|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2017 13:17:33 GMT
Ah, it's Punic Treachery. Well then...
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2017 10:32:07 GMT
The aim of the manoeuvre was to prevent the adjacent element (i.e. the one brought into the TZ by the pivoting manoeuvre) attacking a different element in the flank. Now in 2.2 this could easily be overcome by the originally ZOC-ed element actually attacking the ZOC-ing element, thus freeing up the second element by "cutting" the ZOC, but with X-ray TZ this no longer applies. Scott My moral compass must be faulty because this still seems like a good move to me.
If the circumstances were slightly different and the element had started just outside the TZ and had pivoted so that it entered the TZ (and, by definition moved towards the element exerting that TZ) but didn't move into contact and finished with both enemy elements in its own TZ, would we be bothered?
Nope. Because the initial manoeuvre would have been made when the element has the breathing room to plan for such things. When the element is within the TZ the officers are too busy reacting to the immediate threat they can detect.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2017 8:26:18 GMT
The threat zone is zone of control that the element exerts in front of it that limits what movement you can make as your element's primary worry becomes that of the element that is threatening it. Is that not clear? I have no idea what was intended, but isn't this somewhat similar to two groups moving toward each other at an angle? This wouldn't be an issue with the old rolling carpet interpretation of TZs. I did indicate that it was an opinion. But regardless, I do not need to inferr intent. The diagrams illustrate what the intent was. And tells you exactly what can be done in a threat zone. Do you not consider them authoritative? Are they not there to settle exactly this sort of thing? Indeed. Damned X-Ray ZoCs.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 9, 2017 18:32:52 GMT
Hmm. Now I have a copy of 3.0 in front of me you're right. The wording has been changed. In previous versions it was very clear. I would say that the intent was as per previous versions, and that you shouldn't be allowed to do it unless you were already in the TZ. But the actual wording of the rules no longer makes that clear. I miss the precise language of 1.0...
The diagrams do illustrate what moving towards contact entails however, and should really be considered to be just as relevant a source so I would be inclined to disallow the manoeuvre, especially as it's clearly against the spirit of the TZ.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 9, 2017 11:52:04 GMT
Is it also in the TZ of this adjacent element? If it is not, then no.
The relevant section of the rules goes something like:
A single element or group in, entering or touching the far edge of an enemy TZ can move only: (a) to contact or advance towards line up with the front edge of 1 such element (or contact that camp, city or fort), or (b) straight back for its entire move, or (c) after combat; as an outcome move or if still in contact with enemy and it must conform.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 8, 2017 12:08:29 GMT
Hi Matakakea. They do indeed, they are just down the road from me. Unfortunately last time I was there they were only interested in playing interminable games of FoG. That was some time ago and the bizarre popularity of FoG seems to have dissipated so perhaps I should try popping along again.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 7, 2017 16:08:34 GMT
Hello there. I am located in Dursley, Gloucestershire - and wondering if there are any players about?
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 7, 2017 15:42:22 GMT
Well, my Sumerians are about 700 years out of date. But my Martu (1/6a) might be able to have a go. What sort of time does it normally finish up? Fairly long drive for me.
|
|