Slitherine

But it does have the effect of making those that are capable of moving away move away from the most dangerous, and those that can't will face the most dangerous.

ShrubMiK wrote:The rules should, as far as possible, produce situations and outcomes that feel like they represent what woul likely happen in reality, so I'm more interested in a rationale of why, in reality, the presence of the second pinning BG would allow the first to be ignored.

You have a reasonable point but I would be interested to see a fix that doesn't introduce more problems than it fixes.

*EDIT*

OK ASCII is not up to the job

How about this:



Where blue BG is the pinned by the two yellow ones. What move do you think it should be allowed?

ShrubMiK wrote:>If you could pin with 2 BGs it would be easy to totally prevent an enemy BG from moving.

Isn't that exactly what should happen? It should certainly be hard for a BG to escape when boxed in, without committing to combat.

>you start getting into all the geometric issues and angling that is one of the biggest faults of DBx.

This rationale gets quoted a lot, but it's a rather selective justification IMO...the fact is that there is plenty of other geometry in FoG. A second pinning BG allowing the "pinned" BG more freedom of action being in itself an example of a geometrical effect.

The rules should, as far as possible, produce situations and outcomes that feel like they represent what woul likely happen in reality, so I'm more interested in a rationale of why, in reality, the presence of the second pinning BG would allow the first to be ignored.

The whole pinning concept is an artifact of playing the game on a tabletop with figures mounted on stands. It is a fairly simple mechanism as currently written and mostly provides the right effect. In order to deal with pinning by multiple units in a more sophisticated fashion, the rule would certainly need to be more complex and would probably tend to encourage play on the table top where a player could line up his charges like a pool shot while his opponent's BG is pinned like a fly in a web. It seems to me that this would result in an even less believable behavior than the current restriction to having only one pinning unit considered. The player with the multiple units in position to pin the opposing BG normally is not forced into this situation so the player normally has the option to not pin with a second unit if he does not want to provide his opponent the option of which pin to respond to.

If you think that pinning is not effective enough in the current rules, I think it would be better to look for more restrictions to impose on a pinned unit in general in terms of the options it is allowed to withdraw from the enemy BG.

Chris

hammy wrote: You have a reasonable point but I would be interested to see a fix that doesn't introduce more problems than it fixes.

*EDIT*

OK ASCII is not up to the job

How about this:



Where blue BG is the pinned by the two yellow ones. What move do you think it should be allowed?

Run away staying in front of both, or charge either.

hammy wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:What's the rationale for only having to take notice of one pinning BG? Seems odd to me.

If you could pin with 2 BGs it would be easy to totally prevent an enemy BG from moving. Making a move that is legal in respect of two different pins when the pins are at angles and just clip your BG is not going to be trivial.

It would surely though not be too difficult to say that a pinned battlegroup has to react to the closest enemy battle group. It's a bit silly that two encroaching enemies leave you with more options than one...

lawrenceg wrote:

hammy wrote: You have a reasonable point but I would be interested to see a fix that doesn't introduce more problems than it fixes.
Where blue BG is the pinned by the two yellow ones. What move do you think it should be allowed?

Run away staying in front of both, or charge either.

Assuming blue is facing down and not skirmishers then it can't move away from both and stay in front. It can't advance and I would be very surprised if the blue BG has enough move to charge either enemy BG as there has to be a pretty big wheel to do so.

I agree that getting more options if you are double pinned is silly but then the person doing the pinning normally has the option to not pin with one of the potential pinning BGs.

If you want to restrict your opponents moves it is to some degree a case of less is more.

>The whole pinning concept is an artifact of playing the game on a tabletop with figures mounted on stands.

Er...no...it is intended to model the fact that in reality an opposing body of troops close enough to shoot and or charge you would limit what you could safely do.

If there are specific cases that prevent the pinned BG from doing anything, then tough. Generally speaking, that's the penalty of getting yourself into that position! It might be an idea to allow turning on the spot, around the centre of mass of the BG, even if no other move were possible. At least then it coudl face up to the more serious threat, or perhaps ensure its flanks are safe.

On the quoted example in particular...I take your point. One thing that *is* an artifact of the game is the turn duration and hence distance that can be moved in a turn, before opposition can react. A smaller BG would have the option of charging one of the pinners. Or the large BG could do so if the game was modelled on a longer turn duration. So it not being to do anything in that specific circumstance might be seen as a game artifact. Or you could look at it as being another manoeverability penalty for a large BG. Allowing it to turn in place would at least give it the option of charging one of them next turn, if they don't do anything in the meantime.

hammy wrote:I agree that getting more options if you are double pinned is silly but then the person doing the pinning normally has the option to not pin with one of the potential pinning BGs.

If you want to restrict your opponents moves it is to some degree a case of less is more.

Less is more, more or less, but I don't less with more goes so far as to be silly. In a fight you can dance around and move/countermove one opponent, but if you have two guys menacing you then you get motivated, even desperate, sometimes panic depending on what kind of damage they have in mind.

On the larger scale, it's possible a unit would dither, cower or freeze like a deer in headlights, but it could well be motivated to take action.

Don't forget a unit is not a single consciousness. Two enemy units menacing either end...people at either end looking outwards worrying about the nearest threat to them, but not wanting to lose touch with their colleagues at the other end. Sure, the commander can decide on what action to take - but I hardly think having two threats to worry about instead of only one is going to make him more decisive, or his troops more willing to obey and turn their backs on one of the threats.

ShrubMiK wrote:- but I hardly think having two threats to worry about instead of only one is going to make him more decisive, or his troops more willing to obey and turn their backs on one of the threats.

Which is why the player, this being a game, will react to the most threatening.

hammy wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

hammy wrote: You have a reasonable point but I would be interested to see a fix that doesn't introduce more problems than it fixes.
Where blue BG is the pinned by the two yellow ones. What move do you think it should be allowed?

Run away staying in front of both, or charge either.

Assuming blue is facing down and not skirmishers then it can't move away from both and stay in front.

Nor could it if only one BG pinned it.

It can't advance and I would be very surprised if the blue BG has enough move to charge either enemy BG as there has to be a pretty big wheel to do so.

Yes, I probably should have added "Remain in place, it may turn or expand but not contract."

I agree that getting more options if you are double pinned is silly but then the person doing the pinning normally has the option to not pin with one of the potential pinning BGs.

This is a valid argument that an urgent change is not needed. If you give the enemy an advantage by double pinning them then it is your own fault and you could have avoided it. (Except there are cases where you can't stop the second pin coming in, eg. it arrives there as a result of compulsory pursuit, evade, or charge.)


At the moment I haven't seen any situation where a double pin would give undue advantage if you have to respond to both pins, but it doesn't mean there aren't any.

ShrubMiK wrote: If there are specific cases that prevent the pinned BG from doing anything, then tough.

and all of a sudden pike become emascualted by two cheap BGS of drilled rubbish as they can be pinned in such a way that they cant move despite beign nigh invincible to either BG.

Similar to the single psiloi Zoccing the side of an entire pike file like a stunned rabbit in dbm 3.0

MikeK wrote:

hammy wrote:I agree that getting more options if you are double pinned is silly but then the person doing the pinning normally has the option to not pin with one of the potential pinning BGs.

If you want to restrict your opponents moves it is to some degree a case of less is more.

Less is more, more or less, but I don't less with more goes so far as to be silly. In a fight you can dance around and move/countermove one opponent, but if you have two guys menacing you then you get motivated, even desperate, sometimes panic depending on what kind of damage they have in mind.

On the larger scale, it's possible a unit would dither, cower or freeze like a deer in headlights, but it could well be motivated to take action.

or it may completely ignore one threat due to the proximity of anther (assumed higher priority). which is what the current rule emulates. Permitting high-precision shepperding is IMO a bad thing.

expendablecinc wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote: If there are specific cases that prevent the pinned BG from doing anything, then tough.

and all of a sudden pike become emascualted by two cheap BGS of drilled rubbish as they can be pinned in such a way that they cant move despite beign nigh invincible to either BG.

IMO that would be pretty difficult to do. A turn in place of 90 or 180 will nearly always be possible and allow a charge next turn.

I can see that two small BGs at 90 degrees both pinning the front of a LH BG would give it problems though.


I think it would be worth looking at a ban on contracting if using the "move away" option, as I get the feeling that that is at the root of most of the strange results.

I do like the way people adopt the line of argument: "if you change the rules in the way you suggest it will lead to an unacceptable situation, therefore we have to stick with what we've got, warts and all, no room for discussion!" Whereas a reasonable alternative is to think about whether there are further changes which would help.

I like lawrence's point. I would go further though. Being restricted to precise 90 or 180 degree turns when threatened by enemy at different angles (which as already suggested would focus the minds of the trhreatened troops, for better or worse) seems a little unfiar.

I repeat from earlier: If you ensure that a pinned BG can always rotate in place if no other move is possible, it will have the option of aligning with and charging one of the pinners next turn. That pinner is now itself pinned, so can't get too cute, especially if it is undrilled rubbish. If the pike BG now dies to a dual charge, one in flank or rear, then that's the price it pays for getting itself into such a pickle. Pike blocks are not supposed to be able to operate effectively independently of the main battle line and flank support!

Whether a rotate of arbitrary amount (which might allow the pinned BG to rotate to a position where it cannot be charged in flank or rear by either opponent) should be allowed, or only the option to align exactly with one of the threats, I'm not sure about.

Agreed that yes voluntarily keeping the second unit outside of pinning distance is often the smart move, where you have the option. I guess many people make that mistake once and hopefully are wiser the second time The downside to that is not getting close enough to have a good chance of catching their evade next turn.

ShrubMiK wrote:I do like the way people adopt the line of argument: "if you change the rules in the way you suggest it will lead to an unacceptable situation, therefore we have to stick with what we've got, warts and all, no room for discussion!" Whereas a reasonable alternative is to think about whether there are further changes which would help.

I was merely pointing out that any 'fix' for this perceived problem would need to be very carefully thought out so as not to introduce a worse problem than it cured.

I like lawrence's point. I would go further though. Being restricted to precise 90 or 180 degree turns when threatened by enemy at different angles (which as already suggested would focus the minds of the trhreatened troops, for better or worse) seems a little unfiar.

If the BG in the diagram was for example knights then if you change the rules to require responding to both restricted areas then a 90 degree turn is not allowed as the BG will change shape when it turns and not end up in front of both BGs.

I repeat from earlier: If you ensure that a pinned BG can always rotate in place if no other move is possible, it will have the option of aligning with and charging one of the pinners next turn. That pinner is now itself pinned, so can't get too cute, especially if it is undrilled rubbish. If the pike BG now dies to a dual charge, one in flank or rear, then that's the price it pays for getting itself into such a pickle. Pike blocks are not supposed to be able to operate effectively independently of the main battle line and flank support!

The rules as they stand allow for a BG to wheel parallel to the pinning BG or as close to parallel as they can. The diagram I posted was attempting to show a situation where such a wheel would not be allowed if both restricted areas had to be respected.

Whether a rotate of arbitrary amount (which might allow the pinned BG to rotate to a position where it cannot be charged in flank or rear by either opponent) should be allowed, or only the option to align exactly with one of the threats, I'm not sure about.

If you allow wheeling past parallel this does allow for a lot more in the way of 'clever' moves and I am not sure this is in any way a good thing.

Agreed that yes voluntarily keeping the second unit outside of pinning distance is often the smart move, where you have the option. I guess many people make that mistake once and hopefully are wiser the second time The downside to that is not getting close enough to have a good chance of catching their evade next turn.

Absolutely.

hammy wrote:[
I was merely pointing out that any 'fix' for this perceived problem would need to be very carefully thought out so as not to introduce a worse problem than it cured.

If the BG in the diagram was for example knights then if you change the rules to require responding to both restricted areas then a 90 degree turn is not allowed as the BG will change shape when it turns and not end up in front of both BGs.

Seen. (I was responding to a point made about pike)

The rules as they stand allow for a BG to wheel parallel to the pinning BG or as close to parallel as they can. The diagram I posted was attempting to show a situation where such a wheel would not be allowed if both restricted areas had to be respected.

Having given it some thought I can see that requiring a BG to remain in front of both pinning groups can quite easily prevent reasonable-looking run-away or prepare-to-attack moves.

I haven't seen any problems (yet) with simply banning contractions on the run-away move and leaving the rest unchanged (so you still only respond to one pinning BG). File it and have another look when you are thinking about V2.0.

That comment wasn't aimed specifically at you Hammy

Good point about the formation change inherent in a 90 degree turn - that hadn't even occurred to me. I assume it doesn't technically count as a contraction, which is explicitly forbidden.

"Respecting" both restricted areas would obviously have to not mean obeying every one of the bullet points for both. Limiting options is the aim, not rendering completely immobile - I'm not that wicked!

Off the top of my head (don't have the rules handy!)...

I'm thinking that obeying the "must remain in front of" requirement should apply to both, unless advancing directly towards one of the pinning BGs; the other bullet points apply only for one of the pinning BGs as chosen by the owner of the pinned BG. This is not too much of a change from the rules as currently written.

Ah, and there's another oddity with the rules as written...replace the knights in the illustrated example with LH in similar situations and they can escape, but it is not allowed for them to escape in what seems like the most realistic direction - straight back, keeping well away from both threats. If they have to stay in front of both they may be immobilised, especially if the pinning BGs are moved around to be more opposite one another. This may not be a showstopper - keeping the LH pinned like that for a period of time, with two pinning BGs that are solid enough to survive its shooting and not be worth it charging either one of them, doesn't sound like a good investment of resources. And if one or both pinners charge we are into the normal evade rules, which have not changed.

But it would be nice to come up with something which allows fast BGs to escape in the intuitive direction. e.g. it must remain in front of all pinners; or charge or advance directly towards one of them; or may move in a direction bisecting the largest angle around the full circle between any two consecutive pinners, as long as the gap is big enough* and it ends far enough away**.


* Say, one base width plus the frontage of the pinned BG.

** Say, 4MU.

Yes, I appreciate it is easy to change rules to fix one thing and break something else