Lining up in Threat Zones

Err.

No. The diagrams are part of the rules.
You are relying on Bob's interpretation of a remark made by Phil in a moment of great frustration.

Bob is wrong.

The diagrams list Phil as one on the authors. They are in the rulebook. They were very unfortunately left out of the new "Purple Primer".

The diagrams do have errors and omissions, but so does the text.

Look, you can play the game however you want.

You can certainly ignore the diagrams, and the FAQ if you wish.

In my experience no one I know plays it this way or has played it this way in the past.

I have no memory of the development team considering such possible. In fact the original wording limited the move at one point with the odd construction "toward lineup". We convinced Phil to reword that part.

At least we do have diagrams to help. But now I am doubting that they really do. Perhaps Phil was correct in not wanting to include them.

Joe Collins

The diagrams aren't in "SAW".

A poor decision in my opinion.

Though once again... just having diagrams doesn't mean that everyone will accept them. This makes me wonder at their value.


Joe Collins

A couple of comments by Phil about diagrams. Unlike Joe, I do not know Phil's state of mind. Was he frustrated? How does that impact his beliefs?

In response to question about role of diagrams vis a vis the rule text

From: "'Phil Barker' pc.barker@blueyonder.co.uk [DBA]" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DBA] Re: More Than One Threat Zone
Date: August 9, 2014 at 3:39:08 AM EDT
To: <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: DBA@yahoogroups.com


On the contrary, the text IS the rules. Diagrams are an aid to understanding the text, for those that need it.

Phil
---------------------------------------

During discussion of whether the diagrams should be interspersed in the text.

"I don't see why people who can understand the rules should have to navigate
around a block of diagrams they are not using. Diagrams are to help the
player who cannot understand, and hopefully when he has referred to the
section at the back once, he will rarely have to do so again. Most games are
NOT between beginners. For 10 years, DBA has had only a single diagram
page."

------------------
When asked about the relationship between rule text and diagrams

"The purpose of diagrams is to help explain the written rule. They are a
double edged sword in that someone will always claim that a diagram
supersedes the written rule."

-------------------------
Warning us not to be critical of the diagrams. I attach so show Phil's plan for who will take over DBA.

"Chris is working on the diagrams and sending doubtful bits to me progressively for vetting

I should perhaps point out that he is not a retired gentleman of leisure, but works long hours in a full time job, is a working director of 2 companies and has a leading role in our other big new set HFG. I dare say he will consider putting the final version out to this group for checking, provided he is not cheesed off by too much nagging.>>> I regard him as my intellectual rule writing heir should I vanish prematurely, so do not annoy him needlessly, lest he look with a jaundiced eye on your favourite armies...

Phil"

You make some very good points Sheffmark.

To stop lined-up elements from using the free sideways slide to end in frontal contact with an enemy
who’s TZ they didn’t start in sounds reasonable...but it will require extra rules that do not currently
exist in order to determine in which direction the free sideways slide can be used.

In Figure 7b, if the rearmost Spear-B slid sideways to line-up with Blade-Y (a listed move), then yes,
it would enter the TZ of Blade-X...but by then it will be too late - they would be lined-up with Blade-Y,
and the FAQ says once lined-up in a TZ they can’t move to be unlined-up. They’d become ‘locked’.
Perhaps that is why Spear-B is not given an option to line-up or contact Blade-X.

But like yourself I too intensely dislike the notion that Spear-A could move across the front of Blade-Y
to engage Blade-X. In reality Blade-Y could counter-charge the Spears half-way through the manoeuvre.
That is exactly what a TZ is meant to prevent...moving is supposed to be limited due to a nearby threat.

I also intensely dislike the idea that you can change your target just because you enter a new TZ.
I don’t like this for the following two reasons:-
Historical Reason: once a body of troops has been told to move towards or charge a certain enemy,
it would have been very difficult half-way through the move to say “oh, I’ve changed my mind, go
tell every man to go that way instead”.
It’s an old military maxim that “order plus counter-order leads to disorder”.
Gameplay Reason: threat Zones are supposed to be a restriction that limits your movement.
But if you can change your mind just because you enter a new TZ, then it becomes an advantage
and not a disadvantage...and each TZ you enter, the MORE, not LESS, freedom you have.
Thus we end up with elements bouncing from one target to another like they were ball-bearings
in a pinball machine!

One way of preventing this is to say that an element can either move sideways to line-up, OR, move
straight forwards to make contact, but not both.
But again this would require a new rule that doesn’t currently exist.

So all-in-all I think the FAQ ruling that once lined-up in a TZ they must stay lined-up is the best solution.
In effect it creates two ways of ‘pinning’ the enemy:-
A soft pin: where the enemy if left unlined-up so could contact either of the two TZ generators...
A hard pin: where the enemy is lined-up and becomes ‘locked’ so can only contact one opponent.

Lot of stuff here so I'll try not to miss anything being discussed but probably will.

Phil and diagrams: Phil thinks the rules are perfectly clear experience as game umps/players indicates otherwise. So the request and grudging granting of the request for diagrams. They help but do not solve all problems. Phil no longer participates in active rule interpretations due to health reasons - though he never liked this aspect of rule writing in any case. So as far as DBA goes in the future, its the pirate code: "Their just guidelines..."

Rules: you have discovered one of those odd tossed off sentences in the rules that can have a major impact on play - "No other changes in frontage, direction or facing can be made even if within a TZ, except to pivot, wheel and/or slide sideways to line up in an enemy TZ, or conform in close combat." So the sentence starts off with a rule then adds an exception that completely consumes the rule. The subject of the sentence is "group" and the middle clause allows Groups in a TZ to pivot, wheel and/or slide sideways to line up even without making contact - so yes you can do this as a 1 PIP move presumably if in or entering a TZ. That of course is if we assume it means what it says.

Next the wandering Ps: one note here is that the example diagram included does not represent the Ps' final position as when it touches the opposing element it must slide into full conforming position. So it does end in a legal position for an element in a TZ. If you look at the list of legal moves in 7b 5 says you can move into front edge contact with an element exerting a TZ. In our example the Ps has done this so this suggests legality. Looking at the rules alone: "(b) to advance into or toward contact with such an enemy" which the PS has clearly done as through out its move some part of the Ps is getting closer to the opposing element and in any case it ends in contact. By rule it can "advance into contact" OR "toward contact" so it can do either and has done the first clause in "(b)". It also satisfies the "general principle" that "real life" must be taken into consideration.

So unless you leave a TZ (which you can't do) if you end up in legal contact you have done your TZ bit. A nuance: had there been an opposing group such that when the PS made contact it would have had to slide into contact with another element the move would be illegal as the PS must end up in contact with an element exerting a TZ at the start of the move (you can't switch which TZ influences you in the middle of a move). Another nuance is that the Ps can only bend round the Aux if it does end in full legal contact as to get there you have to become "less lined up" so you can't end in that posture.

If we want a rule that says you must move straight into contact by the shortest path we must write it ourselves.

TomT

That is a good assessment Tom...but I do agree with Baldie and others that the
current situation is far from clear.

So would the following be acceptable?:-
    "You must react to one TZ you enter or find yourself in, and once lined-up in a TZ
     you must stay lined-up, except you can temporarily become unlined-up part way
     through a move providing you end that move phase in front-edge contact with the
     one element who’s TZ was influencing you."

A bit convoluted I know...but it does take into account ALL the rules, AND the diagrams,
AND the FAQ ruling, without violating any of them.

Perhaps a future version of the rules could make things much clearer and simpler by
basing the TZ contact mechanism on how troops would react in reality instead of us
trying to string together a set of confusing, dispersed, arbitrary and abstract rules
that often seem to contradict each other.

Indeed, such a mechanism is possible...look at the HoTT 2.1 diagrams on pages
28 and 29 of that ruleset to see how “Crossing An Enemy Element’s Front” should
be handled...