|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 3, 2017 13:10:08 GMT
And for all those "realism-fans" out there ... I have no idea of who it is you could possibly be referring to Ronald.  But to answer your question, how’s this for a simple answer:- Measure the Ax’s move from it’s left instead of it’s right front corner. Sorted.  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 martin on Dec 3, 2017 13:37:26 GMT
.....and isn’t it a pity that the very simple statement that an element in two threat zones could only engage the one it could reach by the shortest move (as per HotT) was omitted from v3.. ?? What a tangled web we’re left with.
You can argue this one until the cows come home. You’ll go around in circles, and all it will do is muddy the water further, whichever version of the move-in-a-threat-zone-interpretation you prefer.
Uses up too many brain cells, this one.......
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 3, 2017 16:02:39 GMT
And for all those "realism-fans" out there ... I have no idea of who it is you could possibly be referring to Ronald. But to answer your question, how’s this for a simple answer:- Measure the Ax’s move from it’s left instead of it’s right front corner. Sorted. 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
Oh - come on, stevie Read the rules: An element or group which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with the enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance into or towards contact with the enemy generating the TZ or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. TZs do not affect outcome moves. "An element" ... that means "all of an element" and not just the part which serves your intention. Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 3, 2017 16:12:19 GMT
Sometimes I wish more people just spent more time finding more opponents, painting a bigger selection of armies, and gaining a much deeper appreciarion of the laws of unintended consequences.
Stevie, I'll bet if you devoted half as much time to crafting us a kick-@$$ set of campaign rules, the net beneift to the DBA community would FAR exceed whatever we are gaining by this long, drawn out debate.
At some point the law of diminishing returns sets in...
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 3, 2017 18:56:25 GMT
.....and isn’t it a pity that the very simple statement that an element in two threat zones could only engage the one it could reach by the shortest move (as per HotT) was omitted from v3.. ?? What a tangled web we’re left with. You can argue this one until the cows come home. You’ll go around in circles, and all it will do is muddy the water further, whichever version of the move-in-a-threat-zone-interpretation you prefer. Uses up too many brain cells, this one....... Yes, we went round and round with this one in development. Phil considered it...but in the end thought it was a better rules for a game with more elements... ie DBM/MM. If I remember this correctly. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 3, 2017 18:59:09 GMT
Is this move allowed? It is no different than if the Ax moved into this position in its bound. Or some element that could move that far. This type of situation has not occurred before because only now does DBA 3 have the "X-ray" Threat Zone. By the way Joe, you cannot say "no one playing DBA plays this way" unless you consider me and my local group to be no one.  This move is perfectly fine. Moving into a single threat zone and then further into a second and then responding to the second is not fine. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 3, 2017 19:55:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 3, 2017 20:41:07 GMT
Stevie, I'll bet if you devoted half as much time to crafting us a kick-@$$ set of campaign rules, the net beneift to the DBA community would FAR exceed whatever we are gaining by this long, drawn out debate. Why primuspilus...I am very glad you asked. The original can be found in the link at the bottom of this post as part of the " Time Of Day Display"... ...but here it is:- Enjoy. 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
Stevie,
I like the time of day display - very nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 3, 2017 20:45:58 GMT
Mapless... Blah....
I would have thought you could have devoted all this energy to fixing the DBA 2.2 campaign system, used what Phil suggested in the big purple book, and wowed us with some brilliant stuff!
Instead here we are rehashing the rules on something (an edge case) that really hasn't proven a serious issue in the vast majority of games...
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 6, 2017 21:48:17 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. I understand your point Ronald but keep in mind the micro wheel/pivot - the moving player will merely say they have wheel ever so slightly .00000000000000001mm (not perceptible by the human eye) toward the TZ generating element and thus satisfy "towards contact" while still moving (essentially parrallel to the front edge of the TZ generating element. I've been umping for a long time so know most of the standard tricks. So again its important that we have the coralllary that you can't leave a TZ except by moving backwards or responding to another TZ. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 6, 2017 21:56:04 GMT
I rule that if your in multiple TZs you pick one to respond to and must stick with that through out the bound (even if you enter another TZ). Next bound you can pick a different TZ.
But that's just my ruling (and the way I write it up) Bob's version does not contradict the rules only the diagrams whose status is mirky (I treat them as rules but must do so only when they support their position).
So at least in DBA 3.0 this will be at the game master's discreation.
By the way I oppose the "Threat Zone" terminology and feel we should stick with standard wargame terms such as Zone of Control (ZOC much better than "TZ").
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Dec 23, 2017 12:32:59 GMT
DBA case 2.docx (44.21 KB)Hello Guys,
I Everyboby is in bad going and warband is higher than the Blade, after the Blade is higher the Psiloi Blades is in the 2 TH or ZOC as you like so he may choose : 1- Has the Bd the right to fight Ps instead Warband as it means he left the 1st TH of the Wb? 2. If so, could the Bb contact the Psiloi and force him to align 3 . If the Bd contacts front edge of the Psiloi as he has no place the Psiloi goes backward to let the place for the Blade. have a case for you following the TH (ZOC) issue, what are your point of view as we disagree about the way to solve it ? Attachments:DBA case 2.pdf (188.63 KB)
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 23, 2017 17:34:17 GMT
Goldenhord... I can't get your attachment to open. Can you try reposting it as a PDF?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Dec 23, 2017 21:58:58 GMT
done, sorry do not know how to make it appear easier !
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 24, 2017 3:37:30 GMT
This one loaded without a problem.
The blade may respond to either threat zone.
The Psiloi if contacted has the choice of either conforming or fighting as if overlapped.
The confirmation would be a slide to the side.
Does that answer your questions?
Joe Collins
|
|
