
-
The problem is that only column 5-8 can move into contact. All other columns are disheartened because they belong to a different command. But thank to all for their responses.
-
Yes, but if the other columns are within 80p of the pikes in front of them they must line up as soon as they can i.e. before column 5-8 moves.
But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.
No more illegal than if column 9-12 had moved into contact and pushed them personally. I have no problem with this - it's just a consequence of the fact that we play element-based games with toy soldiers glued onto fixed rectangles but on a freestyle cloth and therefore we have to make some adjustments from time to time. If we played on a fixed grid, column 13-16 would probably have started outside the TZ of the Bd.
-
But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.
[it] Would this be deemed an outcome move (indirectly an outcome of Column 5-8's compulsory spontaneous advance) and permitted per the last bullet point on p32?
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. ???
[it] My gut feel is that to recognise the "absolute requirement that troops that would move into contact in real life must do so in the game" Column 5-8 must displace Columns 9-12 and 13-16 laterally. You point out that C13-16 would then exit the TZ of Blade D in circumstances not permitted. I was looking for justification for such a move within the rules as written (as outcome moves ignore TZ constraints) but I see now that outcome moves are defined on p28 and spontaneous advance is treated separately. The "ignore TZ restriction" permission on p33 para 1 is only for elements "at least partially in front of the moving element" which in context appears to mean directly in front, not 'ahead of, but laterally offset'.
-
Thanks for both responses. I finally found a partial solution looking at figure 10d on page 56. ;) Once again, I would like to know if Phil considers "any obstructing element" means "all of them" or just "those immediately in contact". Sorry, I don't want to be too a troublemaker. ;D ::)
-
Thanks for both responses. I finally found a partial solution looking at figure 10d on page 56. ;) Once again, I would like to know if Phil considers "any obstructing element" means "all of them" or just "those immediately in contact". Sorry, I don't want to be too a troublemaker. ;D ::)
To be honest I think that this is a bit of a non-issue. The whole group has to shift because some of them are within 80p of enemy elements and they need to line up, even if the group is made up of elements from different commands. I can see what you were trying to do, get that column in contact as quickly as possible, but lining up the group first would have sorted out the problem for you anyway.
-
To be honest I think that this is a bit of a non-issue. The whole group has to shift because some of them are within 80p of enemy elements and they need to line up, even if the group is made up of elements from different commands. I can see what you were trying to do, get that column in contact as quickly as possible, but lining up the group first would have sorted out the problem for you anyway.
[it] To be fair I think there are a couple of issues that require resolution:
(a) The lateral shift solution that is favoured by the current majority of forum posters violates the TZ rules (Column 13-16 vs Blade D), notwithstanding that, in this instance, the TZ rules appear to conflict with the stipulation that "troops that would move into contact in real life must do so in the game" (Column 5-8 vs Blade B).
(b) Lawrence has drawn attention (on the Yahoo DBMM List) to the fact that if the lateral displacement referred above becomes mandatory the elements in Column 13-16 would then be in a position to wrap the flank of Blade D in their next move (whereas if no lateral shift took place an element in an enemy TZ would need another 2 bound's tactical movement (and PIPS for such) to reach a similar position - 1. Directly back out of TZ; 2. Lateral movement to beyond enemy flank).
-
[it] Sorry - Column 5-8 vs Blade C.
-
Great! I see I'm not the only troublemaker here ;D
-
Think about the situation and how it would be resolved if all the blade elements were able to move into contact with the pike group, how would you have resolved lining up then?
The situation only becomes more complex if the forward elements of the Blade group are not within 80p of the pike elements. Under this circumstance it is likely that any umpire would rule that only column 1-4 would need to be moved when column 5-8 moves into combat as that is the least amount of obstructing elements that need to be moved in order for column 5-8 to be able to move into full front edge contact.
Mind you, it could be argued that if the blades were further than 80p from the pikes then the blades could sponno into contact with pikes, slide into contat and those that cannot slide because the blades either side are in the way would remain behind the blades that reach the pikes but not fully lined up.
-
<snip> ... as that is the least amount of obstructing elements that need to be moved in order for column 5-8 to be able to move into full front edge contact.
[it] There's nothing I can see in the EMTLU rules, or elsewhere, that indicates that the number of elements displaced determines the direction of the shift - it is minimum (distance) up to 80p.
Also, I have misread p33 para 1 "Moving Into Close Combat" - apologies for misdirecting the discussion. I believe C13-16 can ignore the TZ of Blade D (and C9-12 that of Blade C) when making room for C5-8.
The remaining matter regarding the "free" move to the jumping off point for a flank attack is simply an unfortunatate artefact of the lining-up rules. If PIPs were spent moving the group 9-16 directly forward into contact with the blades then C13-16 would end outside the flank of Blade D. I've yet to see on table the situation originally posited and if a player can contrive it, with the intention of saving a few PIPs, they'd be more subtle and far-thinking than I could ever hope to be.
@landmeister: Not here to make trouble, friend :)