|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 21:30:06 GMT
Whichever Green element moves into contact, the Bd starts at a +2 in combat. It can destroy the Ax. It can't destroy the Ps. Is moving the Ps really that stupid? You also need to bear in mind that the rule applies to any type of element; it won't always be a Ps, an Ax and a Bd involved. Replace the Ps with a Kn and have that attack the Bd. Does that look like a good choice? Just to be clear. My judgement on the value of the move was not one of gameplay but one of dealing with the nature of the hypothetical itself. I am, therefore, not concerned with the specific troop types involved but rather how the element, positioned thusly, should be activated. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 21:45:27 GMT
Just to be clear. My judgement on the value of the move was not one of gameplay but one of dealing with the nature of the hypothetical itself. I am, therefore, not concerned with the specific troop types involved but rather how the element, positioned thusly, should be activated. The why do you regard the move as "stupid"? There is nothing in the rules that says one has to attack with the closest element - and nothing in the rules that says one cannot make stupid moves either come to that. And is your objection to the banana move based solely on the fact that you consider the outcome to be stupid - a subjective judgment - or on the fact that it is not in accord with the rules - an objective one? |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jun 17, 2020 21:49:30 GMT
At the heart of the issue is "... (b) to advance (into or) towards contact with such an enemy..." (my brackets).
"Advance towards" implies that there is a metric, or a distance involved (or several of these, who knows).
It's the usual curse of the DBx movement engine, it's heavily geometric, but relies on vague words to convey meaning. It should instead define what the metrics are, but 1/ I'm pretty sure it's not easy to do it robustly, 2/ I'm also pretty sure that PB himself did not use metrics, but relied on an intuitive understanding of "advancing towards".
From reading the various posts, it looks like , for instance, Menacus and Roland have different understanding of "advancing towards". It also looks like the rules work better with a more restrictive "definition" of moving towards (less weird s**t).
Therefore, without metrics (or an algorithm if you prefer), we can also only rely on the intuitive approach, we have no choice. That might sound problematic, but in practice it tends to work well enough, mostly through self policing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 22:22:00 GMT
Just to be clear. My judgement on the value of the move was not one of gameplay but one of dealing with the nature of the hypothetical itself. I am, therefore, not concerned with the specific troop types involved but rather how the element, positioned thusly, should be activated. The why do you regard the move as "stupid"? There is nothing in the rules that says one has to attack with the closest element - and nothing in the rules that says one cannot make stupid moves either come to that. And is your objection to the banana move based solely on the fact that you consider the outcome to be stupid - a subjective judgment - or on the fact that it is not in accord with the rules - an objective one? Its been 15 years since I was a regular of a tournament "scene", and I now remember why . Just so happened to reread the introduction page of 3.0. I was looking to see if there was some mention of 'the spirit of the game'. Ultimate Frisbee builds its culture upon such a notion. Pretty much any thing Rick Priestley has penned has a passage devoted to it. Alas, there was none.
To answer your question: because Occam's razor. the Ax and Bd are both in each other's TZ and closest to each other. Moving the PS first would either A: involve pushing the Ax laterally out of the way in order to align with the Bd or B: would draw the Bd out away from the Ax and out if its TZ in order to complete conforming to the attacking PS. Both seem very much not in the spirit of the game. While I applaud Phil Barker as an innovative game designer 50 years of practice never improved his skill as a rules writer ( which is legendarily bad)
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 17, 2020 22:54:33 GMT
At the heart of the issue is "... (b) to advance (into or) towards contact with such an enemy..." (my brackets). "Advance towards" implies that there is a metric, or a distance involved (or several of these, who knows). It's the usual curse of the DBx movement engine, it's heavily geometric, but relies on vague words to convey meaning. It should instead define what the metrics are, but 1/ I'm pretty sure it's not easy to do it robustly, 2/ I'm also pretty sure that PB himself did not use metrics, but relied on an intuitive understanding of "advancing towards". From reading the various posts, it looks like , for instance, Menacus and Roland have different understanding of "advancing towards". It also looks like the rules work better with a more restrictive "definition" of moving towards (less weird s**t). Therefore, without metrics (or an algorithm if you prefer), we can also only rely on the intuitive approach, we have no choice. That might sound problematic, but in practice it tends to work well enough, mostly through self policing. I approve of the autism infused in this post!
The gaming world approves...
LOL...
I am shocked that Wargamers haven't conquered the world.
Wait... perhaps we have!
On a more serious note...
Arnopov...
Yes, exactly.
Well said!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 18, 2020 6:51:58 GMT
Well, actually, no. There is no contradiction. I interpret the Threat Zone rules as being very restrictive. In my opinion the diagrams do as well. I am following their lead. The text doesn't explicitly cover every scenario possible. One can ignore the diagrams (they are not part of the rules, or they actually weren't written by Phil, or they are full of errors, or the examples are not general- they only answer that specific situation, or some combination of all of these) and come up with all sorts of moves from the current text. I was hoping that the diagrams would put some of these issues to rest. They of course haven't. (I am not being fair... they actually have.) I would bet good money that even with a careful re-write and more diagrams we would have the same type of issues. Joe Collins Fair enough Joe. Interestingly enough, I and my little gang have already been playing that way for some time now... ...although we were doing so because we thought the FAQ ruling said you must stay lined-up. From now on we too will disallow any moves inside a TZ that makes an element less lined-up with its ‘designated TZ target’ at any point during a move. Which has the same effect anyway...is a glass half full or is it half empty? (I think it was Star Trek’s Mr Spock that once said “A difference that makes no difference is no difference“)  So that now means that if as the outcome of recoiling two or more enemies you can only attack the one you were actually fighting. If you kill the one you were fighting and the ones on your flank and rear all recoil I presume you get to choose which if any you wish to contact next turn as your front edge is not currently lined up with any of them. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 18, 2020 7:31:32 GMT
Fair enough Joe. Interestingly enough, I and my little gang have already been playing that way for some time now... ...although we were doing so because we thought the FAQ ruling said you must stay lined-up. From now on we too will disallow any moves inside a TZ that makes an element less lined-up with its ‘designated TZ target’ at any point during a move. Which has the same effect anyway...is a glass half full or is it half empty? (I think it was Star Trek’s Mr Spock that once said “A difference that makes no difference is no difference“) So that now means that if as the outcome of recoiling two or more enemies you can only attack the one you were actually fighting. If you kill the one you were fighting and the ones on your flank and rear all recoil I presume you get to choose which if any you wish to contact next turn as your front edge is not currently lined up with any of them. I don't think it does if you use stevie's "designated target" interpretation, Baldie. You just designate the element to the side as the target and get stuck in. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 18, 2020 8:51:27 GMT
Wot Menacussecundus said and Paulisper seconded. 👍 (Mind you...I still think the HoTT system is better...) |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 18, 2020 18:57:56 GMT
So that now means that if as the outcome of recoiling two or more enemies you can only attack the one you were actually fighting. If you kill the one you were fighting and the ones on your flank and rear all recoil I presume you get to choose which if any you wish to contact next turn as your front edge is not currently lined up with any of them. I don't think it does if you use stevie's "designated target" interpretation, Baldie. You just designate the element to the side as the target and get stuck in. But if we dont kill the one we were fighting we can only choose that one to go in against and ignore any of the other, possibly three elements on our flanks and rear. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jun 18, 2020 19:23:29 GMT
I don't think it does if you use stevie's "designated target" interpretation, Baldie. You just designate the element to the side as the target and get stuck in. But if we dont kill the one we were fighting we can only choose that one to go in against and ignore any of the other, possibly three elements on our flanks and rear. No, you can choose to fight anything that you’re in the TZ of, irrespective of whether they’re to your front, flank or rear 😊 P |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 18, 2020 19:54:47 GMT
Designated cool
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 19, 2020 8:58:27 GMT
Just a quick reminder, to make sure we are all singing the same song as it were.  If you start a bound in multiple Threat Zones, or if during a move you enter multiple TZ’s simultaneously, you pick one to be your ‘designated target’, and it is that ‘designated target’ that you cannot become less lined-up with that bound (unless you move straight back from your present position of course). If you start or enter just one TZ, then that by default becomes your ‘designated target’ for that bound... ...even if during the move you enter a new TZ, so no switching of targets to wiggle or wander away from your initial ‘designated target’ is allowed, as the FAQ ruling says. (The Threat zone rule implies that the options are:- (a) to line-up its front-edge with one such enemy (the ‘designated target’), or (b) to move closer (not further away) to contact or line-up with its ‘designated target’) For example:- In Figure 7b, Spear-A begins in two TZ’s, so must ‘designate’ which it will respond to and be influenced by. Spear-B on the other hand starts or has entered just one TZ, that of Blade-Y, so that by default becomes its ‘designated target’ for that bound...even though it may enter a new TZ (that of Blade-X) during the move. (“to line-up its front-edge with one such enemy...or move closer to such an enemy”) Thus Spear-B is not given an option to contact, line-up, or move towards Blade-X in the Figure 7b dialogue. Like Tom and Joe I too interpret the Threat Zone rules to be very restrictive, and should give you LESS, not MORE, move options. The difference between DBA and HoTT is that the latter is even more restrictive. In HoTT, only rarely do you ever get the chance to choose a ‘designated target’...that decision is made for you be being the TZ generator that can be reached by the shortest distance (which some like myself
consider to be more realistic as it prevents you from exposing a vulnerable flank by waltzing across the
front of a nearby enemy, who just sits there watching helplessly, as you move towards the more distant
TZ generator). Still, this thread is talking about the DBA rules, and not those of HoTT.  |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 19, 2020 12:47:20 GMT
So remind me about rivers
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 19, 2020 13:15:57 GMT
So remind me about rivers Doesn't it go something like" 'first one to step their toe in sets the tone.'
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jun 19, 2020 13:22:15 GMT
So remind me about rivers Oh, sweet Jesus, please don’t go there... P |
|
