Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Move question

Expand Messages
  • George
    Just as well it s only a game. Looks like suicide, deliberately open a flank to an enemy unit while moving toward but not engaging another enemy light unit;
    Message 1 of 169 , Aug 3 9:15 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Just as well it's only a game. Looks like suicide, deliberately open
      a flank to an enemy unit while moving toward but not engaging another
      enemy light unit; which is simply going to dance away and then attack
      in concert with the spears. Goodnight children. Makes a mockery
      really. IMHO


      --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
      >
      > At Historicon there were only a couple of rules questions. One
      had
      > to do with an element putting another in its base width area of
      > control. Please see the diagram here and send along your comments.
      >
      > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/controlangle.jpg
      >
      > Here is the rule from the book
      > CROSSING AN ENEMY ELEMENT'S FRONT
      > An element directly in front of any part of an enemy element front
      > edge or an enemy-controlled BUA or camp at or closer than 1 base
      > width distance with no other element even partially between, can
      move
      > only to contact or line up facing 1 such element or contact that
      BUA
      > or camp, or directly to its own rear without changing direction,
      or
      > as an outcome move.
      >
      >
      > Thanks much.
      >
      > Bob
      > beattie@...
      >
    • MICHAEL STELZER
      Hear-hear and Bravo! David Kuijt wrote: ... Nope. Look, I ve been trying to avoid getting involved in this thread because, as I said in
      Message 169 of 169 , Aug 25 5:16 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hear-hear and Bravo!

        David Kuijt <kuijt@...> wrote:

        On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Ray Rangel wrote:

        > Dave Kuijt and Bob Beattie,
        >
        > You two have a wealth of DBA experience (much more than I have) and I
        > have the utmost respect for your opinions. Is it your opinion that if
        > movement allowance runs out in midstream an element can continue to
        > the opposite bank for free?

        Nope.

        Look, I've been trying to avoid getting involved in this thread because,
        as I said in my previous post,

        1) it crops up every three years or so, when someone new (unaware of the
        previous discussion) brings it forward; and

        2) all the arguments have been made, over and over again, three and six
        and probably nine years ago; and

        3) it is silly.

        The fundamental argument of the wierd-river crew is this: "must continue"
        on p9 causes some super-power that violates every principle of DBA
        elsewhere in the rules.

        The way everyone I've ever met or played, including PB, ever played that
        rule, no superpower occured.

        NO, you are not required to spend pips. Nothing in DBA creates mandatory
        pip expenditure in future bounds.

        NO, you do not get a conveyer-belt river that moves you at no pip cost.
        Nothing in DBA moves for zero pips except outcome moves and pursuit moves.

        Every move in a river requires pips.

        Every move in a river is voluntary.

        When you are in a river you suffer some restriction on how you can move.
        That's all.

        And please, those of you who are arguing for the "river superpower" side
        -- I don't want to be insulting, and I'm not trying to throttle your
        freedom of speech, but I encourage you to spend some time in the archives
        of past postings, on the yahoo groups site or on fanaticus, before you
        continue this debate. This has all been debated before, at great length.

        David Kuijt





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.