|
|
Post by bob on Dec 24, 2017 7:49:47 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 This has been troubling me for some time. Consider the actual rule "THREAT ZONE The area 1 BW deep in front of any edge of a War Wagon or the front edge of any other type of element, or the area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or garrisoned fort is its Threat Zone (TZ). 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 one such enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. " The problem seems to be moving into the TZ, not starting there. However, note the sentence (parens are my comments, caps my emphasis): An element or group that is at least partly within (we agree here) OR WHOSE FRONT EDGE ENTERS (this certainly implies moving into a TZ)
an enemy TZ or touches its far edge (not side edge) can move only (1) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ or (2) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy... The rule does not differentiate between being "within" the TZ or "entering" the TZ. Moving into a TZ triggers this rule, no indication that while moving in one TZ, an element cannot enter the TZ of another element and respond to such an element. The move in the first TZ, must of course be in response to the first element until the point the moving element is in both TZ, it can choose which such element it will respond to. The anomaly of one element behind another is resolved because the moving element would have to completely leave the TZ of the rear element in order to contact it. |
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Dec 24, 2017 9:47:22 GMT
Why do you persist in trying to cheat your way around the TZ rules? Figure 7b clarifies the rule in a totally unambiguous way. Open the purple book, turn to page 18 and read the bottom paragraph which tells you SP B's options and they are all connected to Blade Y. It doesn't matter if B enters Blade X's TZ in the same move because it has no options in regards to X; the sideways slide to line up with Y puts it inside X's TZ but the rules don't let it react to X in the same move (SO IT ISN'T ALLOWED TO CHOOSE TO IGNORE Y AND REACT TO X INSTEAD).
|
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Dec 24, 2017 10:16:41 GMT
and to be honest, in the dust & rage of the battle, the nearest ennemi is the logical choice no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Dec 24, 2017 10:26:06 GMT
We had a discussion about this in wargames in general whilst one of the lads was talking about trying to make lart work on a hex mat.
Block of drilled troops facing enemy, small unit aproaches it and tries to goad them into attacking and pulling them away from a more dangerous unit they had been stareing down.
We presumed in heat of battle it would come down to experience, drill and leadership with better quality troops realising where most danger came from and inexperienced, less drilled and with poor leadership may go off and expose a flank
Not really sure i have added anything but like to feel i contribute and longer i stay on line is longer i avoid finishing house for crimbo.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Dec 24, 2017 12:49:52 GMT
So this is the case and scheme 2 which applies :
the blade could avoid the Wb TH and choose to strike the Psiloi.
The contacted Psiloi has the choice to fight without alignement so he fights overlapped
or as contacted by the blade he may choose to align and fight normally.
Do I understand correctly your answer ?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 24, 2017 14:02:54 GMT
Yes Goldenhord...
You understand it correctly...
To answer another poster...we did consider forcing an element to respond only to the closest element. I believe that this is a rule in DBMM. After consideration this was abandoned.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Dec 24, 2017 15:49:03 GMT
Well I accept the way you are playing but i still do not undertand why you could leave a TH to catch another ennemy farther and in difficult going that you the contacted element should aligned in front of the coming ennemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 24, 2017 18:47:12 GMT
Problematic- I believe when the rules were being playtested it was proposed that the wording might be along the lines of ‘to contact the NEAREST such enemy’, (like in Hott, or as Joe says DBMM), but as the wording was ultimately not included we are left with the somewhat unbelievable option of an element dancing around the nearest to attack the furthest.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Dec 25, 2017 10:43:06 GMT
Ok we will apply the rules asis until further amendments. However what about the move itself on a defender who should aligned ?
I thought that only the attacker must aligned not the defender.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 25, 2017 17:00:48 GMT
The attacker aligns unless unable to do so by "geometry" in which case the defender aligns. If he cannot for whatever reason, he fights non-conformed and applies an overlap penalty. At least that is my understanding. Of course a single element not in bad or rough, that is contacted (ie touched anywhere by an enemy element's front edge)) by a moving group, conforms to that group, not the other way around.
That's how we play it. Works well.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 28, 2017 19:34:17 GMT
Hmmm, we may regret leaving out the closest element language. I think you only get the option at the start of your move. Any TZ you enter thereafter you ignore. Once you start responding to a TZ you can't switch to another.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 28, 2017 23:02:11 GMT
Tom:
I doubt it. Memory serves that some thought responding to only the "closest" element would not only be too restrictive... but also lead to arguments over the definition of "closest". Closest to what?
This would generate the need to define closest... and you go down the rabbit hole from there...
Please understand... I don't really agree... but the folks arguing this did have a point.
I see little issue with the rules as they are now... though I think the part about once you start responding to a threatzone... you can't switch mid-move needs better clarification.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 29, 2017 10:51:41 GMT
Hmmm…I don’t think it would be that hard to define what ‘closest’ or ‘nearest’ actually means Joe. A single well worded sentence would suffice. Indeed, the concept of ‘nearest’ is already used when shooting (see rule 10.5). However, even if clearly defined it may necessitate some fiddly and awkward measurements. So perhaps for that reason alone it might be best if it could be avoided, where possible. 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 lkmjbc on Dec 29, 2017 14:43:06 GMT
Hmmm…I don’t think it would be that hard to define what ‘closest’ or ‘nearest’ actually means Joe. A single well worded sentence would suffice. Indeed, the concept of ‘nearest’ is already used when shooting (see rule 10.5). However, even if clearly defined it may necessitate some fiddly and awkward measurements. So perhaps for that reason alone it might be best if it could be avoided, where possible. 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
Spot on Stevie... though if memory serves there were also some arguments put forward that such a definition would take quite a bit more than one sentence. This is arguable... But the fiddly and awkward measurements issue is real. Thus, the idea was abandoned. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 29, 2017 18:09:46 GMT
I quite like the way it is done in HoTT 2.1 - "To contact whichever such element or stronghold (ie projecting a threat zone) which can be contacted by the shortest move. It cannot so contact an enemy element's flank or rear."
Simon
|
|
)
