|
|
Post by arnopov on Jun 9, 2020 21:10:41 GMT
My first impression was that if it's already line-up, there is not a lot the Ps can do.
There is no provision in the rule to move sideways in a ZOC in order to avoid something, only to line up.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 9, 2020 21:13:25 GMT
Zendor:
In your second illustration...
No, the Ps cannot make that move.
It can move forward or straight back.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 9, 2020 21:38:58 GMT
I do wish I could give you a nice simple unambiguous answer Zendor. Unfortunately such a simple explanation is not possible, so be prepared for yet another one of my own personal long-winded interpretations.  Basically I think that no, the Ps in your picture cannot contact the Bd. The reason it cannot do so is because it is already ‘lined-up’ in a TZ. Figure 11 shows what being lined-up is...it’s when lines extending an element’s sides matches a distant enemy element’s sides. And Figures 7a and 7b shows the possible options for moving into a lined-up position when in a TZ...but I can find no examples of moving out of a lined-up position while they are still in a TZ. (It’s as if being lined-up in a TZ locks troops into that configuration) The FAQ has an example of this:- 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 Spear in front. Please reference diagram 7b for the proper ways to respond to a threat zone. Alternative movesCould the Aux move out of the way?: no, as it can only leave a TZ by moving directly straight back, and the Ps is in the way. Could the Ps interpenetrate the Aux?: no, because the Ps must start lined-up behind the Aux in order to interpenetrate it. The only way I can see of doing it is if the Aux first moves sideways to line-up with the Bd (see Figure 7a, option 2), then the Ps would be lined-up behind the Aux and could interpenetrate it. (But the Ps still needs enough room to do so...and there isn’t any)But being lined up and advancing into contact are alternatives stevie and arnopov. There is nothing which says that an element which is in a TZ and already lined up cannot later move to into contact with the element generating the TZ. And nothing to say that an element which is lined up has to move directly forwards into - or even towards - contact either Joe. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 10, 2020 5:20:35 GMT
Err... yes there is...
"An element or group whose front edge enters an enemy
TZ or touches its far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with the enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance
into or towards contact with the enemy generating the TZ or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for
the entire move."
This is further illustrated with clarity by diagrams 7a and 7b where the actual word "straight" is used multiple times.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 10, 2020 7:16:28 GMT
Err... yes there is... "An element or group whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with the enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance into or towards contact with the enemy generating the TZ or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move." This is further illustrated with clarity by diagrams 7a and 7b where the actual word "straight" is used multiple times. Joe Collins No there isn't Joe. Break that sentence down and it says "An element or group whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move......to advance into or towards contact with the enemy generating the TZ...." Nothing there to say that the move can only be directly forwards. And, as we know, the diagrams are not part of the rules - and the textual gloss is perhaps even less so. (In fig 7b, once Sp B enters the TZ of Bd X, there is nothing in the actual rules to prevent it moving to contact Bd X, even though the explanatory text says it cannot.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 10, 2020 8:56:41 GMT
Perhaps I can help by bringing in another piece of evidence (sorry if I sound like a lawyer).  From the FAQ (which, like the diagrams, adds extra clarity by giving solid practical in-game examples, while the rules are often just vague general outlines):- 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 Spear in front. Please reference diagram 7b for the proper ways to respond to a threat zone. In Zendor’s latest picture the Ps wants to move into contact... ...but it can only do so providing there is nothing in the way. And the FAQ says that when already lined-up in a TZ you can’t move to be unlined-up (unless you first leave the TZ), so the Ps must stay lined-up and can’t move sideways to avoid the Aux. Remembering of course that being ‘lined-up’ can be happen at a distance, as shown in Figure 11, and is not solely confined to being in actual contact. Thus the Ps must interpenetrate, which it can only do if it starts lined-up behind the Aux, and it isn’t. (See Interpenetrating on page 9, first paragraph) |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 10, 2020 9:19:47 GMT
That Q&A is of course talking about another move, moving towards the element but not making contact.
Question being asked is about moving into contact.
My history of being incorrect is reasonably high.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 10, 2020 10:05:32 GMT
Hmmm...that’s a good point Baldie.
Well, players are going to have to decide for themselves.
* Do we take the FAQ at face value, and accept that when lined-up in TZ you must stay lined-up?
* Or do we assume there is an unwritten hidden clause, not mentioned in the FAQ or shown in the
diagrams, that allows a lined-up element to become unlined-up when it is moving into contact?
I can see exploitation problems with the latter interpretation.
Suppose in Zendor’s diagram the red player has say an elephant next to the blade.
The green player couldn’t announce that the Ps will contact the elephant, as it must react to the
the blade who’s TZ it is in.
Ah...but if it were allowed to become unlined-up because it wants to make contact, it could shuffle
sideways to avoid the Aux, move forwards to contact both the blade AND the elephant, then use
the free sideways slide to conform frontally solely with the elephant.
There you go...the Ps has slipped out of the TZ of the blade and made contact with the elephant
as if the blade TZ wasn’t even there!
Do players think this is a good interpretation of the spirit of the TZ rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 10, 2020 10:11:52 GMT
Perhaps I can help by bringing in another piece of evidence (sorry if I sound like a lawyer). From the FAQ (which, like the diagrams, adds extra clarity by giving solid practical in-game examples, while the rules are often just vague general outlines):- 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 Spear in front. Please reference diagram 7b for the proper ways to respond to a threat zone. In Zendor’s latest picture the Ps wants to move into contact... ...but it can only do so providing there is nothing in the way. And the FAQ says that when already lined-up in a TZ you can’t move to be unlined-up (unless you first leave the TZ), so the Ps must stay lined-up and can’t move sideways to avoid the Aux. Remembering of course that being ‘lined-up’ can be happen at a distance, as shown in Figure 11, and is not solely confined to being in actual contact. Thus the Ps must interpenetrate, which it can only do if it starts lined-up behind the Aux, and it isn’t. (See Interpenetrating on page 9, first paragraph)But the response to the FAQ relies on the text of 7b, which I have already suggested is itself unreliable, and the insistence on remaining lined up introduces a new condition which is nowhere stated in the rules. It is generally accepted that if an element is in the TZ of two of its opponents, the player can choose which to attack. Are we now saying that if it is lined up with one it can only attack that one? What if it cannot reach that one because a corner of the other TZ'ing element is in the way? Is that a good interpretation of the spirit of the TZ rules (as someone once said)? |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 10, 2020 10:29:49 GMT
Hmmm...that’s a good point Baldie. Well, players are going to have to decide for themselves. * Do we take the FAQ at face value, and accept that when lined-up in TZ you must stay lined-up? * Or do we assume there is an unwritten hidden clause, not mentioned in the FAQ or shown in the diagrams, that allows a lined-up element to become unlined-up when it is moving into contact? I can see exploitation problems with the latter interpretation. Suppose in Zendor’s diagram the red player has say an elephant next to the blade. The green player couldn’t announce that the Ps will contact the elephant, as it must react to the the blade who’s TZ it is in. Ah...but if it were allowed to become unlined-up because it wants to make contact, it could shuffle sideways to avoid the Aux, move forwards to contact both the blade AND the elephant, then use the free sideways slide to conform frontally solely with the elephant. There you go...the Ps has slipped out of the TZ of the blade and made contact with the elephant as if the blade TZ wasn’t even there! Do players think this is a good interpretation of the spirit of the TZ rules? I refuse to decide for myself I want the Gov to decide for me then possibly change their mind a bit later or say I misinterpreted their interpretation |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 10, 2020 11:15:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 10, 2020 11:19:29 GMT
But the response to the FAQ relies on the text of 7b, which I have already suggested is itself unreliable, and the insistence on remaining lined up introduces a new condition which is nowhere stated in the rules. It is generally accepted that if an element is in the TZ of two of its opponents, the player can choose which to attack. Are we now saying that if it is lined up with one it can only attack that one? What if it cannot reach that one because a corner of the other TZ'ing element is in the way? Is that a good interpretation of the spirit of the TZ rules (as someone once said)? Unfortunately we have to face the fact that some of the DBA 3.0 rules are unclear, vague, confusing, or just missing. Take deploying in a river, or forgetting to tell us NOT to first turn 180° when fleeing from being shot in the rear (otherwise they’d flee INTO contact with the shooters), and so on. I see the rules as general outlines...and the diagrams as practical examples of that rule in actual use... ...and the FAQ as a sort of ‘software patch’ to further add clarity and include those few missing rules (and the FAQ also corrects the mistakes or missing bits in the diagram dialogues). In short, I find that all three of the above are necessary in order to correctly understand the rules. (Mind you, I do think the FAQ pronouncement that even paltry rives prevents side & rear support is utterly ridiculous and totally wrong,
as it makes rivers unplayable, is unrealistic, and completely flies in the face of historical evidence!
All I can say is thank heaven for “House Rules”, ha, ha, ha! ) |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jun 10, 2020 13:31:21 GMT
...(In fig 7b, once Sp B enters the TZ of Bd X, there is nothing in the actual rules to prevent it moving to contact Bd X, even though the explanatory text says it cannot.)
Yo Menacus !
Are you sure that's what the caption of fig. 7b says? It certainly doesn't say anything about Sp B moving towards Bd X, and does not prevent it. That caption is incomplete, sure, but does not contradict the rules.
And I agree with you that as soon as SpB enters the ZOC of BdX, it can then move towards it, or line up, or all that good stuff. But this has nothing to do with Zendor's quandary, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 10, 2020 14:53:31 GMT
I wonder if things become clearer if we consider the alternative. If an element lined-up in a TZ could move sideways to unline-up, what would be the result? Well, as I said before, it could contact two enemy elements, then use the free sideways slide to end in front-edge contact with either of them. This would make a mockery of the concept of being pinned by a threat zone...they’d be free to contact whoever they liked. I believe this was realized, so Figures 7a and 7b, and the FAQ, goes into more detail than the general outlines of the rules to prohibit such an exploit by use of the following:- In Figure 7b we have a group column with its front element only in a TZ, and its move options are:- 1. Halt 2. To line-up with Blade-Y or pivot and line-up with Blade-X (sliding sideways without making contact) 3. To move straight towards and/or slide sideways (to) line-up with Blade-Y without making contact 4. To slide/pivot (and move) towards Blade-X and line-up (sideways) without making contact 5. To move into front-edge contact with either Blade-Y or Blade-X Only option 5 ends in contact...options 2, 3 and 4 all involve sliding sideways without making contact. The implication given by this and the FAQ is that when lined-up in a TZ, moving into contact can only be done by not becoming unlined-up. This also gives meaning to groups sliding sideways to line-up when in a threat zone... ...doing so will lock the enemy into that configuration and prevent them from freely picking who to contact. Not mentioned in the rules, and not worded clearly in the diagrams or the FAQ, but the implication is certainly there. And it does partially solve a potential loophole. |
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Jun 10, 2020 15:02:13 GMT
Err... yes there is... "An element or group whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with the enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance into or towards contact with the enemy generating the TZ or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move." This is further illustrated with clarity by diagrams 7a and 7b where the actual word "straight" is used multiple times. Joe Collins No there isn't Joe. Break that sentence down and it says "An element or group whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move......to advance into or towards contact with the enemy generating the TZ...." Nothing there to say that the move can only be directly forwards. And, as we know, the diagrams are not part of the rules - and the textual gloss is perhaps even less so. (In fig 7b, once Sp B enters the TZ of Bd X, there is nothing in the actual rules to prevent it moving to contact Bd X, even though the explanatory text says it cannot.) , according to your interpretation, the Ps diagonal movement in Zendor's diagram should be allowed also in absence of the Ax unit. Would you allow that? |
|
