And not lining up

[arvnranger]

I cant' see why you think the -1 for being in front edge contact with the flank doesn't apply - there is no requirement for it to be in contact with the entire flank. 

[it] Because the -1 tactical factor is for enemy in front edge COMBAT with the flank. Front edge combat is defined at the top of p35 as (i) moving into or (ii) remaining in front edge contact in any of the ways described on p33 "Moving into Close Combat". Element 2 did not move into close combat with element B (it did so with the since destroyed Element A) ergo it cannot remain in close combat.

Cheers,
Ivan.

[arvnranger]

the element is in legal contact - it made a legal move and the subsequent combat saw legal outcomes - so IMO the element remains in legal postion so there is no requirement to use the EMTLU.

It CAN do so under the provisions of the EMTLU - but it does not have to.

[it] Can it use EMTLU? Is it contacting, contacted or TZed? Yes, it is in contact; in DBMM is this the same thing as "contacting"?

Cheers,
Ivan.

[MikeCampbell]

to answer yuor last question first - it is contacted - that is enough to allow it to use hte EMTLU.

2 DOES remain in flank edge contact in "any of the ways described on page 33" - it moved into legal contact with the destroyed element A, and in doing so also moved into legal front edge contact with element B. 

there is nothing in the rules requiring it to move any further - the move was legal when made, put 2 into flank edge contact with B, and that's all there is to it.

[arvnranger]

to answer yuor last question first - it is contacted - that is enough to allow it to use hte EMTLU.

[it] What I'm driving at is the distinction between the instantaneous and continuous sense of the verb "to contact", ie is "contacted" or "contacting" exactly the same meaning as "in contact"? FWIW this sort of thing in the rules drives me up the wall, cf you don't "reach" difficult going if you start in it, ie "reach" <> "ends in".

2 DOES remain in flank edge contact in "any of the ways described on page 33" - it moved into legal contact with the destroyed element A, and in doing so also moved into legal front edge contact with element B. 

[it] I can't see a partial front edge to enemy flank contact described anywhere on p33. Element 2 was in close combat with A, not B. At Battlecry one of my elements was caught by a partial flank contact (imagine the bound before the situation we're currently discussing, ie a column of 2 elements, the front one (A) contacted on the flank per p33, front corner to front corner, the 2nd (B) with the partial contact) and I was permitted to move this element to its rear through the TZ of the partially flanking element. This would not have been permitted had the 2nd element been deemed to have been in close combat.

there is nothing in the rules requiring it to move any further - the move was legal when made, put 2 into flank edge contact with B, and that's all there is to it.

[it] The salient restriction is that Element C's TZ extends beyond the rear edge of Element B so Element 2 so you can't put 2 into flank edge contact with B without violating the TZ restrictions on p32. I don't believe that's all there is to it because you're interpolating your understanding from words that simply aren't there. As I read the rules Element 2 does not meet the criteria to be in front edge combat.

[andrew]

it moved into legal contact with the destroyed element A, and in doing so also moved into legal front edge contact with element B.

Therein lies the problem.  The element did not move into a legal contact with element B - it made a legal contact with element A.  Therefore, by definition, it cannot technically remain in such a position from such a move, that it didn't make, to claim being in front edge combat.

The relevant wording of the rule for "moving into front edge combat" is:

Close combat occurs when an element has moved into, or remains in, front edge contact with an enemy element in any of the ways described in MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT on page 33.This is called being in front edge combat.

The 'remains in' pertains to 'moved into' and the element did not 'move into' that position with element B in any of the ways described, so it cannot claim to be in front edge combat in the situation described on the basis of 'remaining' in that position.  It never made a legal move onto element B (it hasn't made corner to corner contact or contacted the full flank edge) so it cannot claim to be in front edge combat with B, unless it uses EMTLU (which in this case it can't but if it did then it has moved into a legal contact with B).

The flanking element made a legal contact with A, not B - it is merely exerting a TZ over B.  B cannot be considered to be in "front edge combat" per the wording of the rules, which is a prerequisite for the -1 tactical factor.

Andrew

[MikeCampbell]

Therein lies the problem.  The element did not move into a legal contact with element B - it made a legal contact with element A.  Therefore, by definition, it cannot technically remain in such a position from such a move, that it didn't make, to claim being in front edge combat

No - that is competely wrong - when it moved into legal contact with A it also made a legal contact with B.

and there is nothing in the rules at all that says it has to move from that position.

You are reading all sorts of things into the rulel that are simply not there - unless yuo can show me where it says otherwise of course.

But I'm pretty sure you can't.

[andrew]

You are reading all sorts of things into the rulel that are simply not there

Is there an echo in here?

and there is nothing in the rules at all that says it has to move from that position.

I reckon you are reading something in my post that isn't there....I did not say it had to move from that position - you misunderstood my post, and you removed the emphasis.  If you only read half the post and take quotes out of context then I'm not surprised we end up debating this at right angles because you have missed my point.  I understand exactly what you are driving at - I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

If you read the rules it says you have to either move into or remain in that position.  You cannot claim to 'remain in' a position if you never moved to that position in the first place.  The prerequisite for being in front edge combat is to first move into a legal position.  The flanking element did not move into legal contact with B, it moved into a legal contact with A.  The fact B is touching A does not automatically make the contact on B a legal contact.  Don't read more into that than I posted - I didn't say it was an illegal contact.

I'll bet you the reason for including the words 'remain in' is because if it didn't then some dickwad would claim that (after drawing the combat) that you moved into that position in the previous bound so the flank contact doesn't count as front edge combat in the next bound, so no tactical factor applies.  The downside now is that others are reading more into the meaning.

Where in the rules does it say you made a legal contact with B?  If you can't defend that you have no argument....if you can tell me exactly which rule on which page states you have made a legal contact on element B then I will accept that.  I can quote the relevant rules again if you like, but I already did that in an earlier post.

Andrew

[MikeCampbell]

Legal contact with B was part and parcel of moving into legal contact with A.

A move is either legal or it is not - you can't have part of it legal and another part of it not legal.

In this case the move was legal - herefore the contact with B was legal.

I haven't read anything into your post that you haven't written that I can see - you claim that a move that is legal is also illegal, or later becomes illegal - and that is a pretty fundamental problem.

[arvnranger]

Therein lies the problem.  The element did not move into a legal contact with element B - it made a legal contact with element A.  Therefore, by definition, it cannot technically remain in such a position from such a move, that it didn't make, to claim being in front edge combat

No - that is competely wrong - when it moved into legal contact with A it also made a legal contact with B.

[it] This is becoming rather circuitous FWIW I prefer the interpretation for which you are advocating ... but I can't support it from a literal reading of the rules. Right at the outset you conflated front edge contact and front edge combat which I suspect is the key disconnect in your logic. It seems the rules too muddy the waters in this regard inasmuch as the -1 tactical factor on p37 is for enemy in Front Edge Combat whereas p35, para 2 "Overlaps" declares that enemy front edge contact inflicts adverse tactical factors. To restate what I've been trying to get across, all (close) combat requires contact but not all contact results in close combat. The prerequisites for an element to be deemed to be in front edge combat are defined (p35,33) and nowhere does the partial flank contact originally posited appear within these definitions (p33). I have searched, without success, for a sentence like that in 3.1 that said , with respect to non-prescribed contact, something like, "the only instance in which an element can contact enemy in a way not described is if another element of their group does so". Had I found such wording I'd be more prepared to interpolate the meaning as you have. In para 2, p33 it states "An element initiates close combat with enemy by ... adjusting an existing contact with an enemy flank" which suggests to me that a partial flank contact does not constitute close combat.

[Tim Child]

the -1 for flank contact makes no mention of it being required to be an entire edge - , and neither does the combat result of being destroyed if you have enemy in contact with your flank edge.

We have seen this often, and play that the -1 for contact applies, and so does the "destroyed" combat result.

this is a legal situation because it is one that is manufactured by combat outcomes - not one that you have moved into - all the rules on page 33 apply to MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT.....which you have not (as I read it)

Interesting interpretation. I think it should be included in the Commentary. It is not uncommon in many games.

Hi chaps, just dipping in having seen this reported on the DBMMlist.

FWIW, the point is already ruled in the Commentary:-

In the entries for P.37 "Tactical Factors" we have:-
"Flank/Rear Contact
If an enemy element is in front edge contact with an enemy's flank or rear but does not meet the requirements set out on Rules p.33, MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT for flank or rear contact then it is not in "front edge combat" and hence this -1 tactical factor does not apply."

In other words, our analysis is that partial edge contact is not "front edge combat" and therefore doesn't give the -1.

In the entries for P.38 "Combat Outcome" we have:-

"Flank Edge Contact
If an element's total is less than that of its opponent but more than half, Destroyed result for enemy with flank edge contact.  Since this result refers to "front edge contact" with a flank rather than "front edge combat" any front edge contact will produce the destroyed result and it is not necessary for the front edge in contact with a flank to meet the requirements set out on Rules p.33, MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT for flank contact."

In other words, p.38 uses different words ("front edge contact" rather than "front edge combat") and therefore the in this case "kill on more" result does apply, even though the -1 doesn't in the above case.

If you're looking for a justification beyond a mere semantic interpretation of the rules, partial front edge contact gives you a reduced effect compared to full front edge contact (KYBOSH both times, but no -1 for only partial contact).

Tim Child

[arvnranger]

Legal contact with B was part and parcel of moving into legal contact with A.
A move is either legal or it is not - you can't have part of it legal and another part of it not legal.
In this case the move was legal - herefore the contact with B was legal.
I haven't read anything into your post that you haven't written that I can see - you claim that a move that is legal is also illegal, or later becomes illegal - and that is a pretty fundamental problem.

[it] <sigh> The debate is not about whether element B is in its position by a legal move or otherwise (and Andrew specifically declared that he did not deem the move "illegal" so let's dispense with the Straw Man, eh?) but whether or not the contact between Element 2 and  Element B constitutes close combat and therefore inflicts a -1 tactical factor for the close combat between Element 1 and Element B. From a literal reading of the rules ... it doesn't.

[MikeCampbell]

I don't care whether he used the term illegal or not - that is what he's proposing so hiding it behind semantics is not on.

Let's be clear - he IS sayng that the legal move becomes illegal because it is not in a legal position - how you think that means it is not illegal is beyond me.

I believe the idea that the flanking element is not in combat is foolish.  It vastly complicates the game for no good purpose (what happens in various cases if the flanking element cannot be moved to cover the entire flank - due to friends, due to enemy, due to terrain?)

I can see how you might get your argument from the rules but I think my position is at least equally supoprtable, and infinitely simpler.

[andrew]

This really is getting tiresome!  I think I can speak for myself Mike when it comes to what I said and in case you are hard of reading I will repeat myself here : I did not say it was an illegal contact.  I even went so far as to indicate exactly which sentence not to take out of context in my post!  Stop quoting me out of context and twisting my words to suit whatever argumentative desire remains unsatisfied within you.  I quoted the relevant rules in my first post but you seem determined to ascribe meanings to my posts which don't exist.  Making a legal contact on an element does not automatically create a front edge combat on another - and the rules clearly state front edge combat is a prerequisite for a -1 tactical factor.  It is simple.

Andrew

[MikeCampbell]

Oh ffs - at last we can agree on something - this is tiresome.

my last post on this subject - I never said that you said the initial contact was illegal.

I said that your intepretation makes it an illegal contact in a subsequent move - so what as initially legal becomes illegal -  because you say it has to move - it would not have to move if it was in a legal position!

that is the effect of your argument and if you can't recognise it then I'm sorry but I can't help you any further.

[toby]

Could people please keep this exchange polite. Mudslinging or personal abuse belongs on the DBMM List. I'm not saying that this has reached this stage yet, but if it does I shall remove the thread.