|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2019 18:27:20 GMT
Hmmm...sorry to quibble Tom, but your rule definition doesn’t quite do the job. Take that blue and red diagram of mine (which I won’t repeat here as I’m sure we are all sick of seeing it).This is how we enforce the rule for at home play. It has given us no problems and everyone understands the text and concept. "The area directly in front of the front edge of a Stand is called its Zone of Control (ZOC) and restricts the movement of enemy Stands. A Stand’s ZOC extends out 1BW from its front edge and includes the front edge of the ZOC but not the side edges. So a Stand touching the front edge of a ZOC counts as in the ZOC but not a Stand touching the side edge." You say:- “So a Stand touching the front edge of a ZOC counts as in the ZOC but not a Stand touching the side edge." Well, in my diagram Element-2 is touching the far-edge of Element-M’s TZ. Therefore, Element-2 cannot ‘shut-the-door’ and 'hard flank' Element-Y. I think many players would find that absurd. Phil Barker’s “front-edge” requirement is awkward, but it does allow the flanking move, and does give us the right effect. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2019 18:40:13 GMT
I have always seen TZ as being a bit of a misnomer. If a unit moves across a TZ - so what? Unless the unit whose TZ it is wants to react by charging or shooting etc. I think the clue is in the name Paddy...”Threat Zone”. “Shall I march my men across the front of that enemy unit? Oh wait...there is the threat that they might charge into my vulnerable exposed flank. Hmmm...better not then, just in case...” 
(Counter-charging, when it's not your bound, like some other rulesets have, would be nice.
But that leads to various complications such as breaking formations and overlaps)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 19, 2019 20:00:54 GMT
Every rules set I ever played that had countercharging, (then counter-countercharging, because why stop with just one layer?), etc, was just a disatrous headache, and a mess to play. At that point, play a computer game. You'll enjoy it more ...
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 20, 2019 0:06:28 GMT
I actually kind of liked the counter charging in Napoleon's Battles... but we are way off topic here.
Is that bad?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 20, 2019 6:50:16 GMT
Way, way off topic! But that’s what I mean Joe. If moving through a threat zone was allowed but handed the initiative to the opponent who could shoot or counter-charge at any point in the move possibly at the cost of all remaining PIP dice if the counter-charge won.
An example: Ps in the TZ of both El and Ax can choose to contact the El with the Ax next to them not having a say - even though the Ax job is to protect the El from Ps.
|
|
|
|
Post by diades on Apr 20, 2019 9:22:59 GMT
┌─────────┐
│ λ │
└─────────┘
┌────┐┌─────────┐┌─────────┐ │ ││ 1 ││ 2 │ │ ᴟ │└─────────┘└─────────┘ │ │ ⁞ └────┘ . . . . . . . . . . . ⁞
So.....if element 1 was not present and element 2 was half a base width further back would everyone still be happy that element 2 could engage element Y's flank assuming it has the move distance? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 20, 2019 10:47:45 GMT
Eek! It’s that dreaded blue and red diagram again! But thanks for getting us back on-topic Diades.  I can’t speak for others, but yes, I’d be happy with the flank move if Element-1 were destroyed or not there... ...providing that Element-2 can keep it’s front-edge from touching Element-M’s far-edge Threat Zone that is. Phil Barker’s TZ rule could have been written differently to get the same or similar effect:- * If there were no X-Ray Threat Zones, it wouldn’t be a problem... * If a TZ that passes through an element were reduced to say 30mm instead being 40mm, due say to some sort of ‘frictional’ or ‘diluting’ reason, it wouldn’t be a problem... * And here is an idea of mine that came up in a private conversation with Primuspilus:- Get rid of X-Ray TZ’s, but if an element is inside a TZ rather than just touching the far-edge, then any friends in contact with the rear of that element are also affected by that TZ, regardless of facing or distance. (I have very large hands, and I absolutely hate micro measuring)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 20, 2019 12:56:11 GMT
┌─────────┐
│ λ │
└─────────┘
┌────┐┌─────────┐┌─────────┐ │ ││ 1 ││ 2 │ │ ᴟ │└─────────┘└─────────┘ │ │ ⁞ └────┘ . . . . . . . . . . . ⁞
So.....if element 1 was not present and element 2 was half a base width further back would everyone still be happy that element 2 could engage element Y's flank assuming it has the move distance? Hi MM I may be distinctly wrong here, but I’ ve always played it as ‘no, cannot close the door, due in a TZ’. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 20, 2019 15:40:18 GMT
Ok... I just spoke with some others that were part of the design process.
The current Threat Zone wording seems to have been a bit of a mishmash of attempts to be more clear and prevent rule lawyering. Putting them together produced the opposite effect.
I think the best statement of this sentence is from the October 31, 2013 play test copy of the rules...
The sentence is:
"An element or group in, entering or touching the far edge of an enemy TZ can move only:"
So, in answer to the question... An element flanking a line catches two elements in its threat zone. In Stevie's graphic Red-2 cannot move to the flank of Blue-Y. Red-2 is touching the far edge of Blue-E's threat zone... and therefore is limited by the TZ rules.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 20, 2019 15:45:23 GMT
Ok... I just spoke with some others that were part of the design process. The current Threat Zone wording seems to have been a bit of a mishmash of attempts to be more clear and prevent rule lawyering. Putting them together produced the opposite effect. I think the best statement of this sentence is from the October 31, 2013 play test copy of the rules... The sentence is: "An element or group in, entering or touching the far edge of an enemy TZ can move only:" So, in answer to the question... An element flanking a line catches two elements in its threat zone. In Stevie's graphic Red-2 cannot move to the flank of Blue-Y. Red-2 is touching the far edge of Blue-E's threat zone... and therefore is limited by the TZ rules. Joe Collins I suspect that interpretation may render X-Ray TZ far more difficult to work with, with all manner of unintended consequences. Going to be interesting to see flanking enemies creating "insta-columns" out of enemy battle lines. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 20, 2019 15:59:14 GMT
Ok... I just spoke with some others that were part of the design process. The current Threat Zone wording seems to have been a bit of a mishmash of attempts to be more clear and prevent rule lawyering. Putting them together produced the opposite effect. I think the best statement of this sentence is from the October 31, 2013 play test copy of the rules... The sentence is: "An element or group in, entering or touching the far edge of an enemy TZ can move only:" So, in answer to the question... An element flanking a line catches two elements in its threat zone. In Stevie's graphic Red-2 cannot move to the flank of Blue-Y. Red-2 is touching the far edge of Blue-E's threat zone... and therefore is limited by the TZ rules. Joe Collins That’s how our circle of gamers have been playing it, Joe, as it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 20, 2019 16:43:38 GMT
That latest interpretation once again seems to fly in the face of the 'real world.' Having a unit essentially sitting on their thumbs while an adjacent unit is in combat because that unit has someone on its far flank rather than wrapping around to hit the flank of their nearest opponent defies logic. And at the same time their only possible move is to turn and move directly away from the element on that far flank of the intermediate element.
Of course having the third element in a column of AX, BW, PS, etc. - and now for those who go to the deeper bases BD, SP, PK, etc. - locked as well by an Xray TZ seems to as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 20, 2019 17:18:57 GMT
Yes, I see what you mean Joe. ...irrelevant and
November 2014 confusing..
Threat Zone (in the printed version) ↓
“An element or group which is at least partly ‘within’ or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can only...”
↑
...’within’ means
‘at or closer than’...
...ah, but a TZ side-edge doesn’t count...
31st October 2013
Threat Zone (play-test early draft)
“An element or group in, entering or touching the far edge of an enemy TZ can move only...” (which is much, much clearer) Oh well, this is not the first time I’ve been fooled by taking the rules literally, as they are written. Remember that first sentence on page 7?:- “A BUA will belong to the defender.” Looks like I’ve been caught out again.  I suppose asking for rules that actually mean what they say is asking too much... Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by diades on Apr 20, 2019 18:42:02 GMT
So.....if element 1 was not present and element 2 was half a base width further back would everyone still be happy that element 2 could engage element Y's flank assuming it has the move distance? Hi MM I may be distinctly wrong here, but I’ ve always played it as ‘no, cannot close the door, due in a TZ’. Exactly! That's how I see it too. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 21, 2019 7:08:39 GMT
Oh well, this is not the first time I’ve been fooled by taking the rules literally, as they are written.
Ahh but stevie, they do, just not unambiguously! When I'm trying to interpret all the "or" and "and" that PB likes to use, I try to make separate sentences/phrases. So I would make this section out as: An element or group which is at least partly within (a Threat Zone) An element or group whose front edge enters an enemy TZ An element or group that touches its ( the Threat Zone's) far edge This seems to match joe's interpretation. Obviously, it can be read as you and many others (including myself until this week) have read it. Maybe it should read: An element or group: i) which is at least partly in a Threat Zone
ii) whose front edge enters an enemy Threat Zone
iii) that touches the front edge of an enemy Threat Zone
can move only...
but such extravagances may turn the the 4 pages of battle rules into an unwieldy 5 pages!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
