|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 2, 2018 9:57:35 GMT
Hello Gentlefolks, discovered a new rules "problem", which is probably solved by the rules, but which I find a bit strange. So; here it is: Can an element that is in two TZ's freely decide which enemy to attack? According to diagram 7b, I assume that indeed all kinds of acrobatic exercises are allowed to attack any unit of your choice, provided you are in that unit's TZ at the start of that move. If that is true, another question would be whether you need to stay in the TZ for the whole of the move. I would say that you do not need to stay in the TZ, as long as the move ends with making legal front-edge to front-edge combat contact with the element whose TZ the moving element started in. I hope the question and my suggested solution are understandable. They read a bit like something that one might find in the DBA rules book  Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Apr 2, 2018 11:04:21 GMT
You can choose which element to attack. So, for example if you cavalry element is attacked frontally by a spear element and then flanked by a psiloi, your element wins and both enemy elements recoil, you can then turn and attack the psiloi element next move.
With regard to your second question, you must conform to the TZ rules for at least one element, and it seems improbable that you would be able to move out and back in to that element's TZ without infringing the rules.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 2, 2018 12:59:06 GMT
Thank you.
Another one, if I may:
In the same diagram 7b; provided that Spear A moved to contact Blade Y, can Spear B then move forward until it is in the TZ of both Blade X and Blade Y and then move to attack Blade X?
I think that should be legal too.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 2, 2018 23:14:39 GMT
Thank you. Another one, if I may: In the same diagram 7b; provided that Spear A moved to contact Blade Y, can Spear B then move forward until it is in the TZ of both Blade X and Blade Y and then move to attack Blade X? I think that should be legal too. This is a bit of a controversial subject Felixs. The “Threat Zone” rules on page 9 paragraph 8 says:- “(a) to line-up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy (i.e. one such enemy, as listed under (a) above).” To advance towards one enemy then change your target by heading towards a different enemy, just because you have entered a new Threat Zone, means advancing against two such enemies, not one… …first towards one enemy, then towards the other, all in a single move in a single bound, so it is not allowed. This interpretation is also reinforced by the diagrams…assuming that you treat the diagram dialogues as actual rules, and most people do:- If you start a bound in two Threat Zones, you get to choose which TZ generator to attack. (See figure 7b for a list of all the options available to Spear A) If you start in one Threat Zone, but during the move bump into a new TZ, you cannot change your target. (See figure 7b for a list of all the options available to Spear B). Advancing toward Blade Y but then changing it’s mind when it enters the TZ of Blade X is not listed as an option. (See also fanaticus.boards.net/post/9502/ ) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 3, 2018 12:33:51 GMT
Hey there, felixs, ...
...and I will now let fly, showing why this is contentious area.
Stevie is (imho) incorrectly interpreting "one such enemy". There is no temporal "memory" in DBA. Everything is simply as it is. Hence at the conclusion of the element's move, it must have moved in such a way to on the way to lining up with one such enemy. It does NOT say one, and only one, and not any other at any point in the move. In my team. we have always played that you can "switch" as soon as you enter another TZ, since we believe Phil would have written "the first such enemy" if that is what he meant. What he means is that any given instant in the move, there must be one such enemy with which you are attempting to approach/line-up with, etc... DBA excels with the 12 element game, in my view, and at this scale this rule seldom presents an overall problem. Both players keep it in mind, and it is designed to reflect maximal abstraction anyway. It also punishes "kinked" lines a little as well, I suppose?
I will never play the rule using "with first such enemy" as (a) in real live game play, I have never seen it be an issue (sorry, how about fixing the EAPs and their Sparabara, or 4Ax as a troop type first, guys?) and (b) it is likely to have all manner of unintended consequences. Like the requirement to shoot at a target in the TZ of an element. It seemed "logical" right? Even "historical". Likely it was the result of some influence from other systems perhaps? And it has had the bizarre results that long range bow-fire is now massively more effective than short range bow-fire...and has thoroughly nerfed the EAPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 3, 2018 12:35:58 GMT
But Stevie, there are several things missing from the diagrams. Clarity around single elements conforming to a moving, contacting group comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 3, 2018 16:52:04 GMT
Thank you all.
Seems like that one is less clear and merits some thinking about it. And possibly some talk with regular gaming partners to find a solution ante problematic situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 3, 2018 17:15:48 GMT
... If you start in one Threat Zone, but during the move bump into a new TZ, you cannot change your target. (See figure 7b for a list of all the options available to Spear B). Advancing toward Blade Y but then changing it’s mind when it enters the TZ of Blade X is not listed as an option. (See also fanaticus.boards.net/post/9502/ )
But Stevie, there are several things missing from the diagrams. Clarity around single elements conforming to a moving, contacting group comes to mind. Good points Primuspilus (I did say that this is a controversial subject). I thought that all the diagram dialogue errors and omissions had already been fixed several FAQ’s ago. (see fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018 for the latest version) Still, if people want to interpret the Threat Zone rules differently… …and are convinced that the dialogue accompanying diagram 7b is wrong or incomplete… …and that Joe Collins is also wrong… …then they are free to do so. Personally, I think that not allowing elements to switch targets when they enter a new TZ is more realistic:- Being threatened by an enemy TZ should be a disadvantage, limiting your move options. It should not be an advantage, allowing you more instead of less freedom to move. Once troops are committed to an action, it should be difficult to countermand that order at a moments notice. Lastly, it just doesn’t feel right having elements bouncing around in Threat Zones like ball bearings in a pinball machine. Basically, is diagram 7b dialogue correct or not? Until the FAQ Team finally nails this issue, I’m afraid it will remain a point of argument. (I'll go by what the FAQ Team finally decides, but I think they have already, as there have been no new diagram dialogue corrections for a couple of years now) |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 4, 2018 19:30:07 GMT
Dual TZs remain a bit contentious, but the generally accepted interp is that you take the situation when you start moving so in 7b Spear B is in one threat zone and must respond to that TZ as per the Diagram Text (we don't like to throw out Diagram text because it makes already cryptic intentions even more so). Collateral consequences are always a concern and despite playtesting sometimes do not emerge until deep into "actual" play and often require latter tinkering. Eventually all rules will follow the electronic model and allow free updates to fix these inevitable problems (as I already do). But here the collateral consequences we feared stemmed from allowing troops to respond to multiple TZs and hence surf along TZ to TZ.
Close range archery is tricky. It reflects the imposed focus of archers when enemies are bearing down on them, the archers would far prefer to arrow storm from long range. Still impact grows at close range if not organization. I'd suggested giving a +1 to shooting at targets in the TZ but settled instead for just bringing in Shooters from HOTT with +3 v. Foot in general as the simpler solution to beef up archery. Close range shooting at mounted would be less effective in any case because they close the range rapidly when covering short distances.
But I acknowledge that even with the vast improvements we made in interpreting missile combat in 3.0 over 2.0, it remains one of the weaker features of the game. It can be solved with DBX mechanics so its again a problem of implementation not an inherent weakness in DBX (you may have noticed the US suffered a major breakup of players over the modest reforms of DBA 3.0 so getting bed rock reforms would have been an even greater problem). Admittedly missile combat tended to be attrtional something DBX has never handled well.
TomT
|
|
