|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 13, 2020 22:57:39 GMT
Fear not Roland...I believe Zendor is giving us an example of a ridiculous move... Regarding the example with diagonal movement of Ps element, perhaps I would also like them to be able to do as in my scheme. However, Stevie's reasonings are very convincing (hope I got you right), and such understanding and use of the rules will lead to the fact that it will be easy to get out of the enemy's TZ moving as diagonally as possible. And we can get all these weird things: The above can't happen if we follow the FAQ ruling that troops lined-up in a TZ must stay lined-up. |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 13, 2020 23:00:29 GMT
Whew
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Jun 14, 2020 6:34:01 GMT
Thanks for everyone! All your discussions were very helpful to me. I think it's important we have clarified the point that the groups can make sideways slide to line up while in the TZ, especially in such situations: fanaticus.boards.net/post/31322/thread(at least that's how I understood it). Regarding the example with diagonal movement of Ps element, perhaps I would also like them to be able to do as in my scheme. )) However, Stevie's reasonings are very convincing (hope I got you right), and such understanding and use of the rules will lead to the fact that it will be easy to get out of the emeny's TZ moving as diogonally as possible. And we can get all these weird things: Wait, are you suggesting this is/should be a legal move??? Of course it is not an allowed movement. )) I showed what can happen if we'll follow this dangerous path of allowing non straight movement in TZ, based only on the fact that the element comes into contact with enemy providing this TZ. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 14, 2020 7:23:31 GMT
Hi Zendor, that’s not a legal move because “the rules say”: a threat zone can only be left by eliminating the element creating it or by a moving straight backwards! 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 14, 2020 8:46:35 GMT
Hi Zendor, that’s not a legal move because “the rules say”: a threat zone can only be left by eliminating the element creating it or by a moving straight backwards! 😉 That's not a direct quotation, ronisan. Nor do they say that an element in a TZ has to move directly forwards (if it moves forwards at all). Nor do they say that an element must line up with the element creating the TZ. I am not advocating the situation zendor shows in his latest diagram - although, if the Bd on the left were angled such that the Ps was in the TZ of both, I'm not sure many players would cavil at the Ps choosing to contact it rather than the one in front. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 14, 2020 8:48:52 GMT
Ah but Ronisan, what about the the following common and simple situation:-
Spear-A Spear-B
Blade
Here a Blade begins or enters the TZ of BOTH Spears.
No matter which Spear the Blade lines-up with or uses the free sideways slide against,
it ‘ll be leaving the TZ of the other Spear, and so it’s impossible to line-up or make contact!
That can’t be right.
Actually the Threat Zones rules on page 9 says an element in a TZ can move only:-
(a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or
(b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy, or
(c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.
None of the above prevents Psiloi making that ridiculous move shown in Zendor’s latest example.
The rules are too vague to address this situation.
The FAQ Team realized this, so made a ruling that when lined-up in a TZ you must stay lined-up,
thus fixing this absurd exploitative loophole.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 14, 2020 10:14:07 GMT
...come to think about it, the inclusion of a single solitary word would solve the situation:- (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance straight into or towards contact with such an enemy, or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. ...then there wouldn’t be need for the FAQ ruling, and the effect would be similar to that in HoTT.  This would mean that when in a TZ that is solely affecting a flank or side of an element, it would take two bounds to contact them (the first bound to turn and line-up, as in option (a), and only in the second bound could they move straight into contact, as in option (b)...but that could represent the confusion and panic of trying to turn to face a new threat without falling into disorder). |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 14, 2020 12:38:46 GMT
The FAQ Team realized this, so made a ruling that when lined-up in a TZ you must stay lined-up, thus fixing this absurd exploitative loophole. Did they? Was that the whole FAQ team, or certain members of it talking from personal viewpoints? (Genuine question....as the team consists of more ‘members’ than Joe C and Tom T.) |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 14, 2020 13:16:27 GMT
The FAQ team works from consensus. Everyone on the team must agree to an entry.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 14, 2020 14:22:46 GMT
I feel like we're loitering at the event horizon of a serious 'rabbit hole' at about this point in the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 14, 2020 15:18:10 GMT
...come to think about it, the inclusion of a single solitary word would solve the situation:- (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance straight into or towards contact with such an enemy, or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. ...then there wouldn’t be need for the FAQ ruling, and the effect would be similar to that in HoTT. This would mean that when in a TZ that is solely affecting a flank or side of an element, it would take two bounds to contact them (the first bound to turn and line-up, as in option (a), and only in the second bound could they move straight into contact, as in option (b)...but that could represent the confusion and panic of trying to turn to face a new threat without falling into disorder). I suspect that adding that one word would give rise to the sort of geometrical ploys v3 was intended to eliminate, stevie. Especially if an element were caught between two elements both exerting a TZ. (Turn to align with one. That pulls back so it is no longer exerting a TZ. Turn to align with the other. No end of fun.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 14, 2020 19:57:53 GMT
Ha! Well, it was only a thought.  I must admit that if just adding a single word would solve things, then the FAQ Team would have done so. We will just have to settle with staying lined-up when in a TZ then... |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jun 14, 2020 22:01:00 GMT
A base with with half its front edge in a TZ unless moving to its rear may move so more of its edge or same is in TZ if you move so less is in it you are leaving a TZ surely. i do not think the base above is lined up because if it was move strait forward to contact the rule states it gets a free slide to line up inferring it was not to start with. Just another interpretation to kick around.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jun 15, 2020 7:33:55 GMT
Further I will proceed from the solutions that the whole group can make a sideways slide being in the opponent's TZ. I understand that not everyone agrees with this interpretation, but I need to base further logic on some bases. I wanna show you the next diagram. What do you think, is it possible for Ps element to make a contact with a diagonal movement?  My head hurts! I think Zendor’s last puzzle looks wrong and would want the Ps to move straight into contact with the Unit generating the TZ it is originally in. However, it all depends on how you rule on the example above. If you rule here that the Ps can move obliquely into contact then slide until prevented by the Ax, forcing the Bd to adjust accordingly. Then you must also rule that the Ps can perform this incredible skipping move as it follows the same logic. However, I have a question: would this be changed if the Bd were in a group with a flank supporting element to its left. If so this would cause the Bd to line up and lose flank support or fight as if overlapped. Is this correct? |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2020 7:54:56 GMT
A base with with half its front edge in a TZ unless moving to its rear may move so more of its edge or same is in TZ if you move so less is in it you are leaving a TZ surely. i do not think the base above is lined up because if it was move strait forward to contact the rule states it gets a free slide to line up inferring it was not to start with. Just another interpretation to kick around. But it could also be argued that if any part of an element is in a TZ, the element hasn't left it - and, if you take stevie's example above, add a third Spear and a second Blade and move the line of spear to contact the blades, one of the Sp is going to end up entirely outside the TZs. |
|
Regarding the example with diagonal movement of Ps element, perhaps I would also like them to be able to do as in my scheme. However, Stevie's reasonings are very convincing (hope I got you right), and such understanding and use of the rules will lead to the fact that it will be easy to get out of the enemy's TZ moving as diagonally as possible. And we can get all these weird things:
