Lining up in Threat Zones

My turn to be confused, as I don’t understand what you mean.

In Zendor’s original picture, neither the Blade and Aux are ‘lined-up’,
so they can wiggle about a bit as they approach contacting each other,
and the same applies in Zendor’s second picture.

In his third picture, the Psiloi IS lined-up with the Blade, and to move as
shown means breaking being lined-up...which the FAQ says we mustn’t do
(in other words, no wiggling allowed...it should stay lined-up, and it doesn't):-


In his fourth picture, the Psiloi wiggles itself right out of a threat zone!...
...again completely breaking the line-up it had with the Blade who's TZ it was in:-



As I replied to Martin, it all boils down to this:-
* do we think the above 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.

True...the Blade and Psiloi are lined-up.
The Blade must stay lined-up as it makes a Tactical Move (costing PIPs) straight forward...
...so it hits the Aux and then has to use the free sideways slide to conform.

Yes, the Blade ends up unlined with the Psiloi...but that’s because of the free sideways slide,
which is an involuntary action (you have freedom to make Tactical Moves, but you can’t forgo
involuntary moves like the free sideways slide. The slide is compulsory).

There you go...the Blade has contacted the Aux.

And if the Aux were facing to the right, the Blade would hit part of the Aux flank, and then have to
conform to that flank by getting both front-corners touching, again ending unlined up with the Psiloi.
(Conforming is also compulsory for a single element contacting the flank of another single element,
although it’s not free)

Look, I didn’t write that FAQ ruling that says you must stay lined-up...but I do find it jolly useful to
prevent elements from wiggling their way out of a TZ, and to stop them from having MORE, instead
of LESS, freedom just because they enter a new TZ halfway through a move.
DBA is better and the Threat Zone rules more understandable with it than without it...
...which is why the FAQ Team included it.

In a word...yep.


Here is another example:-

                                        LH
... ... Blade Blade Blade  LH  Ps

... ... Spear Spear Spear  Kn  Ax
                                         Ps

Here the blue group moved into the red group’s TZ, but didn’t have the speed to move into contact.
What is there to stop the red Kn from moving forwards a bit, then sideways a bit, then forwards again
so that it contacts both the LH and Ps, then use the free sideways slide to end in contact with the Ps?
(Remembering that the free sideways slide has no limitations in which direction the slide is to be made)

This manoeuvre obeys all the requirements of the TZ rules:-
     (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ (not relevant, as it’s already lined-up) , or
     (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy (it is, but wiggling sideways a bit as it does so), or
     (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.
I assume that most players will agree that this is absurd, even if the vague general outlines of the TZ rules allows it.

So how can we prevent such a ridiculous move?
Well, the FAQ Team realised this, so added that when lined-up in a TZ, you must stay lined-up.
Now the Kn has no choice...it can only contact the LH column (just what the blue player wants), or move straight back.
Absurd exploitative loophole fixed, and problem solved.
                                      

Hi Martin

That what I was querying on page 4 of this post (9.18 Jun 11th), but I think the phrase "One party moves the minimum distance to so conform" is taken purely for one element v one element conforming rule as in the paragraph above re Threat Zones, it implies you have the choice of movement if you are in multiple Threat Zones and the diagram at 7b reinforces that.

So as the rules stand at present it seems that if you are in multiple threat zones you can ignore the closest enemy and line up or attack one further away. So if you get hard flanked and bounce both the enemy you can then turn, ignore the enemy to front and attack the flanking element.

Seems weird to me and as you say, it's not the same as in HOTT.

I wonder if there was some reason why this was allowed, i.e. was it ever different in previous editions and were people abusing the rule so it was changed?

Even if you apply the “minimum distance to conform” to the free sideways slide Martin,
elements can still wiggle their way out of a TZ and end up in full frontal contact with any
of the three enemy elements within 1 BW or more to their front, as shown here:-


Ah, but if when lined-up in a TZ you must stay lined-up, the above move couldn’t happen.

Context is important! The only time the FAQ references "lined up" and ZOC is in answer to a quite specific situation "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.". There is absolutely no reason to extrapolate from that.

And the rules (+Fig. 7b) already prevent the nonsense.

Things are fine. (Unless I'm not looking at the latest FAQ?)