|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 30, 2017 18:37:34 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
Ha....and I will criticise you when you don't comment! So, no... You can't win! Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 30, 2017 18:53:58 GMT
Does anybody agree with me in this?  Cheers, Ronald. Actually Ronald, I agree with you (bet you didn’t see that coming did you  ). There is another alternative interpretation of the Threat Zone rules. In fact, this is probably the correct interpretation. Rule 9.8 (a) only applies to troops that are just lining-up, and not to those advancing deeper into a TZ. (Although the inclusion of the “one” seems superfluous…it’s physically impossible to line-up to the front-edge of two enemies generating TZ’s, so why bother mentioning “one”?) Rule 9.8 (b) only applies to troops advancing deeper into a TZ that are not attempting to line-up. (And the phrase “such an enemy” refers not to line (a), but to the bit before it; i.e it just means any enemy generating the TZ) However, this interpretation does have consequences. It would mean the following in figure 7b:- Spear A could spend part of its move advancing towards one enemy, and the rest of the move towards the other enemy. Spear B could advance towards Blade Y, but change its mind as soon as it touches the TZ of Blade X. And remember that diagram of mine about Ax tiptoeing their way across the front of Sp to get at the Ps behind them?… …I’m afraid that too will be possible, with the Sp just standing there helplessly watching them. I’ll try and put this to my friends…although I’m expecting shouts of “Unrealistic!”. If playing in a tournament, then this is probably the interpretation the tournament organizer will use, and so must you. But when playing at home, people are more free to choose the interpretation they think is more realistic. 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 medievalthomas on Nov 30, 2017 22:27:04 GMT
Stevie:
You are doing it just as Phil seems to have written it OH NO! What does "such an enemy" mean - who knows. But as a practical matter here's how I've come to rule:
You can move straight ahead in a TZ (this is implied by the general rule that when you make contact you line up on the enemy most in contact). BUT you can't move straight ahead and leave a TZ - where does it say that in the rules....opps...but if you don't have that corrallary you could leave a TZ without using the "move backwards" Phil approved method. Generally I look at the front edge of the moving element - does the front edge move away from the element generating the TZ - for instance by moving straight ahead out of a TZ - illegal. Here's the hard case - an element is perpendicular to the TZ generating element's front edge - so it marches across the front staying the same distance from the front edge but not leaving the TZ. It looks weird but is probably legal and also largely harmless - why would you want to do this? (well to TZ some other element).
Any wheeling or pivoting, however, MUST bring you more in alignment with the "designated TZ" ie the one you picked to count (at least for this bound).
Everybody ponder these ideas and see if there is a flaw.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 30, 2017 23:12:08 GMT
I'm not sure we need to over-think this. Diagram 7b. is an excellent guide.
While I think a small amount more of text further defining the move would be helpful, I fear we are just opening the door for more questions... questions that should be worked out between the players.
Further, DBA 3 places a large premium on lining-up with the enemy. One of the early detractors implied quite strongly that I was a poor play tester after I posted some pictures from play test games showing figures in nice, neat lines. Real DBA games were not like that... except with DBA 3, they tend to be like that. You simply can't get away with the tricks we used in 2.2. They are either punished or wasteful in pip expediture.
The long and short is that one usually doesn't gain any advantage by weird moves within a threat zone. In fact, one can be penalized for it (especially for single elements).
I don't see many (or well, any) issues in either club or tournament play.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 1, 2017 10:09:10 GMT
Stevie: You are doing it just as Phil seems to have written it OH NO! What does "such an enemy" mean - who knows. But as a practical matter here's how I've come to rule: You can move straight ahead in a TZ (this is implied by the general rule that when you make contact you line up on the enemy most in contact). BUT you can't move straight ahead and leave a TZ - where does it say that in the rules....opps...but if you don't have that corrallary you could leave a TZ without using the "move backwards" Phil approved method. Generally I look at the front edge of the moving element - does the front edge move away from the element generating the TZ - for instance by moving straight ahead out of a TZ - illegal. Here's the hard case - an element is perpendicular to the TZ generating element's front edge - so it marches across the front staying the same distance from the front edge but not leaving the TZ. It looks weird but is probably legal and also largely harmless - why would you want to do this? (well to TZ some other element). Any wheeling or pivoting, however, MUST bring you more in alignment with the "designated TZ" ie the one you picked to count (at least for this bound). Everybody ponder these ideas and see if there is a flaw. TomT Hello TomT, well but that (red) is not allowed (according to the rules on page 9)! If that element moves perpendicular to the TZ generating element's front edge, it doesn't: (a) line up it's front edge (c) move straight back to its own rear. So it has to (b) get closer to that front edge! "to advance into or towards contact ..."! As soon as that element moves (even perpendicular) into a TZ, that "magnetic force" or "threat" forces it to pivot, line up, etc. Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 1, 2017 10:29:19 GMT
Does anybody agree with me in this? Cheers, Ronald. Actually Ronald, I agree with you (bet you didn’t see that coming did you ). -> by ronisan: "Well - the chances were low but ... " There is another alternative interpretation of the Threat Zone rules. In fact, this is probably the correct interpretation. Rule 9.8 (a) only applies to troops that are just lining-up, and not to those advancing deeper into a TZ. -> by ronisan: "Exactly, Stevie!"(Although the inclusion of the “one” seems superfluous…it’s physically impossible to line-up to the front-edge of two enemies generating TZ’s, so why bother mentioning “one”?) -> by ronisan: that's what I was trying to tell you by my comment "...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! Rule 9.8 (b) only applies to troops advancing deeper into a TZ that are not attempting to line-up. (And the phrase “such an enemy” refers not to line (a), but to the bit before it; i.e it just means any enemy generating the TZ) -> by ronisan: "Exactly, Stevie!"However, this interpretation does have consequences. It would mean the following in figure 7b:- Spear A could spend part of its move advancing towards one enemy, and the rest of the move towards the other enemy. -> by ronisan: No stevie. Read the rules. Or ... read figure 7b.
There you can read, that Spear A "has the following options"! So either you choose option 3 ... or you choose option 4! But not two options in the same bound/move!
in Or how would you choose option 1 and 5 in a single bound?  Spear B could advance towards Blade Y, but change its mind as soon as it touches the TZ of Blade X. -> by ronisan: No stevie. Same thing here ... only one "option" please!
And remember that diagram of mine about Ax tiptoeing their way across the front of Sp to get at the Ps behind them?… …I’m afraid that too will be possible, with the Sp just standing there helplessly watching them. -> by ronisan: No stevie. There are only two ways to leave or to get rid of a TZ your element is in:
1. Destroy the element, which is generating the TZ.
2. Move straight back a full move.
I’ll try and put this to my friends…although I’m expecting shouts of “Unrealistic!”. If playing in a tournament, then this is probably the interpretation the tournament organizer will use, and so must you. But when playing at home, people are more free to choose the interpretation they think is more realistic. 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, see my comments in blue. Have fun playing DBA "differently". The most important thing is, having a good time with your friends.  Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 1, 2017 11:10:09 GMT
(I had some more thoughts, but they didn't lead to a solution. So - deleted)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 1, 2017 11:35:55 GMT
You know what Ronald, I think you are dead right.  I’ve been going by the rules, and just using figure 7b as a secondary guide. But if we take the dialogue accompanying figure 7b as a rule, then everything is as you say. (I know that some people think that the rules should take precedence, and overwrite what the figures say, but let’s be honest…we all take the figures to be gospel. Indeed, without the extra input from the figures DBA 3.0 would be much harder to understand) So I agree totally, completely, and 100% with what you said. Well…almost. And remember that diagram of mine about Ax tiptoeing their way across the front of Sp to get at the Ps behind them?… …I’m afraid that too will be possible, with the Sp just standing there helplessly watching them. -> by ronisan: No stevie. There are only two ways to leave or to get rid of a TZ your element is in:
1. Destroy the element, which is generating the TZ.
2. Move straight back a full move.
There is one way of leaving a Threat Zone that doesn’t require destroying the TZ generator or moving straight back:- Sp Ps Ax / Ax Here the Ax, which is currently within two Threat Zones, has decided to slide and advance to line-up with the Ps front-edge. Spear A in figure 7b does the same thing when it chooses option 4 to slide and move towards Blade X without making contact. In both cases, the moving troops have left one Threat Zone to advance deeper into the other one. But other than that, I agree totally, completely, and 100% with what you said. 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 Dec 1, 2017 14:18:06 GMT
Stevie -you have chosen to read "one such enemy" as "exactly one such enemy, and no more". There is another potential meaning, and Phil (and Sue as well) is highly trained in logic, I suspect.
Think of its negation. "...no such enemy"...
If I am choosing to approach two such enemies, then I am definitely satisfying the requirement to approach one such enemy. Phil is an evangelical word-count optimizer, and I think this is one of those cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 1, 2017 15:03:28 GMT
But primuspilus, I thought DBA is supposed to be a set of ancient rules, not a collection of cryptic crossword puzzles!  Anyway, it’s all sorted now. Ronald’s suggestion to treat the 7b dialogue as actual rules has fixed everything. I, my friends, and even medievalthomas, all get exactly what we wanted:- Elements cannot move towards one TZ for part of a move then move against the other TZ in a single bound. Troops cannot change their mind and select a different target when they enter a new TZ part way through the move. And that Ax cannot dance around the front of the Sp to attack the Ps sheltering behind them. So no rule changes, no weird interpretations, just treat the 7b dialogue as actual rules. It’s as if the playtesters were aware of the situation, came to the very same conclusions that we did, and so phrased the 7b dialogue specifically to prevent the three items listed above (which I’m pretty sure is exactly what happened). So now everyone is happy. 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 Dec 1, 2017 16:53:19 GMT
Hello Stevie, maybe I can help you again. In your diagram Image-J the Ax starts in one TZ only. Therefore it has to stick to the restrictions/limitations of that one TZ for the bound. (Moving closer to ... not leaving it sideways, etc.) In your diagram Image-K the Ax (and also Spear A in figure 7b of the rulebook) starts in two TZs! Therefore it has the choice, which of the two TZs puts their limitations upon the moving element (Moving closer to ... not leaving it sideways, etc.). Cheers, Ronald. P.S. Have to quit for now, because an evening of DBA is waiting for me! Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 1, 2017 17:57:59 GMT
Agreed and agreed again Ronald. In the first picture the Spear protects the Psiloi lurking behind them…just as you would expect. In the second picture the Ax has the choice…but it does leave the Spear TZ when it lines-up to the Psiloi front-edge. So there are not two but three ways of getting rid of a Threat Zone:- There are only two ways to leave or to get rid of a TZ your element is in:
1. Destroy the element, which is generating the TZ.
2. Move straight back a full move.
3. and the one you forgot to mention… …if you start in two Threat Zones, lining-up in one TZ can get you out of the other TZ. For your clever suggestion of treating the 7b dialogue as actual rules I think I owe you a drink. Now which would you prefer… …a glass of water or a cup of tea? 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 Dec 1, 2017 22:37:05 GMT
Is this a legal contact?  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 2, 2017 5:00:05 GMT
Yes primuspilus, it is. See figures 13a & 13e, and page 9 paragraph 10 “if conforming is physically prevented”. The stationary Psiloi will have the choice of either conforming to the moving Auxiliaries, or fighting as if in full contact and overlapped. Well, that is how my friends and I interpret the situation… 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 zygul on Dec 2, 2017 9:54:12 GMT
I'd say no because the AX must stay in the SP's threat zone and move towards the SP or move backwards out of the SP's threat zone. This prevents it from moving into contact with the PS at all. Stevie's answer is contradicting his earlier effusive statements in agreement with diagram 7b. |
|
).
