|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 21, 2019 8:08:25 GMT
Eerrrrr! No! Sorry to point this out but I only have the purple book and no access to Phil Barkers e-mails or any Oct13 play test version of the Rules. I ONLY have the RAW (and common sense and historical justification.) I can only use these to inform my decisions.
In this situation the RAW are I believe phenomenonly clear - unusually so for these 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.....”
Is Red-2 within Blue-M’s TZ? No! Has its front edge entered a TZ - No. Therefore Blue-Y is NOT in the TZ of element Blue-M. Therefore, Red-2 CAN hard-flank and close the door on Blue-Y. Joe’s original interpretation IS correct.
IF Red-2 was facing Blue-M then the front edge rule applies and it is “within.”
IF we were to interpret the rules the other way: 1. the clauses would have been separated by a comma - and they are not. 2. You could have reduced the whole text down to the single phrase “An element or group that is within or touches the Threat Zone's) far edge....”. Which It doesn’t. Finally, 3. If you take it to it’s exterme then this final clause refers to groups being in the TZ. Can a single flanking TZ an entire line of elements? No? Well if you interpret it the way you have then that’s what it says.
Finally common sense. If Red-2 moved to flank Blue-Y what could Blue-M do about it? Nothing! Therefore no TZ!
I will of course reinterpret my view if any one can come up with a single historical justification where a real historical unit was in the position of Red-2 and frozen in its tracks by anything other than poor command and control (i.e. a poor PIP dice.)
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 21, 2019 9:54:32 GMT
To play Devil's Advocate paddy649, imagine the situation where the group of soldiers next to you is fighting to their front and then 4-500 troops turn up on their flank over a frontage of 80p. The flank of your engaged friends would only be 10-20p wide. A lot of shouting angry soldiers with sharp weapons will be heading for your rear fairly quickly. Maybe you wouldn't necessarily make the call to assist if you are extremely worried that your flank will soon be exposed? Maybe you freeze in place or prepare to be outflanked? It's just a thought exercise, trying to put my mind's eye into the shoes of men facing immediate danger with a much clearer knowledge than us of how devastating a flank attack can be.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 21, 2019 10:31:14 GMT
I quite like Paddy’s ‘common sense’ approach. But it does then raise the question of what happens when Red-1 is destroyed or not there.
Look everybody, lets get down to the nitty-gritty. There are TWO issues here:- Firstly, the rule uses the word ‘within’ when it should say ‘inside’, as Joe Collins pointed out. Secondly, people are deliberately ignoring the ‘front-edge’ must touch a TZ ‘far-edge’ requirement.
Here is the rule again, coloured to show the two parts:- “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...”
Why ‘Within’ is the wrong word Page 2 paragraph 10 clearly defines “within” as “at or closer than”...in other words ‘touching’. But then troops would be affected when ‘within/touching’ a TZ side-edge. This is obviously wrong, and is contradicted by Diagram 8 Light Horse-B.
You can’t have ‘within’ meaning one thing on page 2 but then have it meaning something else on page 9!
No matter which side of the fence you’re on, surely we can all agree that the TZ rule should say ‘inside’, not ‘within’. Then touching a TZ side-edge would not count, and there would be no contradictions with the diagrams.
Why are people ignoring the front-edge touching the TZ far-edge requirement? It’s there. I can see it. You can see it. We all can see it. But for some reason people are trying to pretend that these words don’t exist. I can only assume it’s because of decades of playing by the old DBA 2.2 rules.
Well, DBA 3.0 is different. It has new concepts (like X-Ray TZ), and it does some things in new ways.
I know that many players dislike the idea of changing any of Phil Barkers rules... ...but it looks like you don’t want to play by them either!
If you want to play by DBA 2.2 rules, then play DBA 2.2. DBA 3.0 is different.
Conclusion The TZ rule should look like this:- “An element or group which is at least partly inside or whose front-edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far-edge can move only...”
...then it becomes perfectly clear, has no contradictions, is logical, and even follows common sense.
(Of course, you could do what I frequently do, and make your own House Rule interpretation. But at least be honest with yourselves and admit that you are not playing by the rules as written)
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 21, 2019 10:57:52 GMT
Now I'm no linguist (I'm Australian after all) but a quick Google search found this little gem about the word "or" :
One implication of using the multiple ors, rather than a single one and then a comma, is that it emphasizes that all three options are equally good.
The author is purportedly a professional writer/editor for 20 years with a Master's degree in linguistics and formal training in editing. If this can be verfied then shouldn't we take each option as a separate independent condition?
But then again, if the development team is in agreement on the intent of the rule then I am happy to go along with that.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 21, 2019 12:09:21 GMT
Why are people ignoring the front-edge touching the TZ far-edge requirement?It’s there. I can see it. You can see it. We all can see it. But for some reason people are trying to pretend that these words don’t exist. I can only assume it’s because of decades of playing by the old DBA 2.2 rules. Stevie, I suspect that it may have as much or even more to do with how people learn stuff when in groups. I never played 2.2 or earlier but got into 3.0 playing in tournaments. I (and I daresay others) learned by playing with others rather than reading the rules line by line, word by word, and so social norms develop about what the rules are. The written rules are only really referred to in detail if both players realise they don't know something - and even then the views of an tournament organiser/umpire will be sought who is also likely to reinforce the informal norms about the rules. These patterns of behaviour are further reinforced as players are rewarded with enjoyable, fast moving games games with a reasonable degree of historical flavour to them added to the warm feeling of feeling part of a community. Challenges to the norms from outside the group may meet with resistance! I am not saying this is right or wrong - just how people are! I had never noticed the bit about the front edge needing to be touching the TZ for it to constrain movement despite the fact that, when I read it, it is crystal clear and as you point out. This is certainly how I will now interpret it in games I am playing and tournaments I am running. Cheers, Simon
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 21, 2019 13:39:46 GMT
There is another thought here: if TZ only get to affect elements inside (my preference personally), then mounted 1BW (and Joe's house rule 1BW "breakoff") recoil actually becomes a thing!
There would now be a clear tactical reason for each choice of recoil distance!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 21, 2019 14:06:15 GMT
Stevie, I suspect that it may have as much or even more to do with how people learn stuff when in groups. I never played 2.2 or earlier but got into 3.0 playing in tournaments. I (and I daresay others) learned by playing with others rather than reading the rules line by line, word by word, and so social norms develop about what the rules are. I and my mates are like yourself Simon. We gave up playing DBA 2.2 nearly 15 years ago (far too unrealistic and ‘gamey’ for our tastes), and we have forgotten every single thing about it. So we have the advantage of starting with a clean slate and looking at DBA 3.0 with fresh eyes, without the decades of old fashioned out-of-date DBA 2.2 mental baggage holding us back. 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 22, 2019 9:56:03 GMT
Does it all boil down to the following?
Take 1:
"An element or group which...touches its (TZ) far edge...?"
Element 2's left edge is clearly touching it.
That is is the point Jim makes and supports Joe's conclusion.
Take 2:
"An element or group ... whose front edge...touches its (TZ) far edge...?"
In this case the front edge (assuming we discount the front corner) is not touching it.
As proposed by Stevie et al
If so, then, Jim's very sensible approach to presenting the rules has one problem for me, which is starting to change my mind on the subject. Jim has added the word "that" in point iii to make it read. The fact it needed adding could mean that Take 1 reads:
"An element or group ... touches its (TZ) far edge...?"
In other words it does not "read", and hence Take 2 is correct. (Contrary to my interpretation to date).
I will now have to go and contemplate the consequences...
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 22, 2019 10:03:38 GMT
Does it all boil down to the following? Take 1: "An element or group which...touches its (TZ) far edge...?" Element 2's left edge is clearly touching it. That is is the point Jim makes and supports Joe's conclusion. Take 2: "An element or group ... whose front edge...touches its (TZ) far edge...?" In this case the front edge (assuming we discount the front corner) is not touching it. As proposed by Stevie et al If so, then, Jim's very sensible approach to presenting the rules has one problem for me, which is starting to change my mind on the subject. Jim has added the word "that" in point iii to make it read. The fact it needed adding could mean that Take 1 reads: "An element or group ... touches its (TZ) far edge...?" In other words it does not "read", and hence Take 2 is correct. (Contrary to my interpretation to date). I will now have to go and contemplate the consequences... Thoughts? I'm coming round to this view as well, Diades.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 22, 2019 10:24:19 GMT
Does it all boil down to the following? Take 1: "An element or group which...touches its (TZ) far edge...?" Element 2's left edge is clearly touching it. That is is the point Jim makes and supports Joe's conclusion. Take 2: "An element or group ... whose front edge...touches its (TZ) far edge...?" In this case the front edge (assuming we discount the front corner) is not touching it. As proposed by Stevie et al If so, then, Jim's very sensible approach to presenting the rules has one problem for me, which is starting to change my mind on the subject. Jim has added the word "that" in point iii to make it read. The fact it needed adding could mean that Take 1 reads: "An element or group ... touches its (TZ) far edge...?" In other words it does not "read", and hence Take 2 is correct. (Contrary to my interpretation to date). I will now have to go and contemplate the consequences... Thoughts? Fair enough. I guess the point I was trying to make with my last post was that we can dissect the linguistics of the sentences or (I am starting to hate that little word) we can see if the rest of the development team come to the same conclusion that Joe came up with regarding PB's intent. If they agree then I am happy to go along with the intent and add it to the FAQ. If they do not agree then we may have a potentially nasty mess as this will make a huge difference to gameplay. Now I don't have a major preference which way the rule plays, though I am slightly swayed by the more restrictive interpretation as I don't think top down ancient generals can overcome the natural instincts of a group of men in very real danger and have them execute a tactically beneficial manoeuvre. But if it goes the other way then that's fine with me too. I'm just worried that this may cause such a ruckus as to drive players away, which would be such a shame. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 22, 2019 11:38:09 GMT
To go along with your contemplation Diades, here is something else to think about. (I’ll assume that we all agree that the word ‘within’ is wrong and it should be ‘inside’, and I’ll continue this post on that basis)Lets look at the TZ rule once more, but this time I’ll colour it differently:-The TZ rule could look like this:- “An element or group which is at least partly inside or whose front-edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far-edge can move only...”
What is the purpose of the part in blue? It’s just repeating the part in brown. If a front-edge enters a TZ, then of course it is ‘ inside’...as already mention in the brown section! Are we supposed to read it as:- “ An element/group inside... or whose front-edge is inside...a TZ or touches it’s far edge...” If so, then the blue bit has no purpose and we might as well leave it out and simply say:- “ An element/group inside... a TZ or touches it’s far edge...” But the bit in blue is there. It’s not going to go away. And it’s there for a purpose. You can’t add new ingredients to a recipe without changing its flavour. Likewise, you can’t just add X-Ray TZ without changing some of the effects. DBA 2.2 + no X-Ray TZ = plausible effects. DBA 2.2 + X-Ray TZ = strange weird effects, that weren’t there before. DBA 3.0 + X-Ray TZ = plausible effects, if you compensate for the new X-Ray TZ. That’s why the bit in blue is necessary...it’s to compensate for the new weird X-Ray effects. And the bit in blue and bit in green go together to say:- “Only a front-edge touching a TZ far-edge is affected by the Threat Zone”. 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 22, 2019 13:14:14 GMT
Fair enough. I guess the point I was trying to make with my last post was that we can dissect the linguistics of the sentences or (I am starting to hate that little word) we can see if the rest of the development team come to the same conclusion that Joe came up with regarding PB's intent. If they agree then I am happy to go along with the intent and add it to the FAQ. If they do not agree then we may have a potentially nasty mess as this will make a huge difference to gameplay. Now I don't have a major preference which way the rule plays, though I am slightly swayed by the more restrictive interpretation as I don't think top down ancient generals can overcome the natural instincts of a group of men in very real danger and have them execute a tactically beneficial manoeuvre. But if it goes the other way then that's fine with me too. I'm just worried that this may cause such a ruckus as to drive players away, which would be such a shame. Cheers Jim Jim, thanks, many sound points. I want to keep as many people playing as possible. Ideally when two people start a game they should have the same understanding of the rules. As long as we establish clarity / consistency for any given event, we should be good, and ideally it should be the same for all public events. Despite my reading of the words as per my previous post, I also prefer the more restrictive interpretation. Why would a unit facing another unit be more influenced by it than by one threatening its flank or rear?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 22, 2019 14:43:48 GMT
Ha! Why would a unit facing another unit be more influenced by it than by one that can’t possibly reach its flank or rear because someone else is physically in the way (plus they can’t even visually see this possible flank or rear threat in the first place).Why?...because of a badly written rule, that’s why.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 22, 2019 15:20:44 GMT
Yes, the unfortunate history of the Threat Zone rule is, well, unfortunate.
The Oct. 31st, 2013 Playtest copy is the more clear statement of the intent.
The play test group has no insight as to the odd change of the text of the rule (and in fact the change in text to many other parts of the rules as well) in April 2014 except that it was an attempt "not to change the meaning"... We were to examine the changes to see if they changed the meaning. We stated loudly that it (and in some instances, they) did.
Rather than reinsert the October 31st, 2013 text, Phil added our complaint about not being "in" the threat zone... to the text concerning the front edge. He used "within" with all the problems that causes for some.
Please note that there is part of the play test group that sees this rule as clear and not in need of change.
My guess, is that the front edge part was an attempt to prevent rules lawyering concerning moving into a Threat Zone vs "being" in a Threat Zone... but that is just a guess.
In any regards, the intent was that the rule play like DBMM...
The argument whether Xray Threat Zones are optimal is a separate argument.
I would have preferred the "Flashlight" type of Threat Zone. I think that works better than the "rolling carpet" of previous versions of DBA. X-Ray was my second choice... and it does have a long trial/shake out period from DBMM.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 22, 2019 21:08:08 GMT
Perhaps the "front edge" part is there to allow you to wheel past "geometrical" ploys on your own bound to attack a different enemy. But the inside part allows you to threaten flank/rear. The touching part is difficult. PB must've realised that it would keep mounted in TZ on recoil. It simply boils down to whether flanked lines are so restricted. I don't think that a flank threat would be ignored but I never fought so it's just my opinion. Others disagree, which is fine.
Jim
|
|