|
|
Post by davidhoward on Apr 23, 2019 5:29:04 GMT
Thanks to Joe, the other members of the development team, and all who have taken up this topic to respond to my question.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 2, 2019 20:19:56 GMT
Stevie:
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."
But I'm not convinced Phil meant the front edge language to apply in this manner. Almost all X-ray players would consider Element 2 in the TZ. So my simple clear rule does work.
Your rule also has the odd effect that an element touching the corner and perpendicular such that its front edge touches the side edge of the TZ would be "in" the TZ.
As to those pointing out the problems of X-Ray TZs - I'm with you and lobbied long and hard aganist them (they are better than the old "flashlight" mechanism but inferior to "rolling carpet").
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 3, 2019 11:16:32 GMT
Well, Tom, the purpose of ‘rules’ is to generate the right effects. So let us ignore the actual wording of the TZ rule for the moment, and just concentrate on its effects:- Question: do players think that a hard flanking enemy should influence a line of elements? If yes, then explain how an enemy that cannot even reach an element (because someone else is in the way) is a ‘threat’?...a situation that only occurs because of the addition of X-Ray TZ, which was not in DBA before, has been added via a badly written rule. If no, then play by the rules as they are written, the way Phil Barker intended, which is why he worded the TZ rule in the way that he did. ---------------------------------------- Neither I nor my mates were part of the development team, and none of us have ever met the author. Plus none of us (as far as I know) are telepathic, and able to directly read Phil Barker’s mind. So all we have to go on is the rules as they are written. Still, if the DBA tournament community wishes to ‘ pretend’ that the Threat Zone rules says:- “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 so be it. What other of Phil Barker’s rules are we going to alter and leave out, just because we find them inconvenient and they don’t match how we individually prefer to play? Are we going to play by Mr Barker’s rules, or distort them into some DBA 2.2-DBA 3.0 hybrid to suit ourselves? 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 May 5, 2019 2:02:17 GMT
I support the X-ray TZ - it is a BIG part of eliminating all the shuffling that used to go on around generating perfect matchups. But I agree that having the TZ X-ray itself all the way down a line, and prevent an element at its (the TZs) far edge from taking any kind of action seems dumb. Seems PB agreed, hence the wording we currently see.
But maybe X-ray should have been kept, but "at" 1 BW distance still allows maneuvering by say a LCh that recoils? I confess I don't know what the best approach is. Other than rules-as-written worked quite well I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 5, 2019 9:07:29 GMT
Along with Primuspilus, I too quite like the concept of X-Ray Threat Zones. It reminds us that our soldiers are not just radio controlled robots, but have minds of their own. (Imagine the effect on the morale of the front rank if the rear rank suddenly nips off and moves away.
If I was in the front rank and saw my mates behind me leaving, I’d probably be off with them!)  Under HoTT, a hard flanking enemy would not affect a line of elements (no X-rays, and no nobody complains)... Under DBA 2.2, a hard flanking enemy would not affect a line of elements (no X-rays, and no nobody complains)... Under DBA 3.0, a hard flanking enemy would not affect a line of elements (if the new TZ rule is followed as written)... The only way under DBA 3.0 to have a hard flanking enemy affecting a line of elements is to deliberately misinterpret, distort, or change the wording of the new TZ rule. And the reward for doing this?...to generate an unrealistic outcome, where an enemy that cannot even reach another friendly element (because someone else is physically in the way) is somehow perceived as a threat! Now I must confess to being notorious for changing rules to create more realism. However, I don’t see the point of changing a rule in order to create less realism! 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
|
|
