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

Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...

Expand Messages
  • Denis Grey
    I m going to chuck in another one.   At the end of a bound, Player A has lost 2 Bd elements and 1 Ps, none of which is the General.  Player B has lost his
    Message 1 of 26 , Nov 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm going to chuck in another one.
       
      At the end of a bound, Player A has lost 2 Bd elements and 1 Ps, none of which is the General.  Player B has lost his General, but none of his other elements.  Has player B lost at this point?  If not, what, if anything, does the word "such" mean in the phrase "has also lost more such elements than the enemy"?
       
      Denis


      ________________________________
      From: Roberts Beattie <beattie@...>
      To: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 15:44
      Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...

       
      Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but I don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here
      http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html

      I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.

      Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses command-and-control?
      Bob
      Dictated and sent from my iPhone

      On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <mailto:a.s.h.marmier%40gmail.com> wrote:

      > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.
      >
      > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)
      >
      > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?
      >
      > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly element. Is element X1 destroyed?
      >
      > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree with me.
      > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the letter of the rule.
      >
      > Ciao
      > Arnaud
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • aufabt33
      On the information provided Player B has lost. Player A has only lost 3 elements. The condition for losing is the general or 4 elements (except those
      Message 2 of 26 , Nov 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On the information provided Player B has lost.
        Player A has only lost 3 elements.

        The condition for losing is the general or 4 elements (except those specified).

        If you wanted to pose a more difficult semantic question you would have Player A losing 4 elements or both players losing the general or 4 elements in the same bound.

        The answer to that IMHO is "the first", which I would take as the player who took the 1st bound of both players bounds (unfair? probably).

        The wording "more such elements" refers to elements other than those list previous (scythed chariots etc). It may also be there to cope with situations where there is more than 1 general (allies or bigger battles BBDBA GDBA).

        Say one side loses 1 general & another element & the other 2 generals.
        You could decide the "tie" on either "the first" to lose them or the one with the most of the specific element.

        Neil

        --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Denis Grey <denisgrey@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'm going to chuck in another one.
        >  
        > At the end of a bound, Player A has lost 2 Bd elements and 1 Ps, none of which is the General.  Player B has lost his General, but none of his other elements.  Has player B lost at this point?  If not, what, if anything, does the word "such" mean in the phrase "has also lost more such elements than the enemy"?
        >  
        > Denis
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Roberts Beattie <beattie@...>
        > To: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
        > Cc: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 15:44
        > Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...
        >
        >  
        > Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but I don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here
        > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html
        >
        > I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.
        >
        > Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses command-and-control?
        > Bob
        > Dictated and sent from my iPhone
        >
        > On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <mailto:a.s.h.marmier%40gmail.com> wrote:
        >
        > > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.
        > >
        > > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)
        > >
        > > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?
        > >
        > > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly element. Is element X1 destroyed?
        > >
        > > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree with me.
        > > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the letter of the rule.
        > >
        > > Ciao
        > > Arnaud
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • aufabt33
        There appears to be some issues highlighted here which are pertinant to the discussion. The rules are not clearly written even though some claim they are .
        Message 3 of 26 , Nov 24, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          There appears to be some issues highlighted here which are pertinant to the discussion.

          "The rules are not clearly written even though some claim they are".

          Possibly some posters have written that, but most rather say they have not found them difficult to understand as others have, which is slightly different.

          The problem is people are falling into "camps" (camp followers?):

          1) The rules are unclear/badly written/need clarification, rewrtting,rephrasing/a guide to interpretation.
          2) You play the rules & if there is a bit that is unclear, decide the outcome between you or roll a dice & move on.
          3) The rules are clear & unambigious (I'm not sure this group exists but some in group 1 clearly do).

          The problem with 1) is that it often becomes a question of semantics.

          ALL written communication is subject to misunderstanding, when you factor in the potential for misunderstanding by both writer & reader it's huge.

          It is very easy to write a set of simplistic wargames rules; move 6" throw a D6 for a hit.
          What is very difficult is conveying what you mean by "move" or "hit".

          It is very easy to write reams on "moves" without being any clearer in what you actually mean.
          It is also easy to write a short sentance which YOU know what you intend to convey but others don't.

          Personally I don't believe it is possible to write wargames rules without someone, somewhere, misunderstanding or getting hung up on flaws in grammar or syntax.

          "We have a retired US Army Colonel"
          Relevant how? Military experience? Education level? I'm not trying to provoke an argument just curious what point you are making.

          If you don't like the rules as written, change them or don't play them. If you group reaches a consensus on how to interpret something where's the problem?

          I did not play WRG ancients for a long time after I gave up on 6th.
          I was invited to play 7th Ed but did not enjoy the experience. I bought a set but struggled to read them. Guess what I never really played 7th. DBM was much the same.

          "Perhaps some of the posters here are more intelligent than others"

          This keeps coming up. I do not recall anyone saying "if you guys cannot understand these simple clear rules you must be morons", yet somehow unless you agree that you cannot understand parts of the rules you are somehow implying it?

          This just leads to heated exchanges.

          I get very frustrated with posts that take a chunk of the rules & say "what does this mean" when what they are trying to say is "I think this is badly written" &/or "I don't understand it".
          Worse still is arguing the semantics of a sentance. It would be more profitable if you posted "I thinks this means XYZ. What do others think?"

          Not understanding something is allowed. It does not follow that this is due to intellegence or lack of it (although of course unfortunately it may).
          Ultimately your understanding is just your interpretation, the problems arise when they differ & a group consensus cannot be found.
          I would have thought this the ideal place to reach a "group concensus" (which may or may not mirror the writer's intent).

          "there are many areas in the rules that are not clear to many people, and this is very evident when a newer player shows up at one of the wargaming conventions for the first time in tournament play"

          And it is no coincidence that the most vocal of group 1 are competition players.
          Was it any different under any other WRG rules or indeed other ancients such as Armati?

          The solution that is proposed is a re-write &/or supplementary guides.
          I do not remember this making the competition scene any different. In fact in some cases it made it worse!
          The author (quite reasonably) insists that he feels what he has written is enough & no further explanation is necessary.

          Having written rules & had them subjected to scrutiny by others I can understand this. Constructive criticism is useful but an author is not obligated to accept it as fact.

          What we seem to have are two very different viewpoints on the rules.

          One is that they should be literal. If something is allowed or intended it should be written unambigiously. If this means they should be 10x as long so be it, in order to ensure it is clear.
          If needs be there should be an "official ruling".

          The other group relies on interpretation. If something is ambigious or both parties interpret it differently, then a compromise or solution is found through mutual agreement or a 3rd party or the role of a dice.

          It is up to the individual to decide which way to play the rules & what is the intent of the writer. I don't think it needs blood spilt over it though.

          Neil



          --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, dicemanrick@... wrote:
          >
          > I agree with Arnaud on B) below. The rules are not clearly written even though some claim they are. We have a retired US Army Colonel in our group (came to DBA recently from a long background of WRG gaming) who reads the rule as Arnaud does and when he asks us, we reply "that's the way its done".
          >
          > Look up "Barkerese" on Google and read the comments from around the world on the writing style in DBA/DBM/DBMM.
          >
          > Perhaps some of the posters here are more intelligent than others, but there are many areas in the rules that are not clear to many people, and this is very evident when a newer player shows up at one of the wargaming conventions for the first time in tournament play.
          >
          > Personally, I don't care if some have "no trouble" reading Barkerese....good for you! But DON'T insist that the rules are understandable when the web forums are full of questions asking what this or that means in the rules. The evidence is on the side that the rules as written are not clear in some spots.
          >
          > I hope the lesson will be learned in 3.0, but I'll bet the price of the Clemente bridge in Pittsburgh that there will be a lot of new questions arising from a new set of rules.
          >
          > Respectfully,
          >
          > Rich (Diceman)
          >
          > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "a_marmier" <a.s.h.marmier@> wrote:
          > >
          > > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.
          > >
          > > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)
          > >
          > > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?
          > >
          > > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly element. Is element X1 destroyed?
          > >
          > > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree with me.
          > > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the letter of the rule.
          > >
          > > Ciao
          > > Arnaud
          > >
          >
        • Robert Beattie
          It s always useful to quote rules exactly as the written when you re making discussions about them. The rule for winning and losing is, the first side that at
          Message 4 of 26 , Nov 24, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            It's always useful to quote rules exactly as the written when you're making discussions about them. The rule for winning and losing is, "the first side that at the end of any bound has lost either it's general or four elements not including (special types) and has also lost more such elements than the enemy loses the battle.

            So one side having lost a general and the other side having lost three elements does not result in a loss for the side losing its general. Because it is not lost more elements than it's opponent. If loss of the general automatically meant loss of the game there would be no reason for a rule that requires extra pips for a side that has lost the general.

            The phrase "the first side at the end of the bound" implies that it is one side or the other. Not the first side during a bound, but at the end of abound. If at the end of the bound both sides have lost four elements, the game continues.

            That last point is not stated in the rules but seems to be common practice. The fact that so many people seem to misunderstand or don't understand the simple part of winning and losing goes to show the rules are not well written in that respect.

            I think that 3.0 is much better in the winning and losing statement. Just be careful you're not a double base general, were you count as three elements lost if the first double-based element lost.

            My Spartacus army especially likes the fact that hordes do not count towards winning and losing. In a recent game I lost five hordes and two other elements but beat my opponent who lost four blades.

            Bob
            Dictated and sent from my iPad

            On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:06 AM, aufabt33 <NSP16@...> wrote:

            > On the information provided Player B has lost.
            > Player A has only lost 3 elements.
            >
            > The condition for losing is the general or 4 elements (except those specified).
            >
            > If you wanted to pose a more difficult semantic question you would have Player A losing 4 elements or both players losing the general or 4 elements in the same bound.
            >
            > The answer to that IMHO is "the first", which I would take as the player who took the 1st bound of both players bounds (unfair? probably).
            >
            > The wording "more such elements" refers to elements other than those list previous (scythed chariots etc). It may also be there to cope with situations where there is more than 1 general (allies or bigger battles BBDBA GDBA).
            >
            > Say one side loses 1 general & another element & the other 2 generals.
            > You could decide the "tie" on either "the first" to lose them or the one with the most of the specific element.
            >
            > Neil
            >
            > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Denis Grey <denisgrey@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > I'm going to chuck in another one.
            > >
            > > At the end of a bound, Player A has lost 2 Bd elements and 1 Ps, none of which is the General. Player B has lost his General, but none of his other elements. Has player B lost at this point? If not, what, if anything, does the word "such" mean in the phrase "has also lost more such elements than the enemy"?
            > >
            > > Denis
            > >
            > >
            > > ________________________________
            > > From: Roberts Beattie <beattie@...>
            > > To: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Cc: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 15:44
            > > Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...
            > >
            > >
            > > Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but I don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here
            > > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html
            > >
            > > I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.
            > >
            > > Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses command-and-control?
            > > Bob
            > > Dictated and sent from my iPhone
            > >
            > > On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <mailto:a.s.h.marmier%40gmail.com> wrote:
            > >
            > > > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.
            > > >
            > > > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)
            > > >
            > > > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?
            > > >
            > > > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly element. Is element X1 destroyed?
            > > >
            > > > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree with me.
            > > > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the letter of the rule.
            > > >
            > > > Ciao
            > > > Arnaud
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John Saunders
            If neither player has won then the game continues until one of them has. Thus if both players have lost four elements at the end of a bound the game continues.
            Message 5 of 26 , Nov 24, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              If neither player has won then the game continues until one of them has.

              Thus if both players have lost four elements at the end of a bound the game continues.

              Equally if one player has lost a general and two elements and the other player has lost three elements the game continues until victory conditions are met.


              3.0 has the same effective situations in that to win you must have killed four elements or equivalent and more than your opponent.

              Antigonas One Eye

              To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
              From: NSP16@...
              Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:06:14 +0000
              Subject: [DBA] Re: Two easy pieces...


























              On the information provided Player B has lost.

              Player A has only lost 3 elements.



              The condition for losing is the general or 4 elements (except those specified).



              If you wanted to pose a more difficult semantic question you would have Player A losing 4 elements or both players losing the general or 4 elements in the same bound.



              The answer to that IMHO is "the first", which I would take as the player who took the 1st bound of both players bounds (unfair? probably).



              The wording "more such elements" refers to elements other than those list previous (scythed chariots etc). It may also be there to cope with situations where there is more than 1 general (allies or bigger battles BBDBA GDBA).



              Say one side loses 1 general & another element & the other 2 generals.

              You could decide the "tie" on either "the first" to lose them or the one with the most of the specific element.



              Neil



              --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Denis Grey <denisgrey@...> wrote:

              >

              > I'm going to� chuck in another one.

              > �

              > At the end of a bound, Player A has lost 2 Bd elements and 1 Ps, none of which is the General.� Player B has lost his General, but none of his other elements.� Has player� B� lost at this point?� If not, what, if anything, does the word "such" mean in the phrase "has also lost more such elements than the enemy"?

              > �

              > Denis

              >

              >

              > ________________________________

              > From: Roberts Beattie <beattie@...>

              > To: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>

              > Cc: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>

              > Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 15:44

              > Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...

              >

              > �

              > Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but I don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here

              > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html

              >

              > I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.

              >

              > Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses command-and-control?

              > Bob

              > Dictated and sent from my iPhone

              >

              > On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <mailto:a.s.h.marmier%40gmail.com> wrote:

              >

              > > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.

              > >

              > > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)

              > >

              > > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?

              > >

              > > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly element. Is element X1 destroyed?

              > >

              > > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree with me.

              > > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the letter of the rule.

              > >

              > > Ciao

              > > Arnaud

              > >

              > >

              >

              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              >

              >

              >

              >

              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              >


















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • John Saunders
              Here are three examples which relate to 3.0. They do not relate to 2.2 because the concepts involved have changed. a) Two friendly elements A and B are in
              Message 6 of 26 , Nov 24, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Here are three examples which relate to 3.0. They do not relate to 2.2 because the concepts involved have changed.

                a) Two friendly elements A and B are in mutual side edge to side edge contact with each other. An enemy element C is in front edge contact with the side edge of A (the edge not in contact with B). Is B in the threat zone of C?

                b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z in the threat zone of A?

                c) At deployment two elements, one from each side are directly opposite each other. They move directly towards each other in successive bounds for a total of 6 Base widths. Is contact possible between these two elements at this stage?


                To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                From: NSP16@...
                Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:06:14 +0000
                Subject: [DBA] Re: Two easy pieces...


























                On the information provided Player B has lost.

                Player A has only lost 3 elements.



                The condition for losing is the general or 4 elements (except those specified).



                If you wanted to pose a more difficult semantic question you would have Player A losing 4 elements or both players losing the general or 4 elements in the same bound.



                The answer to that IMHO is "the first", which I would take as the player who took the 1st bound of both players bounds (unfair? probably).



                The wording "more such elements" refers to elements other than those list previous (scythed chariots etc). It may also be there to cope with situations where there is more than 1 general (allies or bigger battles BBDBA GDBA).



                Say one side loses 1 general & another element & the other 2 generals.

                You could decide the "tie" on either "the first" to lose them or the one with the most of the specific element.



                Neil



                --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Denis Grey <denisgrey@...> wrote:

                >

                > I'm going to� chuck in another one.

                > �

                > At the end of a bound, Player A has lost 2 Bd elements and 1 Ps, none of which is the General.� Player B has lost his General, but none of his other elements.� Has player� B� lost at this point?� If not, what, if anything, does the word "such" mean in the phrase "has also lost more such elements than the enemy"?

                > �

                > Denis

                >

                >

                > ________________________________

                > From: Roberts Beattie <beattie@...>

                > To: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>

                > Cc: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>

                > Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 15:44

                > Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...

                >

                > �

                > Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but I don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here

                > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html

                >

                > I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.

                >

                > Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses command-and-control?

                > Bob

                > Dictated and sent from my iPhone

                >

                > On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <mailto:a.s.h.marmier%40gmail.com> wrote:

                >

                > > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.

                > >

                > > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)

                > >

                > > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?

                > >

                > > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly element. Is element X1 destroyed?

                > >

                > > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree with me.

                > > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the letter of the rule.

                > >

                > > Ciao

                > > Arnaud

                > >

                > >

                >

                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                >

                >

                >

                >

                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                >


















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • SBSchifani
                b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z
                Message 7 of 26 , Nov 24, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z in the threat zone of A?

                  ***No, a threat zone only exists in front of an element not in close combat, so they did cover this particular situation. But I do kind of see where you are going with this line of questioning and I'm also curious to learn what's intended. Makes me glad I play on a square grid.
                • Dale Hurtt
                  ... Or not well read by the players. I think many players are introduced to DBA by others and incorrectly told that you win when when you get to four. It is
                  Message 8 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > That last point is not stated in the rules but seems to be common practice. The fact that so many people seem to misunderstand or don't understand the simple part of winning and losing goes to show the rules are not well written in that respect.

                    Or not well read by the players. I think many players are introduced to DBA by others and incorrectly told that you win when when you get to four. It is only when you get to a situation where both are at four, and you're forced to look up the rule, that you may finally notice the rule was written differently than you were told.

                    Dale
                  • Dale Hurtt
                    ... Have you come up with a version of DBA 3 squared yet? Dale
                    Message 9 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "SBSchifani" <Schifani@...> wrote:
                      > Makes me glad I play on a square grid.

                      Have you come up with a version of DBA 3 squared yet?

                      Dale
                    • SBSchifani
                      ... I think so. I haven t tried it yet, but have a few friends willing to help me test it. I ve thought through how to handle the obvious changes, such as
                      Message 10 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Makes me glad I play on a square grid.
                        >
                        > Have you come up with a version of DBA 3 squared yet?

                        I think so. I haven't tried it yet, but have a few friends willing to help me test it. I've thought through how to handle the obvious changes, such as fleeing and recoiling. There's probably something I missed that won't be noticed till I actually get to play.

                        i'm looking forward to playing, as 3.0 looks like a very fun version with new challenges.
                      • WilliamM
                        In a) and b) no, but only as the elements that would exert the TZ are in close combat. If the elemnts contacted were to be removed, then the answer would be
                        Message 11 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a) and b) no, but only as the elements that would exert the TZ are in close combat.

                          If the elemnts contacted were to be removed, then the answer would be yes in both cases - the TZ extends to the limit of the 1BW (within means at or closer than).

                          The answer to c) is yes (or rather it is in the latest version as deployment is now "at least" 3BW from the centre rather than "more than". This version should appear in the files soon).

                          Bill

                          --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Here are three examples which relate to 3.0. They do not relate to 2.2 because the concepts involved have changed.
                          >
                          > a) Two friendly elements A and B are in mutual side edge to side edge contact with each other. An enemy element C is in front edge contact with the side edge of A (the edge not in contact with B). Is B in the threat zone of C?
                          >
                          > b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z in the threat zone of A?
                          >
                          > c) At deployment two elements, one from each side are directly opposite each other. They move directly towards each other in successive bounds for a total of 6 Base widths. Is contact possible between these two elements at this stage?
                          >
                          >
                        • Robert Beattie
                          The situation in a) is always discussed but is never agreed upon. C is in front edge contact with side A which is in side edge contact with B. If we take
                          Message 12 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The situation in a) is always discussed but is never agreed upon. C is in front edge contact with side A which is in side edge contact with B. If we take out A is B more than a base width distant from C?

                            CAAAABBBB
                            C
                            C
                            C

                            Bob
                            Dictated and sent from my iPad

                            On Nov 25, 2012, at 1:45 PM, WilliamM <turenne@...> wrote:

                            > In a) and b) no, but only as the elements that would exert the TZ are in close combat.
                            >
                            > If the elemnts contacted were to be removed, then the answer would be yes in both cases - the TZ extends to the limit of the 1BW (within means at or closer than).
                            >
                            > The answer to c) is yes (or rather it is in the latest version as deployment is now "at least" 3BW from the centre rather than "more than". This version should appear in the files soon).
                            >
                            > Bill
                            >
                            > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Here are three examples which relate to 3.0. They do not relate to 2.2 because the concepts involved have changed.
                            > >
                            > > a) Two friendly elements A and B are in mutual side edge to side edge contact with each other. An enemy element C is in front edge contact with the side edge of A (the edge not in contact with B). Is B in the threat zone of C?
                            > >
                            > > b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z in the threat zone of A?
                            > >
                            > > c) At deployment two elements, one from each side are directly opposite each other. They move directly towards each other in successive bounds for a total of 6 Base widths. Is contact possible between these two elements at this stage?
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • lkmjbc3
                            No, Within means at or closer than . Page 2 of the rules... mid page. So B is within 1 base width distance of C by definition. If A was not there, then B
                            Message 13 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              No,
                              "Within" means "at or closer than". Page 2 of the rules... mid page.
                              So B is "within" 1 base width distance of C by definition.

                              If A was not there, then B would be in C's threat zone.

                              "The area 1 BW deep in front of an element not in close combat (in which an enemy risks being suddenly charged or shot from close range) or within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or fort containing enemy is its Threat Zone (TZ). An element or group at the far edge of, in or entering an enemy TZ can move only:"

                              Element "B" is "within" the 1 BW deep definition ("at or closer than")

                              If element A is there... then there is no threat zone. Element C is is in "Close combat", which "occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element"... Page 10.

                              Thus element C meets the definition for close combat upon making contact and does not exert a threat zone.

                              Joe Collins






                              --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > The situation in a) is always discussed but is never agreed upon. C is in front edge contact with side A which is in side edge contact with B. If we take out A is B more than a base width distant from C?
                              >
                              > CAAAABBBB
                              > C
                              > C
                              > C
                              >
                              > Bob
                              > Dictated and sent from my iPad
                              >
                              > On Nov 25, 2012, at 1:45 PM, WilliamM <turenne@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > In a) and b) no, but only as the elements that would exert the TZ are in close combat.
                              > >
                              > > If the elemnts contacted were to be removed, then the answer would be yes in both cases - the TZ extends to the limit of the 1BW (within means at or closer than).
                              > >
                              > > The answer to c) is yes (or rather it is in the latest version as deployment is now "at least" 3BW from the centre rather than "more than". This version should appear in the files soon).
                              > >
                              > > Bill
                              > >
                              > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Here are three examples which relate to 3.0. They do not relate to 2.2 because the concepts involved have changed.
                              > > >
                              > > > a) Two friendly elements A and B are in mutual side edge to side edge contact with each other. An enemy element C is in front edge contact with the side edge of A (the edge not in contact with B). Is B in the threat zone of C?
                              > > >
                              > > > b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z in the threat zone of A?
                              > > >
                              > > > c) At deployment two elements, one from each side are directly opposite each other. They move directly towards each other in successive bounds for a total of 6 Base widths. Is contact possible between these two elements at this stage?
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • Robert Beattie
                              If B is further away from C than the whole base width of A isn t B them outside of a base width? The Right edge of A is at the base width of A. B is outside
                              Message 14 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                If B is further away from C than the whole base width of A isn't B them outside of a base width? The Right edge of A is at the base width of A. B is outside of that edge. So it is outside a base width.

                                Another version of this. Consider a square -based element, with another element directly behind it. The front element is in close combat and is destroyed. is the element behind it now in the Threat zone of the victorious element?

                                If there is the space equal to a "barker marker" between an element and an enemy is the enemy then outside of the threat zone?

                                Bob
                                Dictated and sent from my iPad

                                On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:26 PM, lkmjbc3 <JCollins@...> wrote:

                                > No,
                                > "Within" means "at or closer than". Page 2 of the rules... mid page.
                                > So B is "within" 1 base width distance of C by definition.
                                >
                                > If A was not there, then B would be in C's threat zone.
                                >
                                > "The area 1 BW deep in front of an element not in close combat (in which an enemy risks being suddenly charged or shot from close range) or within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or fort containing enemy is its Threat Zone (TZ). An element or group at the far edge of, in or entering an enemy TZ can move only:"
                                >
                                > Element "B" is "within" the 1 BW deep definition ("at or closer than")
                                >
                                > If element A is there... then there is no threat zone. Element C is is in "Close combat", which "occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element"... Page 10.
                                >
                                > Thus element C meets the definition for close combat upon making contact and does not exert a threat zone.
                                >
                                > Joe Collins
                                >
                                > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > The situation in a) is always discussed but is never agreed upon. C is in front edge contact with side A which is in side edge contact with B. If we take out A is B more than a base width distant from C?
                                > >
                                > > CAAAABBBB
                                > > C
                                > > C
                                > > C
                                > >
                                > > Bob
                                > > Dictated and sent from my iPad
                                > >
                                > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 1:45 PM, WilliamM <turenne@...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > In a) and b) no, but only as the elements that would exert the TZ are in close combat.
                                > > >
                                > > > If the elemnts contacted were to be removed, then the answer would be yes in both cases - the TZ extends to the limit of the 1BW (within means at or closer than).
                                > > >
                                > > > The answer to c) is yes (or rather it is in the latest version as deployment is now "at least" 3BW from the centre rather than "more than". This version should appear in the files soon).
                                > > >
                                > > > Bill
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Here are three examples which relate to 3.0. They do not relate to 2.2 because the concepts involved have changed.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > a) Two friendly elements A and B are in mutual side edge to side edge contact with each other. An enemy element C is in front edge contact with the side edge of A (the edge not in contact with B). Is B in the threat zone of C?
                                > > > >
                                > > > > b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z in the threat zone of A?
                                > > > >
                                > > > > c) At deployment two elements, one from each side are directly opposite each other. They move directly towards each other in successive bounds for a total of 6 Base widths. Is contact possible between these two elements at this stage?
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Barry Carter
                                Your grid system sounds interesting - I have tinkered with one myself on a very ad hoc basis and found it worked very well, although I did not go into any
                                Message 15 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Your grid system sounds interesting - I have tinkered with one myself on a very ad hoc basis and found it worked very well, although I did not go into any depth in fully integrating the rules with the grid. I  look forward to further reports.


                                  From: SBSchifani <Schifani@...>
                                  To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 15:33
                                  Subject: [DBA] Re: Two easy pieces...Three more examples

                                   

                                  > Makes me glad I play on a square grid.
                                  >
                                  > Have you come up with a version of DBA 3 squared yet?

                                  I think so. I haven't tried it yet, but have a few friends willing to help me test it. I've thought through how to handle the obvious changes, such as fleeing and recoiling. There's probably something I missed that won't be noticed till I actually get to play.

                                  i'm looking forward to playing, as 3.0 looks like a very fun version with new challenges.




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • lkmjbc3
                                  I don t know whether you would define it outside or not. The convention is whether it is within 1 BW or not. The situation stated has the element 1BW away.
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I don't know whether you would define it outside or not. The convention is whether it is within 1 BW or not. The situation stated has the element 1BW away. Phil defines this on page 2 as being within... so, as far as the rules are concerned the element is within the threat zone.

                                    To state otherwise is to ignore the definition of "within" on page 2.

                                    As to your example 2. The unit is at exactly 1 BW. By the definition Phil gives of within, that unit is in a threat zone by the definition of within given on page two.

                                    As to your example 3, if there is exactly 1 Barker marker distance between units then the units are within the threat zone as defined on page2.

                                    All of this is of course why we have a definition on page 2.

                                    Joe Collins


                                    --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > If B is further away from C than the whole base width of A isn't B them outside of a base width? The Right edge of A is at the base width of A. B is outside of that edge. So it is outside a base width.
                                    >
                                    > Another version of this. Consider a square -based element, with another element directly behind it. The front element is in close combat and is destroyed. is the element behind it now in the Threat zone of the victorious element?
                                    >
                                    > If there is the space equal to a "barker marker" between an element and an enemy is the enemy then outside of the threat zone?
                                    >
                                    > Bob
                                    > Dictated and sent from my iPad
                                    >
                                    > On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:26 PM, lkmjbc3 <JCollins@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > No,
                                    > > "Within" means "at or closer than". Page 2 of the rules... mid page.
                                    > > So B is "within" 1 base width distance of C by definition.
                                    > >
                                    > > If A was not there, then B would be in C's threat zone.
                                    > >
                                    > > "The area 1 BW deep in front of an element not in close combat (in which an enemy risks being suddenly charged or shot from close range) or within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or fort containing enemy is its Threat Zone (TZ). An element or group at the far edge of, in or entering an enemy TZ can move only:"
                                    > >
                                    > > Element "B" is "within" the 1 BW deep definition ("at or closer than")
                                    > >
                                    > > If element A is there... then there is no threat zone. Element C is is in "Close combat", which "occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element"... Page 10.
                                    > >
                                    > > Thus element C meets the definition for close combat upon making contact and does not exert a threat zone.
                                    > >
                                    > > Joe Collins
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The situation in a) is always discussed but is never agreed upon. C is in front edge contact with side A which is in side edge contact with B. If we take out A is B more than a base width distant from C?
                                    > > >
                                    > > > CAAAABBBB
                                    > > > C
                                    > > > C
                                    > > > C
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Bob
                                    > > > Dictated and sent from my iPad
                                    > > >
                                    > > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 1:45 PM, WilliamM <turenne@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > > In a) and b) no, but only as the elements that would exert the TZ are in close combat.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > If the elemnts contacted were to be removed, then the answer would be yes in both cases - the TZ extends to the limit of the 1BW (within means at or closer than).
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > The answer to c) is yes (or rather it is in the latest version as deployment is now "at least" 3BW from the centre rather than "more than". This version should appear in the files soon).
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Bill
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@> wrote:
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Here are three examples which relate to 3.0. They do not relate to 2.2 because the concepts involved have changed.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > a) Two friendly elements A and B are in mutual side edge to side edge contact with each other. An enemy element C is in front edge contact with the side edge of A (the edge not in contact with B). Is B in the threat zone of C?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > b) A column of three elements of Bw, ( X, Y and Z ) such that Y is behind X and Z is behind Y . The front edge of X is contacted by an enemy element A. Is Z in the threat zone of A?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > c) At deployment two elements, one from each side are directly opposite each other. They move directly towards each other in successive bounds for a total of 6 Base widths. Is contact possible between these two elements at this stage?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • wmereseigh
                                    ... Wow, down 5 vs 9 elements and won the game? My hat s off to you, Bob.
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > It's always useful to quote rules exactly as the written when you're making discussions about them. The rule for winning and losing is, "the first side that at the end of any bound has lost either it's general or four elements not including (special types) and has also lost more such elements than the enemy loses the battle.
                                      >
                                      > So one side having lost a general and the other side having lost three elements does not result in a loss for the side losing its general. Because it is not lost more elements than it's opponent. If loss of the general automatically meant loss of the game there would be no reason for a rule that requires extra pips for a side that has lost the general.
                                      >
                                      > The phrase "the first side at the end of the bound" implies that it is one side or the other. Not the first side during a bound, but at the end of abound. If at the end of the bound both sides have lost four elements, the game continues.
                                      >
                                      > That last point is not stated in the rules but seems to be common practice. The fact that so many people seem to misunderstand or don't understand the simple part of winning and losing goes to show the rules are not well written in that respect.
                                      >
                                      > I think that 3.0 is much better in the winning and losing statement. Just be careful you're not a double base general, were you count as three elements lost if the first double-based element lost.
                                      >
                                      > My Spartacus army especially likes the fact that hordes do not count towards winning and losing. In a recent game I lost five hordes and two other elements but beat my opponent who lost four blades.
                                      >
                                      > Bob
                                      > Dictated and sent from my iPad


                                      Wow, down 5 vs 9 elements and won the game? My hat's off to you, Bob.
                                    • Jack
                                      In DBA 2.2, if a chariot element (40mm square) recoils, it remains in mutual ZOC with the opposing element. I would think that this is an analogous situation.
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In DBA 2.2, if a chariot element (40mm square) recoils, it remains in mutual ZOC with the opposing element. I would think that this is an analogous situation.

                                        So in the described situation, A contacts B in the flank:

                                        ABBBBCCCC
                                        A
                                        A
                                        A

                                        B turns to face:

                                        AB CCCC
                                        AB
                                        AB
                                        AB

                                        And if B recoils in combat you end up with this (in bad ASCII art):

                                        A B CCCC
                                        A B
                                        A B
                                        A B

                                        With X-Ray ZOC, both B and C are in the TZ of element A (the left edge of element C is "at" 40mm).

                                        An important consequence of this is that C may not move into side-to-side contact with B unless B moves into contact with A first. This means you can't spend just one PIP and get C into a position to provide overlap if A renews the attack on B.

                                        - Jack

                                        --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > If B is further away from C than the whole base width of A isn't B them outside of a base width? The Right edge of A is at the base width of A. B is outside of that edge. So it is outside a base width.
                                        >
                                        > Another version of this. Consider a square -based element, with another element directly behind it. The front element is in close combat and is destroyed. is the element behind it now in the Threat zone of the victorious element?
                                        >
                                        > If there is the space equal to a "barker marker" between an element and an enemy is the enemy then outside of the threat zone?
                                        >
                                        > Bob
                                        > Dictated and sent from my iPad
                                        >
                                        > On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:26 PM, lkmjbc3 <JCollins@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > No,
                                        > > "Within" means "at or closer than". Page 2 of the rules... mid page.
                                        > > So B is "within" 1 base width distance of C by definition.
                                        > >
                                        > > If A was not there, then B would be in C's threat zone.
                                        > >
                                        > > "The area 1 BW deep in front of an element not in close combat (in which an enemy risks being suddenly charged or shot from close range) or within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or fort containing enemy is its Threat Zone (TZ). An element or group at the far edge of, in or entering an enemy TZ can move only:"
                                        > >
                                        > > Element "B" is "within" the 1 BW deep definition ("at or closer than")
                                        > >
                                        > > If element A is there... then there is no threat zone. Element C is is in "Close combat", which "occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element"... Page 10.
                                        > >
                                        > > Thus element C meets the definition for close combat upon making contact and does not exert a threat zone.
                                        > >
                                        > > Joe Collins
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Robert Beattie <beattie@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > The situation in a) is always discussed but is never agreed upon. C is in front edge contact with side A which is in side edge contact with B. If we take out A is B more than a base width distant from C?
                                        > > >
                                        > > > CAAAABBBB
                                        > > > C
                                        > > > C
                                        > > > C
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Bob
                                        > > > Dictated and sent from my iPad
                                        > > >
                                      • Phil Barker
                                        You form a column by moving one element behind another! Phil ... From: Roberts Beattie Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:44 PM To: DBA@yahoogroups.com Cc:
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Nov 26, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          You form a column by moving one element behind another!

                                          Phil

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Roberts Beattie
                                          Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:44 PM
                                          To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                          Cc: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...

                                          Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but I
                                          don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy
                                          was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here
                                          http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html

                                          I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.

                                          Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the
                                          general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses
                                          command-and-control?
                                          Bob
                                          Dictated and sent from my iPhone

                                          On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <a.s.h.marmier@...> wrote:

                                          > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.
                                          >
                                          > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)
                                          >
                                          > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?
                                          >
                                          > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in
                                          > contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly
                                          > element. Is element X1 destroyed?
                                          >
                                          > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree
                                          > with me.
                                          > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been
                                          > playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the
                                          > letter of the rule.
                                          >
                                          > Ciao
                                          > Arnaud
                                          >
                                          >


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                          ------------------------------------

                                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        • Robert Beattie
                                          Yes, in a physical sense, you pick up one element and you put it behind another, But in game terms, Is it a group move, or is it element by element? Can the
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Nov 26, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Yes, in a physical sense, you pick up one element and you put it behind another, But in game terms, Is it a group move, or is it element by element? Can the column stretch backwards or only forwards?

                                            In 2005, in response to this question, you wrote

                                            "A group can always reduce frontage to become a column. "Such a column" in the group move rule means "a single element wide column."
                                            When a group changes into a column, the future leading element of the column must move and the other elements of the group join in behind, slipping sideways to stay in contact with each other. They are NOT moving individually - the group is reducing its frontage. Once in the column, each element moves the same distance as the leader and wheels in succession at the same places through the same angles.

                                            This was excellent but not in the rules so I wonder how people formed a column based on the 2.2 text. This is a good rule, much like the HOTT rule, but sadly changed for 3.0

                                            "A group move can include reducing frontage to form such a column for this or any other purpose. The leading element moves forward, then others successively join behind it, moving as if by single element moves. No element can end with its front edge further to its original rear. Elements that do not join the tail of the column that bound are no longer part of the same group."

                                            I feel sorry for the poor elements that were part of the original group and are now left behind.


                                            Bitchy Bob




                                            On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Phil Barker wrote:

                                            > You form a column by moving one element behind another!
                                            >
                                            > Phil
                                            >
                                            > -----Original Message-----
                                            > From: Roberts Beattie
                                            > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:44 PM
                                            > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Cc: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...
                                            >
                                            > Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but I
                                            > don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy
                                            > was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here
                                            > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html
                                            >
                                            > I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.
                                            >
                                            > Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the
                                            > general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses
                                            > command-and-control?
                                            > Bob
                                            > Dictated and sent from my iPhone
                                            >
                                            > On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <a.s.h.marmier@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.
                                            > >
                                            > > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)
                                            > >
                                            > > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?
                                            > >
                                            > > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in
                                            > > contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly
                                            > > element. Is element X1 destroyed?
                                            > >
                                            > > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people disagree
                                            > > with me.
                                            > > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been
                                            > > playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the
                                            > > letter of the rule.
                                            > >
                                            > > Ciao
                                            > > Arnaud
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Phil Barker
                                            If a group changes into a column, it is already a group, so does this with a group move. If several single elements want to join into a column, they do so by
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Nov 27, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              If a group changes into a column, it is already a group, so does this with a
                                              group move. If several single elements want to join into a column, they do
                                              so by single element moves.

                                              Phil

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: Robert Beattie
                                              Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 5:56 PM
                                              To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...

                                              Yes, in a physical sense, you pick up one element and you put it behind
                                              another, But in game terms, Is it a group move, or is it element by
                                              element? Can the column stretch backwards or only forwards?

                                              In 2005, in response to this question, you wrote

                                              "A group can always reduce frontage to become a column. "Such a column" in
                                              the group move rule means "a single element wide column."
                                              When a group changes into a column, the future leading element of the column
                                              must move and the other elements of the group join in behind, slipping
                                              sideways to stay in contact with each other. They are NOT moving
                                              individually - the group is reducing its frontage. Once in the column, each
                                              element moves the same distance as the leader and wheels in succession at
                                              the same places through the same angles.

                                              This was excellent but not in the rules so I wonder how people formed a
                                              column based on the 2.2 text. This is a good rule, much like the HOTT rule,
                                              but sadly changed for 3.0

                                              "A group move can include reducing frontage to form such a column for this
                                              or any other purpose. The leading element moves forward, then others
                                              successively join behind it, moving as if by single element moves. No
                                              element can end with its front edge further to its original rear. Elements
                                              that do not join the tail of the column that bound are no longer part of the
                                              same group."

                                              I feel sorry for the poor elements that were part of the original group and
                                              are now left behind.


                                              Bitchy Bob




                                              On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Phil Barker wrote:

                                              > You form a column by moving one element behind another!
                                              >
                                              > Phil
                                              >
                                              > -----Original Message-----
                                              > From: Roberts Beattie
                                              > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:44 PM
                                              > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Cc: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Subject: Re: [DBA] Two easy pieces...
                                              >
                                              > Those are good points. I thought The littoral landing was 0-4 elements but
                                              > I
                                              > don't have the book here. The question about recoiling and meeting enemy
                                              > was Troublesome But Phil gave a clarification posted here
                                              > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html
                                              >
                                              > I posted this to fanaticus and maybe to the Yahoo group too.
                                              >
                                              > Another good piece, how do you form a column? And another, how much of the
                                              > general has to be in or out of bad going before he loses
                                              > command-and-control?
                                              > Bob
                                              > Dictated and sent from my iPhone
                                              >
                                              > On Nov 22, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "a_marmier" <a.s.h.marmier@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > ...for the "DBA is easy to read" contributors.
                                              > >
                                              > > (all DBA2.2, even if B/ has relevance to clarity in 3.0)
                                              > >
                                              > > A/ Is it possible to do a littoral landing with 1 element only?
                                              > >
                                              > > B/ Element X1 recoils. Exactly at the end of its recoil, it ends in
                                              > > contact with either an enemey element or the back edge of a friendly
                                              > > element. Is element X1 destroyed?
                                              > >
                                              > > I do not know the answer to A. Well I think I do, but many people
                                              > > disagree
                                              > > with me.
                                              > > I'm pretty sure I know the answer to B, but that's because I have been
                                              > > playing DBx style games for 15 years. And that answers contradict the
                                              > > letter of the rule.
                                              > >
                                              > > Ciao
                                              > > Arnaud
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >



                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                              ------------------------------------

                                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.