Lining up in Threat Zones

I do understand what you are saying Tom, that geometric ploys should not be used to prevent contact.

But consider Zendor’s diagrams from the opposite perspective...should the Blade lined-up with the Psiloi
be allowed to bypass the Aux (which is closer and who’s TZ it is in) so that it can contact the Psiloi?
HoTT wouldn’t allow it, as you’d have to contact the closest TZ generator.
DBMM wouldn’t allow it, as you’d only be allowed to move in a straight line into contact.
So why should DBA 3.0 allow it?

I have to say that I’m not comfortable with the Bd being allowed to do this, as it is moving away from being lined up in the TZ to then swing back to contact the Ps. You could use some of the same arguments as previous for the reverse move, but I don’t believe that this is in the spirit of what was intended...

P

Ha! Not according to the FAQ Ronisan...the same FAQ that is meant to add additional
understanding and more clarity to the rules.

Q: I have an element of Blade that starts its move in the threat zone of a Spear that is on the end
    of a line of three enemy Spear. My Blade is lined-up with the opposing spear. As I move my Blade
    forward, can I do so at an angle to catch multiple enemy Spear elements in my Threat Zone?
    Is this move allowed?
A: No, you must stay lined-up with the Spear in front. Please reference diagram 7b for the proper
    ways to respond to a threat zone.

Joe says “I disallow any moves inside a TZ that makes an element less lined-up at any point in the move”...
               ...so follows the FAQ TZ ruling.
Tom says "There is no requirement to ‘stay lined-up’ in a TZ”...
                 ...which is the opposite of the FAQ TZ ruling.

Perhaps the FAQ ruling is wrong, or maybe it’s only half right, and a bit of it is missing.
Had it said:-
“A: No, you must stay lined-up with the Spear in front, unless moving into front-edge contact
      with the enemy exerting the TZ (what I call ‘its designated TZ target’)"
...then that would support Tom’s view.

Good grief...both Tom and Joe are members of the FAQ Team, and if they can’t agree then
what chance do the rest of us have!

Following our Saturday night lock-down Zoom drink-up, where we constantly change our background
pictures to various pub interiors in order to simulate a virtual pub-crawl (and many cans of wicked
strength cider was consumed by yours truly!🍺), my little gang of DBA players discussed Threat Zones.
Since none of my mates are interested in tournaments, and I only occasionally play in them, and
since we already use several house rules as standard in our games, we decided why on earth should
we use a poorly written and confusing TZ rule that has weird nonsensical unrealistic outcomes,
that causes us to frown deeply, shake our heads, and leave a bad taste in our mouths.
So we have settled on the following.

Firstly, MedievalThomas is right
The FAQ TZ ruling is only partly correct, because it’s missing a section, and it should read as:-
“A: No, you must stay lined-up with the Spear in front, unless moving into front-edge contact
     with the enemy exerting the TZ (what I call ‘its designated TZ target’)”

Proof of this can be found in this example:-

                             Element-A
                                   obstacle
                             Element-1

Here two elements are lined-up in each other’s TZ, but there's an obstacle partially between them.
This obstacle could be an element, a piece of terrain, part of a city or fort, or even be impassable.
If line-up elements must stay lined-up, then it would be impossible to reach their opponent...
...or it would force entry into bad going instead of simply going around it.
This is ridiculous.

Secondly, the HoTT TZ rules are right
When in a TZ, the ‘designated target’ should be the enemy that can be reached by the shortest move.
Note that the shortest move is not the same as the shortest measured distance, element-to-element.

Take this example:-

                            Element-A
                                   Element-2
                            Element-1

Here Element-A and Element-1 are lined-up in each other’s TZ, but Element-2 (which is not actually touching
Element-A) is in the way.
Do players really think it’s realistic to have Element-A zipping around Element-2 in order to reach Element-1,
just because a poorly written and badly thought-out rule says so?

This does mean that Element-1 can contact Element-A, but Element-A cannot contact Element-1, as the move
to do so is greater, so Element-A must make Element-2 its ‘designated TZ target’, as that move is shorter...
...but that is the price you pay for being in two Threat Zones, where your move options should be limited.
If Element-1 were not there, then Element-A would have to designate Element-2 as its TZ target, as it is
clearly a nearby threat.
Well, that nearby threat is not going to disappear just because of the TZ from another more distant enemy!

This also means that when a single element is victorious in fending off a simultaneous frontal + flank attack,
the recoiled flank attackers will take a longer move to reach them than those that recoiled from the front.
So it’ll be the frontal recoiled enemy that will become by default the ‘designated TZ target’. This is what
happens in HoTT, and a similar thing happens in DBMM...and players using those rulesets don’t complain.

So there you have it
This is what we have decided to do, and to hell with what the rules say, as it gives a consistent, realistic,
and common sense approach to the Threat Zone move options.
Other players, and tournament organizers, will have to find their own solutions to try and un-muddy the
mess that is the DBA TZ rules.