|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 1, 2017 19:54:51 GMT
Esteemed Gentlefolks,
I am confused...
The rules on p. 2 say "'Within' means 'at or closer than'.
Fine. Sounds like a reasonable rule. I like it.
Then, on p. 9 in the rules for the "Threat Zone", it is made clear, that "An element or group which is at least partly
within" such a Threat Zone is due to certain restrictions.
Again, that is all totally reasonable and unambigous.
But then, on p. 19 fig. 8, Light Horse B clearly must be considered to be inside the Threat Zone of Cavalry X if it is "touching the line", as it is stated.
Can anyone enlighten me on what all this means?
I agree with the interpretation in p. 19, fig. 8, because otherwise the so-called "closing the door maneuver" would be impossible due to Threat Zone problems. But where do the rules say so?
Thank you.
Felix
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 2, 2017 13:24:19 GMT
I think the answer is in the definition of a threat zone in the second sentence of Threat Zone paragraph on page 9 where it refers to touching the far edge. I read into this that if your front edge is touching the far edge of a threat zone, you are in it whereas you are not if you are only touching one of the side edges of the zone. Note that it is your front edge that needs to touch the far edge of the threat zone to be considered in it.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 3, 2017 3:55:49 GMT
Esteemed Gentlefolks, I am confused... The rules on p. 2 say "'Within' means 'at or closer than'. Fine. Sounds like a reasonable rule. I like it. Then, on p. 9 in the rules for the "Threat Zone", it is made clear, that "An element or group which is at least partly within" such a Threat Zone is due to certain restrictions. Again, that is all totally reasonable and unambigous. But then, on p. 19 fig. 8, Light Horse B clearly must be considered to be inside the Threat Zone of Cavalry X if it is "touching the line", as it is stated. Can anyone enlighten me on what all this means? I agree with the interpretation in p. 19, fig. 8, because otherwise the so-called "closing the door maneuver" would be impossible due to Threat Zone problems. But where do the rules say so? Thank you. Felix The use of the word "within" in the threat zone paragraph is a mistake. It wasn't in earlier versions of the play test rules. This lead to the use of "touching the far edge". Close to publication the "within" mysteriously returned. When it was noticed, the timing was too late to change it back. There are several other examples of last minute revisions of the text that have caused errors. Another example is that rear corner to rear corner contact should be considered overlap to standardize the game for both 15 millimeter and 25 millimeter scales. Tom and had this worked out with Phil and added to the text. Later, it disappeared and neither Tom nor I noticed until it was too late to change. Similar things happened with the diagrams. Though the good news here is that the version after our proofread version contained a few new diagrams...but also some mistakes. There is always the hope of 3.1 Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 4, 2017 18:25:30 GMT
Simon: To me that still seems unclear, because of the "or" in that sentence ("which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge")
Joe: Is that what you are referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 4, 2017 20:08:13 GMT
I read it that if any part of the unit is within (inside) the threat zone then its actions are limited as described (eg if it just the rear half of a element) but the only time touching the far edge makes an element subject to the threat zone restrictions is if it is with the front edge of the unit. So if just the side or rear edge is contacting the far edge then it is not considered in the threat zone.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 4, 2017 20:29:37 GMT
The problem is p. 2 "'Within' means 'at or closer than'.
Thus: "touching" is "at", which is "within".
If I understand Joe correctly, he suggests that in the "Threat Zone" part of the rules (p. 9) there should be not "within", but something else. That would be a logical solution. But, alas, it is not so in the rules as printed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 5, 2017 1:08:12 GMT
The problem is p. 2 "'Within' means 'at or closer than'. Thus: "touching" is "at", which is "within". If I understand Joe correctly, he suggests that in the "Threat Zone" part of the rules (p. 9) there should be not "within", but something else. That would be a logical solution. But, alas, it is not so in the rules as printed. Yes...."inside" would have been better. The rules as written are unplayable. The diagrams however set us straight. Thank goodness... Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 5, 2017 4:31:43 GMT
Joe, what do you mean the rules are unplayable? I've played hundreds of games with no trouble whatsoever so have many others that I know. Are you using hyperbole here? An element that has its frontage edge at or inside of an enemy's threat zone, that is to say "within," is limited in what it can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 5, 2017 8:12:02 GMT
Thank you all for your very useful explanations and opinions.
Bob: As explained above, unfortunately "within" is defined in such a way that "closing the door" would not be possible.
(I do, of course, agree with everyone here on how it /should/ be played. )
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 5, 2017 17:06:43 GMT
You are welcome Felixs...
As I stated above... a simple substitution of the word "inside" for "within" fixes this problem...
As you say...everyone agrees on how this plays and the diagrams show this as well.
Bob... only a slight amount of hyperbole.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 5, 2017 18:57:19 GMT
The question goes to one of our lesser moments re rule perfection (much harder than it looks...)
Here is the standard interp, I and most GMs, use: The front edge of a TZ is "in" the TZ but not the side edges. So if you get Recoiled exactly one BW you are still in the TZ BUT you can "skim or touch" the sides edges without being "in" the TZ.
A subtle but vital interp.
Related knotty problem: what about the front and side edges of the Shooting Arc (really a 3BW X 3BW square). I think we all agree that the front edge (i.e. exactly 3BW) is "in" the Shooting Arc. But what about the side edge? Should we have an consistent interp that fronts in but not sides? Not clear at all from the rules. I don't think we should expand the Shooting Arc to include side edges but others disagree (by the way I often use Bow based armies).
There is nothing we can do about the 3.0 rules (except the 3.1 unicorn) but I have to maintain both D3H2 and A Game of Fire and Ice and want the interps to be consistent with 3.0 (but will consider using better ideas where we are just stuck by a 3.0 language problem that we can't change but want to use the "better way" at least in D3H2 or Fire and Ice).
So now that the 3.0 concepts have hit a very large community, I'm very interested in how that community would like things to work.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 5, 2017 19:52:15 GMT
Tom, I agree exactly with your first sentence, on the standard interpretation. This is what the rules actually say. I don't understand Felixs' comment, that an element to the side of a threat zone cannot "close the door."
My only problem is if there is a square element in a TZ, Such as an elephant, is an element lined up and touching it's flank also in the TZ. Tom is correct in his statement that if a square element recoils from enemy contact, it is still in the TZ .
I agree that side edges should not be in an arc of shooting. No more than three element wide shooting area should be allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 5, 2017 20:34:37 GMT
I don't understand Felixs' comment, that an element to the side of a threat zone cannot "close the door." I can only repeat what I wrote above: p. 2: "'Within' means 'at or closer than'. An element touching a TZ is "at" the TZ, which, according to the definition on p. 2, is "within". If that is so, an element that is overlapping an enemy TZ is touching that enemy element's TZ, thus is is within the TZ. For the shooting problem: I believe the rules intend elements to have a three-element-wide shooting corridor. Thus, shooting should be treated like TZs: Touching a side is /not/ within (even though that contradicts the rule on p. 2). |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 7, 2017 17:53:39 GMT
Felixs:
I understand your point about "at" or touching. The rules should have been clear that: touching or "at" the front edge is in the TZ but not touching or "at" the side edge is out of the TZ (other wise game mechanic mayhem insues.) I would like this rule to also apply to the shooting arc - its not at all clear that it does and so the FAQ group hesitates to go this far.
Here are the relevant rules from A Game of Fire and Ice: (Also A Game of Knights and Knaves)"
Zone of Control
The area directly in front of the front edge of a Stand is called its Zone of Control (ZOC) and restricts the movement of enemy Stands. A Stand’s ZOC extends out 1BW from its front edge and includes the front edge of the ZOC but not the side edges. So a Stand touching the front edge of a ZOC counts as in the ZOC but not a Stand touching the side edge. See diagram.
Shooting Arc
A Stand’s Shooting Arc is an area 1BW to each side out to the Stand’s range. See the diagram below. A target Stand that touches the front of the Shooting Arc is in the Arc but not targets that just touch the side edge. The entire target edge must be in the Shooting Arc.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 7, 2017 21:55:32 GMT
Tom: I like that re-formulation of the rule. Much clearer.
If the shooting arc is interpreted as also including elements that only touch the sides, a shooting element could have a shooting arc five element widths wide... That would be quite extreme (or 200mm in 15mm scale...).
|
|
