You can now fill gaps from second ranks ?

[william]

  Ok poor umpire I may be but this was scary.

Mike already mentioned it came up in New Zealand and the issue came up in Munster on the same weekend ( and I of course being the plonker ruled against it ).

After all the discussion that was going on when I first joined both forum and yahoo group when most said it could not it appears the second ( or even third if TZed ) element of a column in combat to the front can slip out to overlap of fill gaps from the TZed position. What was all the debating about and how could I get it so wrong especially against a newbie player.

The shame, the shame of it all :'(

Please someone enrole me in a beginners class again.

William

[LawrenceG]

I thought Phil had explicitly stated on the yahoo group that you could not do this.

[william]

  Yes but the third bullet on page 32 in the the TREAT ZONE section seems to say you can.

  No not happy with conflicting evidence.

[LawrenceG]

On the yahoo group people are proposing to interpret this rule as permitting you to slide into overlap only against an element whose front edge you have (already) contacted with your front edge. This is a bit of a stretch on the actual wording, but seems to have been Phil's intention.

[MikeCampbell]

Here's what I posted on the DBMM list for those not on it:

"The 3rd bullet under TZ's says you can cross one to:

"Line up in close combat with an enemy front edge its front edge has
contacted, or as an overlap."

The trouble with this is that there's no qualifier on "or as an overlap"
- it does not, as written, limit you to only moving not overlap with an
element you have contacted the front edge of (as I read it).

Ie the bit about overlaps can be read as "line up as an overlap", and
that is how some gamers not on this list have read it.

I'm pretty sure that it is supposed to mean as Chris wrote above, and it
should be re-written as:

"Line up in close combat with an enemy front edge its front edge has
contacted, or as an overlap on such an element", or

"Line up in close combat with or as an overlap on an enemy front edge
its front edge has contacted."

It's nearly lunch here so I'll ltrawl the list archive & see if I can find anything on it from Phil in days gone by....

Added:  couldn't find anything from Phil - lots of posts saying "I was in a 2nd rank so pinned by a TZ" tho - and one which noted the same thing - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/66244 - alas the Doug who pposted that usually ends up in shouting matches (even more than me!), so "support" from his post may nto be a good thing!! 

however it does show that the "problem" is widespread.....whatever it is that is the problem (that people are pinned when they shouldn't be, or that the rules let them an "out" when they shouldn't get one)

[arnimlueck]

Is anybody bringing this to Phils attention for clarification? This should be an ultra-important point for the commentary. And it looks too important to leave it to a consensus entry...

[Chris_Hanley]

Mike has correctly quoted from my post on the Yahoo site.  But may I give some background to the third bullet point so you may understand things more clearly. 

The clause ?or as an overlap? arrived very late in the development of the rules.  For many months it simply read ?Line up in close combat with an enemy front edge its front edge has contacted.?  From this is can be seen that moving from a second rank TZ?d position is not allowed in any way or form.  The problem came when a longer group contacted a shorter group and did not line up. 

Take a situation where three in line contact two in line but at the moment of contact do not line up.  One of the elements is going to be in front edge contact, but to allow the two groups to line up must slide into an overlap position and the rule had to allow that.  It was a bolt-on afterthought and I have recommended the rule to read

Line up in close combat or as an overlap with an enemy front edge its front edge has contacted.

Chris Hanley

[william]

The clause ?or as an overlap? arrived very late in the development of the rules.  For many months it simply read ?Line up in close combat with an enemy front edge its front edge has contacted.?  From this is can be seen that moving from a second rank TZ?d position is not allowed in any way or form.  The problem came when a longer group contacted a shorter group and did not line up. 


Chris Hanley

Ok, but what can happen according to the written rules, and if the rules are phrased incorrectly or do not apply in this situation ( filling gaps ), can it please ( or is it already in ) an errata.

Having to not allow a newbie player to fill the gap because a message on the yahoo group did not feel very nice.

  William

[MikeCampbell]

Yeah it's a hassle for sure.

The problem is the "or in overlap" is actually required for some cases - eg see another thread here - http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=454.0 - se the diagram at he start - elements A/B need to wheel onto the front of 1/2 with A overlapping 1 - I don't think anyne would ahve a problem with that - but A is not already in contact so only allowing it to overlap an element it has contacted the front of will not work.

so there needs to be some wording that allows this, but excludes the 2nd rank......

[Chris_Hanley]

William,
I appreciate your problem, trying to justify a rule from a posting on a web site and not even a posting from the author of the rules must have been difficult. 
If it is questioned in the future I would use the rules, not a posting on a forum to justify your decision   The rule, whilst not being crystal clear is correct as written. 
Point out to the player that the line up as an overlap must not be taken in isolation but it is part of a sentence.  The sentence is telling you what options you have when you contact an enemy front edge with your front edge.
However, I do think it needs to be re-written at the earliest opportunity.

Chris

PS, Why do my ?speech marks? look like question marks?

[william]

William,
I appreciate your problem, trying to justify a rule from a posting on a web site and not even a posting from the author of the rules must have been difficult. 
If it is questioned in the future I would use the rules, not a posting on a forum to justify your decision   The rule, whilst not being crystal clear is correct as written. 
Point out to the player that the line up as an overlap must not be taken in isolation but it is part of a sentence.  The sentence is telling you what options you have when you contact an enemy front edge with your front edge.
However, I do think it needs to be re-written at the earliest opportunity.

Chris

PS, Why do my ?speech marks? look like question marks?

Thanks for your response Chris, hopefully will not have to umpire for another 3 or 4 years ( and never again after the weekend ), had ruled my way ( the wrong way ? ) already in the competition ( without refering to the rules Doh! ) and kept the same ruling again to be consistant, justifiable probably not.

As to your question marks, haven't got the clue ( about to say fogiest ) but as you can tell I can not even find the spell check or insert nice diagarms, usually some people ( well me ) will put quotes from the rules in BOLD or italics but I usually forget ( or don't know how at the time ) to turn them of, it then gets more confusing ( yes I could confuse a nation ).

William