|
|
Post by goragrad on Dec 2, 2017 10:09:23 GMT
Actually had the AX stopped short just after entering the PS threat zone and had neither the SP or PS moved in their phase, the AX would have the option in its next phase to contact the PS. Not a contradiction.
Obviously could not be done as originally posted in one move.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 2, 2017 12:09:12 GMT
And I agree with you goragrad. (I’m doing a lot of agreeing lately…perhaps I’m trying to prove to Joe Collins that I can win sometimes  )Rule 9.8 (a) says this:- “to line-up its front-edge with one such enemy generating the TZ…” Ah but the commander of the Auxiliaries announces…we are not trying to line-up with the Psiloi front-edge. We are instead merely following rule 9.8 (b):- “or to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy…” (and from now on I’m assuming that “such an enemy” means any opponent generating a TZ the Ax are affected by) And if we treat the 7b dialogue as actual rules, it does say:- “...Spear B can move straight towards and/or slide sideways to line-up with Blade Y without making contact, or move into front-edge contact with Blade Y.” Isn’t that what the Ax are doing if they start in two Threat Zones? Advancing into or towards contact with an enemy generating the zone? Because no-where on page 9, or in the 7b dialogue, does it say you cannot have part of the moving element leaving or stepping outside of the Threat Zone of the designated target you are advancing towards or trying to contact. (Later additional edit: the figure 7a dialogue, option 5, does say that Warband B moves straight forwards to contact Spear Y, but Warband B is only under the influence of a single enemy Threat Zone, not two of them.)Now don’t get me wrong. If the rules did say that then great! The Psiloi hiding behind the Spears would be doubly protected from the Auxiliaries! The option to change targets midway through a move is not mentioned in the 7b dialogue, and even if the Auxiliaries did start the bound in both the Spear and the Psiloi zones, they still couldn’t get at the Psiloi behind the Spears because they cannot step outside a Threat Zone except when they line-up…and lining-up to the Psiloi means they will still hit the front of the Spears! My historical realism mates would love that…the Spear are not helpless bystanders, and their TZ does have an effect. But sadly, I cannot find the words “…or to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy, unless this means stepping outside a TZ…” anywhere in the Great Purple Book. Some people are assuming this is the case…but I don’t see the words that actually say so. Still, if that is how the DBA community wants to play it, then so be it. It would make my mates very 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 2, 2017 15:04:16 GMT
Hello primuspilus, for me it isn't. Because the element starts its move in just only one Threat Zone! So it's move is restricted: 1. Getting closer to the enemy, which generates that Threat Zone. 2. Lining up with the enemy, which generates that Threat Zone. 3. Leaving it by moving straight backwards. If the element would move closer (not getting in contact!) and enters the second TZ, then it has the choice to decide in it's next bound, which of the two threat zone generating enemies it would like to get closer to (and therefore ignoring or even leaving TZ of the other one). Telling the same as goragrad ... in different words  . Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 2, 2017 19:02:24 GMT
Too much text to follow in detail. More discussion here than text in the actual Battle rules I believe that it is possible to be in two TZ or more and leave one to attack another element generating a TZ Consider the element that has enemy approach it from both sides and put a bit of each flank in a TZ. Bound of A and B, results as follows. A..............................B A..............................B A..........XXXX.............B A..............................B X is 39 mm from A and B. In the TZ of both. In its bound, XXXX can move "(a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy." This happens in the bound of XXXX There is no rule, as suggested by Roland, that says the rule applies to one player's bound and not the other's. Consider my little diagram, If XXXX were to just enter the TZ of both A and B, moving upward, into the bottom line of ...... It is in the TZ of both. It can then apply either (a) or (b) in this bound. |
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Dec 2, 2017 21:57:03 GMT
it's time to cut to the chase. The TZ is a half baked implementation of the good old ZOC (zone of control) featured in thousands of simulation games over the last 60 years. In virtually every case (except the more complicated games, which DBA isn't) a unit must stop upon entering an enemy ZOC and cannot move from one hostile ZOC to another. How is it so difficult to understand this concept on the table top that we are all familiar with and is standard practise in simulation games?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 2, 2017 23:04:14 GMT
Bob, You, Ronald, Goragrad, and myself, are all saying exactly the same thing. If you start a bound in two Threat Zones, you get to choose which TZ generator to attack. (See figure 7b for a list of all the option available to Spear A) If you start in one Threat Zone, but during the move bump into a new TZ, you cannot change your target. (See figure 7b for a list of all the options available to Spear B). Advancing toward Blade Y but then changing it’s mind when it enters the TZ of Blade X is not listed as an option. So we are in fact all singing the same song. 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 stevie on Dec 2, 2017 23:05:57 GMT
Zygul, If you start a bound already under the influence of two hostile Threat Zones, you get to choose which one to attack. Otherwise, the element would be paralysed and unable to move against either of them. And if you are unable to enter a new Threat Zone when you are currently already in one, then how could you attack a column? The TZ of the first element in the column would prevent you from entering the TZ of the second element in the column. 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 bob on Dec 3, 2017 0:16:45 GMT
Bob, You, Ronald, Goragrad, and myself, are all saying exactly the same thing. If you start a bound in two Threat Zones, you get to choose which TZ generator to attack. (See figure 7b for a list of all the option available to Spear A) If you start in one Threat Zone, but during the move bump into a new TZ, you cannot change your target. (See figure 7b for a list of all the options available to Spear B). Advancing toward Blade Y but then changing it’s mind when it enters the TZ of Blade X is not listed as an option. So we are in fact all singing the same song. =============================== Close to agreement. I say the rule means what it says. If in the TZ of more than 1 element you can reply to any. Even if you move into one, and then into another, as long as following the rules toward the first until entering the second. Element cannot leave one unless element is in both and then can leave to reply to the other. Thus in the diagram of element moving toward Sp and entering the TZ of Psiloi, the element can move out of Sp TZ and respond to the TZ of Psiloi.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 3, 2017 1:53:12 GMT
Nope... no agreement.
I disagree completely. I you start a bound in multiple threat zones, then you can respond to either. If you enter a single threat zone in movement or start in one... then you respond to that one. If you enter another during movement, you DO NOT respond to it. Your response is already dictated by the rules.
This is shown directly by diagram 7b.
Bob's interpretation doesn't exist is DBA, DBA 1.1, 2.0, 2.1 or 2.2. It is a new interpretation that I disallow in any games or tournaments I run. Further, it directly contradicts diagram 7b, rendering it invalid.
Allowing this breaks the concept of a threat zone. One can legally advance towards an enemy at an angle. Because of geometry, one will be forced into an adjacent threat zone. One can then according to Bob respond to that second threat zone. This allows an element to cross multiple threatzones as if they didn't exist. One could also enter a threat during a retreat from another... or enter one moving backward and cause all sorts of shenanigans.
I have given Bob multiple diagrams showing this stratagem and demonstrating the problem with this interpretation.
So, no... you may not respond to a second threat zone... or third or forth entered during on bound. Simply, no one playing DBA plays this way.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 3, 2017 6:25:57 GMT
Is this move allowed? It is no different than if the Ax moved into this position in its bound. Or some element that could move that far. This type of situation has not occurred before because only now does DBA 3 have the "X-ray" Threat Zone. By the way Joe, you cannot say "no one playing DBA plays this way" unless you consider me and my local group to be no one.  |
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Dec 3, 2017 10:05:55 GMT
Is this move allowed? It is no different than if the Ax moved into this position in its bound. Or some element that could move that far. This type of situation has not occurred before because only now does DBA 3 have the "X-ray" Threat Zone. By the way Joe, you cannot say "no one playing DBA plays this way" unless you consider me and my local group to be no one. This move is allowed in the rules because the Ax starts in two TZ's and must respond to one of them if it opts to move. But the rules state, and are unambiguously clarified in diagram 7b, that an element must respond to one such TZ and only one in the same move, not two or more, and I agree with Joe Collins that you are twisting the rules, if not cheating, by arguing that an element can respond to each new TZ that it enters in the same move. Stevie: the rules let you respond to one TZ so units in multiple TZ's are not paralysed, as 7b clearly shows, so why are you being deliberately disingenuous? In your wrong answer that I felt compelled to correct the Ax started in only one TZ and therefore could only respond to that TZ and not attack the PS in the same move. This differs from Bob's example above. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 3, 2017 10:47:11 GMT
I do apologize Zygul, I totally misunderstood your earlier post. Yes, you were quite right to point out that as the Ax started out in one TZ, it could only respond to that TZ and not attack the Ps in the same move. Indeed, I said the very same thing when I first posted that picture on page 1 of this thread. (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/9388 ) And when Primuspilus asked “is this a legal contact?” on page 3, I misunderstood him as well (sorry Primuspilus). The contact is legal…but the advance to make that contact is not, for the reasons Zygul and others have stated. So we are in fact all singing the same song. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 3, 2017 10:49:04 GMT
Bob,
Yes, ‘X-Ray’ Threat Zones are a new feature that has been introduced into DBA 3.0.
Likewise, the figure 7b Threat Zone options is also a new feature introduced into DBA 3.0…
…perhaps to make the ‘X-Ray’ system work properly, or to give some extra clarity that was missing before.
Maybe it’s not a good idea to try and mix the new features of DBA 3.0 with the old practises that were used in previous versions of DBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Dec 3, 2017 12:18:33 GMT
I do apologize Zygul, I totally misunderstood your earlier post. Yes, you were quite right to point out that as the Ax started out in one TZ, it could only respond to that TZ and not attack the Ps in the same move. Indeed, I said the very same thing when I first posted that picture on page 1 of this thread. (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/9388 ) And when Primuspilus asked “is this a legal contact?” on page 3, I misunderstood him as well (sorry Primuspilus). The contact is legal…but the advance to make that contact is not, for the reasons Zygul and others have stated. So we are in fact all singing the same song. Excellent. Now we just need Bob to join in the chorus! BOB: The options for SP B in diagram 7b make it absolutely clear that an element can only respond to one TZ in a move, in this case Y's. SP B is not allowed to respond to X's TZ because it started only in Y's TZ; all of its options are related to Y and it has no options for X. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 3, 2017 12:23:41 GMT
Is this move allowed? It is no different than if the Ax moved into this position in its bound. Or some element that could move that far. This type of situation has not occurred before because only now does DBA 3 have the "X-ray" Threat Zone. By the way Joe, you cannot say "no one playing DBA plays this way" unless you consider me and my local group to be no one. Hello bob, I agree with your explanations and love for simplicity. But the move in your diagram is not legal, because the Ax is not allowed to interpenetrate the Sp! I've got a question to my diagram below: The Ax (its right front corner) moves (red) from Point A to B. That is absolutely ok. But if you look at the green lines, then the length of B is shorter than C, which means the Ax is moving away from (and not advancing to) the element generating the TZ.So for me, the move from A to B is allowed and has to stop there, because going from B to C or even in front edge contact with the Ps is not conforming to the rules!.And for all those "realism-fans" out there ... for me, that is absolutely "realistic". The Ax first have to deal with the Sp before they can attack the Ps! Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
)
.
