|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2020 8:03:17 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? No, paddy649. (At least I don't think so.) A single element contacting a single element conforms to it. Similarly, a single element contacting a group conforms to it, so the Bd would only move if the Ps cannot conform. In this case, the Ps cannot conform because the Ax is in the way. So the Bd would have to conform (or fight as if overlapped). However, if the Bd were part of a group, then the group could conform. (Bd don't get side support though.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2020 8:43:02 GMT
...and carrying on from Menacussecundus’ post above, we must remember the following:- There is a hidden unwritten rule in DBA that implies that a group cannot be forced to break-up, except when turning-to-face, or as a combat outcome, or if their owner wishes to do so. This is implied in Figures 12c, 13c, 13d, and 13e. I know I keep going on about it, but the FAQ Team has already given us the solution:- “When lined-up in a TZ you must stay lined-up.”Simple, easy to implement and remember, and it stops these TZ movement absurdities. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 15, 2020 9:03:54 GMT
...and carrying on from Menacussecundus’ post above, we must remember the following:- There is a hidden unwritten rule in DBA that implies that a group cannot be forced to break-up, except when turning-to-face, or as a combat outcome, or if their owner wishes to do so. This is implied in Figures 12c, 13c, 13d, and 13e. I know I keep going on about it, but the FAQ Team has already given us the solution:- “When lined-up in a TZ you must stay lined-up.”Simple, easy to implement and remember, and it stops these TZ movement absurdities. My previous query asked if the TEAM had given an answer, or MEMBERS of the team.....different situation. Beware reading one as the other. I’m not on the team, but I know it consists of more than two persons on this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2020 9:44:29 GMT
True Martin, true... (and I myself totally disagree with the FAQ ruling on rivers... )But it all boils down to this:- * do we think the following move is legitimate and realistic? (even though it obeys all the TZ rules)... * or do we think it’s an absurd exploitative loophole? (and only possible because of sloppy rule writing). If the former, then ignore the FAQ ruling and allow such a move. If the latter, then apply staying lined-up when in a TZ to prevent it. Each player is going to have to decide for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2020 10:08:26 GMT
...and carrying on from Menacussecundus’ post above, we must remember the following:- There is a hidden unwritten rule in DBA that implies that a group cannot be forced to break-up, except when turning-to-face, or as a combat outcome, or if their owner wishes to do so. This is implied in Figures 12c, 13c, 13d, and 13e. I know I keep going on about it, but the FAQ Team has already given us the solution:- “When lined-up in a TZ you must stay lined-up.”Simple, easy to implement and remember, and it stops these TZ movement absurdities. Still not a perfect solution - unless you also define "lined-up". Does it mean front edges have to stay parallel? (The "banana" move allowing the Ps to contact the Bd in zendor's first example would still be allowed. And if they aren't parallel to start with, does that mean any move is allowed?) Does it mean the side edges have to stay parallel? (The banana move would still be feasible.) Does it mean front and side edges have to remain parallel? (Still able to banana.) And, however one defines it, it outlaws what seems to me to be an eminently sensible manoeuvre to incline an element so that it has two enemy elements in its TZ. Perhaps it would be an improvement if one were to "house-rule" that an element moving in a TZ ignores any other TZs it may enter. That would preclude the situation shown in zendor's diagram of 13 June, although, since there is no "memory" in DBA, it would still be possible for the PS to move so that it was in both TZs and then contact the left-hand Bd in the subsequent bound. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2020 10:36:47 GMT
Being ‘lined-up’ is clearly defined in DBA Figure 11:-
“Auxilia-X is parallel to Warband-A and the side-edges of the two elements are in line.”
(Anything else is not ‘lined-up’, or deviates from and so becomes ‘unlined-up’)
As for a ‘perfect’ solution, HoTT 2.1 has what is probably the best:-
“To contact whichever element (that) can be contacted by the shortest move.”
(See the HoTT 2.1 diagrams on pages 28 and 29 of that ruleset)
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2020 11:44:22 GMT
Being ‘lined-up’ is clearly defined in DBA Figure 11:- “Auxilia-X is parallel to Warband-A and the side-edges of the two elements are in line.” (Anything else is not ‘lined-up’, or deviates from and so becomes ‘unlined-up’)As for a ‘perfect’ solution, HoTT 2.1 has what is probably the best:- “To contact whichever element (that) can be contacted by the shortest move.” (See the HoTT 2.1 diagrams on pages 28 and 29 of that ruleset)I had missed that, stevie. But if one is not precisely lined up, there is no obligation to line up and (more or less) any movement towards the element exerting the TZ goes? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2020 12:47:33 GMT
That is apparently the case Menacussecundas (I didn’t write the rules  ).Therefore it becomes incumbent on the opposing player to ‘lock’ the enemy into a lined-up position, and thus limit their TZ movement, or leave them unlined-up so they have more freedom to move. 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...or... A hard pin: where the enemy is lined-up and becomes ‘locked’ so can only contact one opponent. Not perfect perhaps...but better than the alternatives... |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2020 16:31:04 GMT
That is apparently the case Menacussecundas (I didn’t write the rules ).Therefore it becomes incumbent on the opposing player to ‘lock’ the enemy into a lined-up position, and thus limit their TZ movement, or leave them unlined-up so they have more freedom to move. 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...or... A hard pin: where the enemy is lined-up and becomes ‘locked’ so can only contact one opponent. Not perfect perhaps...but better than the alternatives... Although presumably an element "locked" by one enemy, but also in the TZ of another, is still able to move towards/into contact with the other instead? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2020 17:28:55 GMT
Er...no.
If you are ‘lined-up’ with enemy-A, then anything that deviates from being ‘lined-up’ means you
are no longer ‘lined-up’...and the FAQ ruling says when you are lined-up you must stay lined-up.
So once lined-up with element-A, any attempt to move towards/contact/line-up with enemy-B
means breaking being lined-up with element-A...i.e. no longer parallel to the enemy with the
side-edges of the two elements in line (as shown in Figure 11).
I call this “being locked by enemy-A”, so all they can do is move straight forwards or backwards.
The exact FAQ quote is as follows:-
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 15, 2020 17:41:25 GMT
I always thought if you were in a scrap with an element in front, one in the rear and one hard flanking you and they all recoiled you were able in your turn to go for any of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2020 17:56:23 GMT
Not according to FAQ ruling Baldie.
And without the FAQ ruling, we get the weird absurd TZ moves as illustrated by Zendor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 15, 2020 17:57:24 GMT
Not according to FAQ ruling Baldie. And without the FAQ ruling, we get the weird absurd TZ moves as illustrated by Zendor. Blimey, that def one I have been doing for years |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2020 18:10:21 GMT
Er...no. If you are ‘lined-up’ with enemy-A, then anything that deviates from being ‘lined-up’ means you are no longer ‘lined-up’...and the FAQ ruling says when you are lined-up you must stay lined-up. So once lined-up with element-A, any attempt to move towards/contact/line-up with enemy-B means breaking being lined-up with element-A...i.e. no longer parallel to the enemy with the side-edges of the two elements in line (as shown in Figure 11). I call this “being locked by enemy-A”, so all they can do is move straight forwards or backwards. The exact FAQ quote is as follows:- 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. So in the original diagram by zendor, the Bd would not be able to attack the Ax. Are you sure about this as a solution? |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2020 18:13:09 GMT
I always thought if you were in a scrap with an element in front, one in the rear and one hard flanking you and they all recoiled you were able in your turn to go for any of them. So did I. And I think that's the way most people play it in practice, Baldie, whatever the FAQ says. (And, to be fair, the response to the FAQ was intended to address a different issue.) |
|
)
).