|
Post by stevie on Nov 5, 2019 13:23:26 GMT
...mind you, things would be a lot clearer if the “ Combat Outcomes” said:- “If Paladins/Artillery score less: Destroyed if in contact by their close combat opponents.” ...however it doesn’t say that (but perhaps it should, and that is how we should all interpret it, no matter what the actual wording in the current printed version of the HoTT 2.1 rule book says)
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 5, 2019 19:06:41 GMT
...mind you, things would be a lot clearer if the “ Combat Outcomes” said:- “If Paladins/Artillery score less: Destroyed if in contact by their close combat opponents.” ...however it doesn’t say that (but perhaps it should, and that is how we should all interpret it, no matter what the actual wording in the current printed version of the HoTT 2.1 rule book says) The rules do say this when you read them all together.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 6, 2019 8:53:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Nov 7, 2019 9:15:09 GMT
Stevie, I just know you'll appreciate this:
“Close Combat”, on page 21, says:- “Close combat occurs when an element has moved into, or remains in, both edge and corner-to-corner base contact lined-up with an enemy element, or in at least partial front-edge contact with an enemy Stronghold.”
It doesn't say 'front edge', so according to the strict reading of the rules a side to side contact = close combat, providing it has both a side edge to side edge contact and at least one of the corners touching the enemy element's corner.
Therefore elements in purely side edge contact should fight each other as well!!
However I dare you to try that one out in a competition!
However addressing the main discussion point: Personally I think the crucial aspect is the bit you underlined under Combat Outcomes.
I agree that it doesn't actually say WHO destroys them, and it doesn’t say WHAT KIND of contact, but I think that it's implied that it's referring to "its main close combat opponent or the main element shooting at or bespelling it." and only if it is in contact with these would it be destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 7, 2019 13:54:41 GMT
Ha, ha, ha!...again well spotted! 👍 Just one other minor point:- I agree that it doesn't actually say WHO destroys them, and it doesn’t say WHAT KIND of contact, but I think that it's implied that it's referring to "its main close combat opponent or the main element shooting at or bespelling it." and only if it is in contact with these would it be destroyed. If Shooters or a Magician have their front-edges in contact with the enemy (or are overlapping them), then they can't shoot or use their magic.
So it can only be referring to 'close combat' that destroys Art/Paladins if they score less (unless doubled).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 medievalthomas on Nov 8, 2019 21:57:06 GMT
Stevie is textually correct but intent wise incorrect. "Precisely worded" is hardly how I would describe HOTT (though its a bit better than some of the other DBX stuff).
The intent of course is that Art/Paladins don't give ground in MELEE (due to immobility or stubbornness respectively) and are therefore killed where they stand (I call this Steadfast and define it in Knights & Knaves precisely (speaking of) to avoid this sort of text parsing).
If you feel stuck with the "precise wording" in HOTT you have to apply Stevie's analysis and kill em from incidental contact even though that's not what the authors intended.
I'll make sure to fix this in D3H2 (which is getting an update anyway). Since D3H2 has in touch author we can fix stuff as it comes up (despite the moans of rule lawyers...).
TomT
|
|
|
Post by shtrezilgate on Dec 17, 2019 22:50:12 GMT
The "or bespelling it" bits ine the "combat outcome" part clearlyu indicate that a magical attack is combat, which was not so evident after all.
But, really, the "in contact" for Paladin and artillery can only be understood as "in contact with the enemy", "the ennemy" being the "the enemy" of the regroupment of outcomes labelled "if its total if less than that of the *the enemy but more than half" (my empasis).
And what is "the enemy"? All the enemy army? Or the one enemy that is causing the combat whose outcome we are checking? I think it can be only the later, for purely linguistic reason.
So, unless the magician is also in close combat with the paladin or artillery, no, the paladin won't die. If it was to ben the rules would be written as "in contact with an enemy", wouldn't they? (or "in contact with enemy").
|
|
|
Post by zaotlichiye on Sept 3, 2021 21:32:39 GMT
You have a very similar issue with the Shooters, Beasts outcome. Any mounted in contact destroys them. Clearly the minimum intent is that overlapping mounted (possibly in their own combat, but side-to-side contact) will destroy them (note that flanking or rear-attacking mounted will destroy them on recoil anyway). If it were only the main opponent it would say "destroyed by mounted". But what about magic or shooting attacks when there is mounted in side-to-side or (unopposed only?) corner to corner contact? Narratively it doesn't seem so bad. Shooting or magic disrupts them and nearby mounted rides them down. Mechanically it's odd if you move Riders into side-to-side contact. But why would you when you can just jam the Riders into them with much the same effect?
The same analysis applies to Artillery (Paladins are another kettle of fish I haven't thought through yet). Do distant attacks destroy Artillery if friends are in contact?
[Note that it is possible for Shooters or Magicians to be in non-close combat contact themselves _and_ shoot the Artillery, so any rewording would have to deal with that unlikely situation.]
Is "overlapping" Artillery with a Flyer and shooting at it all that serious compared to, for example, running two ranks of Spears straight at it?
If anything is off, it's how fragile Artillery is and how little effect flanking it helps.
|
|