|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 29, 2017 19:37:28 GMT
Oh I fully agree Michael Demko. I’m only talking about things that happen in a single move during a single bound. If in my diagram above the Auxiliaries halted as soon as they touched the Psiloi Threat Zone, then next time they move (assuming the enemy does nothing) they will begin a bound in two Threat Zones, and then they could choose which enemy TZ to advance towards. You’re right that our elements have no memory about how they got to where they are in previous bounds. But they are influenced by all the effects that applies to them during the current bound. And they can only respond to one such enemy generating a Threat Zone during the present bound. 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
|
|
|
|
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 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 medievalthomas on Nov 29, 2017 21:49:40 GMT
I think Michael is correct that it is bound by bound which TZ controls. So yes you can to some extent dance between TZs. I also think that as long as your moving straight AND getting closer to the "declared" TZ you are OK even if this causes you to put your TZ on another enemy element.
Pondering how to express all this clearly yet briefly.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 29, 2017 22:57:22 GMT
Roland, are you saying that A player may not move an element in the threat zone of 2 enemy to attack one of them and so leave the zone of the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 29, 2017 23:39:48 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)! Well Ronald, I could say that my diagram was not to scale…but I won’t. The truth is I was just showing the start to finish positions, and not how the Auxiliaries actually travelled. Remember, page 9 paragraph 1, “Tactical Move Distances” says:- “Movement is measured in a straight line, from the starting point of the furthest moving front corner to that corner’s final position.” Anyway, your green line will also do the job. 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"! Er…as Bob said, if the Auxiliaries cannot leave the Threat Zone of the Spear, then how can any element obey rule 9.8?:- “a) to line-up its front-edge with one such enemy generating the TZ…” …like this:- Sp Ps Ax
/ Ax (Your 'enemy front-edge is like a magnet’ analogy is better than the ‘rubber band’ analogy) In fact (and to answer medievalthomas as well), you can only advance deeper into a Threat Zone as shown above. Just moving straight AND getting closer to the "declared" TZ is not ok, as it disobeys rule 9.8:- “b) to advance into or towards contact with (one) such enemy…” Moving straight forward would be advancing towards two such enemies, not one. And I was actually agreeing with you Ronald:- “An element 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.”
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
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 30, 2017 4:49:58 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.
|
|
|
|
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 stevie on Nov 30, 2017 8:51:05 GMT
Well primuspilus, I did say on page 1 of this thread “For what it’s worth, here is how I and my friends interpret the Threat Zone rules”, and “Now some players think that as soon as the Ax advances into the TZ of the Ps, it can change its target and go for the Ps”. As neither I or my friends are tournament players, and we gave up and forgot everything about how DBA 2.2 used to be played years ago, we have no concept of the accepted practises the wider DBA community is currently using. Our only guide is what is written in the present rules, word-for-word. But you’re right…I’ll try to end every post with the phrase “this is how we interpret things”. With that in mind, can anyone detect any flaws in the following examples. Can an element advance deeper into a Threat Zone and end their move in this position? Sp Ax l Ax No, not according to rule 9.8. It has not lined-up its front-edge with the enemy generating the Threat Zone. (See figure 11 on page 21 for correct lined-up positions) Very well, can an element advance deeper into a Threat Zone and end their move in this position? Sp Ax \ Ax (The final Ax position is facing left, and not at the Sp)Again no, not according to rule 9.8. It has also not lined-up its front-edge with the enemy generating the Threat Zone. Therefore, the only way you can advance deeper into a Threat Zone is like this:- Sp Ax \ Ax (The final Ax position is aligned and facing the Sp)This does obey all the requirements of rule 9.8. It has lined-up its front-edge with the enemy generating the Threat Zone. The enemy front-edge is acting like a magnet, drawing the advancing Auxilia towards the front of the Spear. And to advance against two enemy elements is not lining-up against either of them, according to figure 11. Rule 9.8 (b) says:- "to advance into or towards (one) such enemy...", not two such enemies. 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
|
|
|
|
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 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 stevie on Nov 30, 2017 9:48:26 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. But how is that advancing into or towards (one) such enemy? It would be advancing into or towards two such enemies. The very opposite of what rule 9.8 (b) actually says! 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
|
|
|
|
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 stevie on Nov 30, 2017 12:52:22 GMT
I say again:- 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. Does rule 9.8 say:- “(b) to advance into or towards contact with any such enemy…”, which is what you want it to mean. Nope. It just says:- “(b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy…”, meaning one such enemy, as described in line (a). I don’t know… In some posts I suggest new things for a future version of DBA, and I’m criticised for doing so. In other posts I follow the current rules exactly as they are written, word-for-word…and I’m still criticised. …I just can’t win can I. And yet I’ve been told that the rules say what they mean, and mean what they say. Very well…rule 9.8 (b) does not mean one such enemy (even though it says the complete opposite). Could someone please draw up a list of all the other rules in DBA 3.0 that also don’t mean what they say? 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
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
It's very simple.
