|
Post by ronisan on Nov 30, 2017 15:23:22 GMT
Hello Stevie, may I try to help you? Let's have a look at the text of figure 7b of the rulebook. Point 3. tells us: "To move straight towards and/or slide sideways line up with Blade Y without making contact." This "and/or" gives us three variations: 1. straight towards and slide sideways 2. straight towards only! 3. slide sideways only! See attachments. Whatever the player of element "A" chooses ... in his next bound, he's free to decide e.g. to pivot and/or attack element "X". Because at the beginning of the next bound there are two "such" enemy elements which "threaten" his element "A". Does anybody agree with me in this? Cheers, Ronald. See attachments.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 30, 2017 10:51:08 GMT
And what does the phrase “with such an enemy” in rule 9.8 (b) actually mean? Why, it is described in rule 9.8 (a): “…with one such enemy generating the TZ”. One…not two, not three, but one. So if you allow an element to move deeper into a Threat Zone without lining-up it’s front-edge to one of the enemies generating a TZ, then it can advance on two enemies at once and use it’s own TZ to pin them both. -> by ronisan: "Exaclty, Stevie!"But how is that advancing into or towards (one) such enemy? -> by ronisan: "Please don't add words ("one"), that are not in the rules, Stevie!"It would be advancing into or towards two such enemies. -> by ronisan: "Exaclty, Stevie!"The very opposite of what rule 9.8 (b) actually says! -> by ronisan: No comment. Two lines above, it was you who changed the text into "One such enemy".What is it to be…advance towards one such enemy or advance towards any such enemies that you feel like? Or do we conveniently ignore the word “one” when it suits us and pretend it just isn’t there? It's all in the rules ... read it ... learn it ... play it! And stop leaving out words that you find to be inconvenient. It's very simple. At least, this is how my little group interprets the Threat Zone rules… Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Hello Stevie, read the rules! a) is telling you the option to line up. Of Course, if you want to line up, you can only do that with one enemy element! b) is telling you the option to advance to any enemy generating thread zones your element is in. I don't see the word "one" in this option! Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 30, 2017 9:12:07 GMT
Stevie, advancing straight ahead in the threat zone of two elements DOES mean you advance toward one such element. It does not say "advance toward one such element, and only one such element". Otherwise groups that were not perfectly lined up would advance until just before TZs and be forced to freeze. I mean no discouragement or disrespect here, Stevie, and I appreciate the valuable contributions you make to many of our discussions, but I am getting concerned that your prolific rate of posting, and your sometimes profound and authoritative-sounding declarations may leave the impression among newbies that your are somehow providing official rulings. I do not recall you being among the playtest team that played thousands of ftf games, or that tapped into additional player base support to gain further out of the box thinking, and so while I would encourage your enquiries, we should be careful with possibly giving the wrong impressions. If you were part of the design team, apologies. If not, may I suggest that perhaps Tom, Joe et. al. may have known a thing or two regarding how many different effects combine in the game that evolved from 2.2. I would suggest being careful with continuing to declare that the correct interpretation of the rules is xyz... I suspect at least some of the issues you raise will be shown with robust playtesting across a wider audienceto be largely irrelevant. Remember also that DBA has always been open to interpretation, and many better men (and women) than you and I have spent years trying to make these rules perfect. It is tempting to assume they missed all the things we may be raising. I have learned that you will literally drive yourself insane trying to perfect these rules. And sometimes we regular folks just struggle to keep pace with the dizzying speed of your incisive intellect mate! As always, respectfully yours, and not meaning to harp on you. I always appreciate the analysis. Would encourage us to always try to adhere to as much of an agnostic and open-ended approach as possible. Hello primuspilus, "You took the words right out of my mouth" (Meat Loaf) Thanks, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 30, 2017 9:00:50 GMT
Hello Stevie, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but all of your three examples are correct/legal moves in that Thread Zone!"... b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy ..." "Your rule 9.8" (probably page 9, paragraph 8 ?) doesn't say: a) and b) and c). It says: a) or b) or c). It's all in the rules ... read it ... learn it ... play it! It's very simple. I must agree with primuspilus. It is not helpful for newbies, if you post "wrong" diagrams ... or even "correct" diagrams claiming them to be "wrong" Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 30, 2017 8:38:44 GMT
Hello guys, I think I'll have to clear things up: If an element starts it's move already in two thread zones, then of course it is allowed to choose, which enemy element to approach and to leave the TZ of the other element! (see Spear "A" in figure 7b of the rulebook). In stevie's diagram (below) the element started in just one TZ! The rules say: Leaving a TZ is only possible: a) eliminating the element, which generates the TZ. b) moving straight backwards a complete move. Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 29, 2017 20:29:30 GMT
Ah Ronald, but what you are describing is when an element starts its bound already within two Threat Zones. And what you say is right…Spear ‘A’ in figure 7b can pick which to advance towards, but not both. It couldn’t for example spend half its bound heading towards one enemy, then the other half towards the other. That would be targeting two and not one such enemy generating a TZ in a single bound.
Hello stevie, I never talked about "half bound"! ... Only 1 move in 1 bound! Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 29, 2017 20:20:00 GMT
Hello stevie, I'm sorry, but your move (red) is not allowed (moving the front corner of the Ax through the element of Spears)! Maybe you've planned the green move? But it is also not allowed, because you're not allowed to leave the TZ of the Sp! Also you move in a way, the "rubber bands" (yellow) get longer ("going away from"!) ... you're only allowed to "get closer to"! The blue move would be allowed, for example. Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 29, 2017 11:10:40 GMT
Hello stevie, we play it the way that, if your element is touching two different thread zones (see Spear "A" in figure 7b of the rulebook), you are free to decide which enemy element you want to approach as long as the "rubber bands" to that element getting shorter"! For example see figure 7b of the rulebook: Bound 1: Spear A decides to line up with Blade Y (It's "rubber bands" to "Y" getting shorter!). Bound 2: Spear A decides to pivot and to line up with Blade X (It's "rubber bands" to "X" getting shorter!). Bound 3: Spear A decides to pivot back and to get into front edge contact with Blade Y (It's "rubber bands" to "Y" still get shorter!). I don't see it as an advantage for my tiny soldiers, being in two thread zones ... always leaving them with one open flank Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 29, 2017 7:57:15 GMT
Hello goldenhord, if your element is in the thread zone of an enemy element ... Maybe it helps if you think of it as a kind of "magnetic" ... or their opposing corners as "connected by rubber bands" Your element is free to move as long as you "loosen the tension" and don't stretch them any more. Or moving straight backwards to leave the thread zone. Plausible? Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 13, 2017 16:36:06 GMT
The shot here is allowed. The enemy Spear is within arc... The enemy Spear is within range... The woods rule is found on page 10. "A hill’s crest, a city or fort, or a ½ BW depth of difficult hills, woods, oasis, dunes, hamlet or edifice blocks shooting from and at an element base edge entirely beyond any of these." The corner if the enemy Sp is within 1/2 BW of the shooting edge of the Bow. The corner is one point defining the target edge. Therefore, the target's target edge is not entirely beyond 1/2 BW of woods. It is by definition of the rules, "within"... just barely within... be still within. "Entirely beyond" isn't hard defined in the rules, but I find it difficult to interpret any different way. Please note that Phil also uses the same word pair to determine command distance over a hill. If any part of an element, even a corner, is over the hill crest then command distance is not reduced. Joe Collins Hi folks, ok ... conviced SHOOOOT!
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 13, 2017 16:29:26 GMT
Hello gaelyann,
the rules say: "Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p.10), contacted elements conform at contact." ... that means ... if a group contacts a single element on its side edge, it turns and conforms to the group instantly and does not wait until the end of the bound!
Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 13, 2017 16:20:07 GMT
Hello Martin,
the rules say: "A hill’s crest, a city or fort, or a ½ BW depth of difficult hills, woods, oasis, dunes, hamlet or edifice blocks shooting from and at an element base edge entirely beyond any of these." So - in your example, there is ½ a BW depth of woods ... that means: No Shooting allowed.
Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 12, 2017 14:20:18 GMT
Interesting concept - moving onto a Road and then using a subsequent move. That is how we have played it because of how it readsi n the rules and it also happens to be consistent with 2.2. Hi, that's how we play it too. Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 10, 2017 15:58:12 GMT
Hello, I'm in both worlds. If I want to play quick after-work battles ... I play DBA 3.0 ... Perfect! If I want to play more 'historical accurate' battles ... I play DBMM 2.1 ... Perfect! Is anybody driving a FERRARI off-road? No. Does anybody have fun driving a LADA on the german "Autobahn"? No. Choose what you need for which situation. Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 8, 2017 9:46:08 GMT
Hi Stevie, I'm deeply sorry I'm not sure either ... still on my way to DBA-enlightment But thinking about my last posts ... there is a chance that my problem with figure 13d (you remember last month?) will vanish. But all this should be placed in the thread 'Contact and Conforming' - shouldn't it? Could anybody of the admins be so kind to move it? Cheers. Ronald.
|
|