Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: Two easy pieces...Three more examples

Expand Messages
• 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 1 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
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?
>
>
• 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 2 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
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]
• 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 3 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
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]
>
• 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 4 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
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]
• 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 5 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
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]
• 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 6 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
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]
>
• ... Wow, down 5 vs 9 elements and won the game? My hat s off to you, Bob.
Message 7 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
--- 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.
• 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 8 of 26 , Nov 25, 2012
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
> > >
• 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 9 of 26 , Nov 26, 2012
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]

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

• 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 10 of 26 , Nov 26, 2012
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]
• 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 11 of 26 , Nov 27, 2012
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]

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