|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 16, 2020 16:09:14 GMT
That’s good point Zendor. Yes, according to the TZ rules AND the FAQ ruling, when not ‘lined-up’ in a TZ an element is pretty much free to wander and wiggle as much as it likes to escape from a Threat Zone. Daft isn’t it. But at least with the ‘must stay lined-up’ ruling the opponent has the opportunity to shift sideways (even as a group) and force the enemy to line-up and become ‘locked’ in position. Maybe Arnopov is right, and it’s just me taking the FAQ ruling toooo literary. The FAQ question is talking about shifting sideways to pin multiple enemy elements, and not about moving into contact with them. Perhaps it should only apply to this, and not when trying to make contact...which means troops CAN wiggle and wander out of a TZ if it ends in contact! In fact, the FAQ question is only taking about moving a Blade to pin multiple Spears, so maybe, so’s it’s not taken out of context, it only applies to Blade v Spear, as they are the only troops mentioned.  This why the HoTT TZ-ZOC mechanism is soooo much better. Simple, straightforward, difficult to misinterpret, more realistic, and it doesn’t need an FAQ ruling to try and make a plaster to patch over an obvious flaw...a plaster that is only partially successful anyway. ConclusionI think we need a member of the FAQ Team to tell us exactly, in meticulous detail, just what “you must stay lined-up with Spear in front” actually means in practise, what is it trying to fix, and why it was considered necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 16, 2020 16:23:08 GMT
I must admit that I find it amusing that the FAQ entries are now being subjected to the same textual/form/philological criticism as the rules. No other rules that I know are subject to such scrutiny.
That being said...
The HoTT rule for Threat Zones was debated for some time during the development. I believe a similar rule is used in DBMM. In the end the Phil decided against it thinking the current was simpler. No definition of being "the shortest move" was needed. Yes, that very idea can be argued.
We also disabused him of using the phrase "toward lineup". This odd construction does however capture his thoughts as to movement in Threat Zones. The move shown in diagram #2 is certainly not "towards lineup". Again, this probably still wouldn't end the arguments if the phrase had survived to be included in the text. What does "toward lineup" mean?
Further, we have a nice diagram showing moves possible in a Threat Zone. In other rule sets, this would end any argument. In DBA we have the counter argument stating the the diagrams are not part of the rules. More diagrams showing this exact situation therefore won't solve the problem.
We also have a FAQ ruling that helps define the situation. One can always argue that the FAQ isn't part of the rules or that the FAQ answers are limited only to that specific situation or the FAQ rulings have no other implications.
In the end I think we come down to this thought... legal movement in the Threat Zone is like art. I can't really explain to you how to define it. I do it know when I see it.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 16, 2020 17:50:37 GMT
I must admit that I find it amusing that the FAQ entries are now being subjected to the same textual/form/philological criticism as the rules. No other rules that I know are subject to such scrutiny. That being said... The HoTT rule for Threat Zones was debated for some time during the development. I believe a similar rule is used in DBMM. In the end the Phil decided against it thinking the current was simpler. No definition of being "the shortest move" was needed. Yes, that very idea can be argued. We also disabused him of using the phrase "toward lineup". This odd construction does however capture his thoughts as to movement in Threat Zones. The move shown in diagram #2 is certainly not "towards lineup". Again, this probably still wouldn't end the arguments if the phrase had survived to be included in the text. What does "toward lineup" mean? Further, we have a nice diagram showing moves possible in a Threat Zone. In other rule sets, this would end any argument. In DBA we have the counter argument stating the the diagrams are not part of the rules. More diagrams showing this exact situation therefore won't solve the problem. We also have a FAQ ruling that helps define the situation. One can always argue that the FAQ isn't part of the rules or that the FAQ answers are limited only to that specific situation or the FAQ rulings have no other implications. In the end I think we come down to this thought... legal movement in the Threat Zone is like art. I can't really explain to you how to define it. I do it know when I see it. Joe Collins It always amazes me that a rule set of only 13 odd pages, depending how you count em, brings up so few questions especially with so many battles fought over the years. I am def no rules writer and presume a problem is always that we plebs ruin the beautiful creations when we get our grubby hand on em and do things the authors never even considered. Some rule sets of infinitely longer size seem to be re issued every few years then amended then the faq re amended then additional info added. I love the simplicity and elegance of DBA FY this is also not a rant against GW as I have said many times over the years once great thing about GW is I doubt our wonderful hobby/interest/passion would be anywhere as big or diverse as it is now without GW having been around. PS I hated when you killed the old world, Fantasy Is Fab, Space Robots with lasers not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 16, 2020 21:08:45 GMT
Wow we need to be more careful when we write the FAQ. I never liked the question/answer format but remember we only answer that specific question - its not intended as a general ruling.
There is no requirement to "stay lined up" in a TZ. You choose which TZ to respond to and then (by corollary) can only respond to that TZ - no switching. Once selected only that TZ counts and is the only one you need concern yourself with - you must EITHER get into contact with the element exerting or get more lined up and at least as close with that TZ. Read the rule the word OR means OR.
As I stated before any move in a TZ that results in contact and conforming is legal as clearly stated in the rules and very much Phil's intent. He rewrote the TZ rules precisely because he did not want TZ rule lawyering to prevent you from moving into contact and fighting (and even used some of the precious space to include his intention sentence just to make sure the message got across). By corollary you cannot leave a TZ (except to back out) but short of that if you can get into contact and conform you are OK. If you cannot then you must attempt to get more lined up with which every TZ your responding too.
The French game also uses the respond to closest concept like HOTT and like HOTT its pretty tedious to administer. You have to make some true micro measurements in many cases.
I too admire the elegance of DBA (and lament the passing of the Olde World which I have specifically revised in a Knights & Knaves Expansion), but I wish we had more fully explained Contact & Conforming. With that in mind I have just send some fresh text to my brain trust and commissioned more diagrams to make sure we once and for all get this covered.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 16, 2020 22:59:05 GMT
I’d like to thank both Joe and Tom for responding on this delicate subject.
So then, leaving aside any personal preferences, can I assume that the following is correct?:-
1) If you start in multiple TZ’s, you pick one and only one to respond to and ignore all the others.
2) If you are already responding to a TZ, you ignore any new TZ’s entered (so no switching targets allowed).
3) When responding to a TZ, you can only move towards making some sort of front-edge contact with that
designated enemy generating that TZ, OR, at least try to line-up to the front-edge of the target generating that TZ.
(In other words, if you don’t make contact the enemy front-edge acts like a magnet drawing you to line-up with it)
4) Last of all, you can only leave a TZ by moving straight back from your present position.
(Exception: in multiple TZ’s, lining-up or conforming to your designated target allows you to leave the TZ of the others)
There...that wasn’t hard.
But it would have been a great help if the DBA rules and the FAQ explained all this,
instead of just giving us vague outlines and statements that are not true.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffreythancock on Jun 17, 2020 0:12:40 GMT
Should TZs have a priority, like targets for shooting? Closest to, most deadly to, fastest move to my element?
We could make them even more confusing!
I'll pass 🤪
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 0:44:21 GMT
Any Star Trek fans here? It seems clear ( well at least to me, anyway) that a TZ ( or ZoC if you will) is like a tractor beam. Once you're in it, you're committed to it
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 6:59:55 GMT
I’d like to thank both Joe and Tom for responding on this delicate subject. So then, leaving aside any personal preferences, can I assume that the following is correct?:- 1) If you start in multiple TZ’s, you pick one and only one to respond to and ignore all the others. 2) If you are already responding to a TZ, you ignore any new TZ’s entered (so no switching targets allowed). 3) When responding to a TZ, you can only move towards making some sort of front-edge contact with that designated enemy generating that TZ, OR, at least try to line-up to the front-edge of the target generating that TZ. (In other words, if you don’t make contact the enemy front-edge acts like a magnet drawing you to line-up with it) 4) Last of all, you can only leave a TZ by moving straight back from your present position. (Exception: in multiple TZ’s, lining-up or conforming to your designated target allows you to leave the TZ of the others) There...that wasn’t hard. But it would have been a great help if the DBA rules and the FAQ explained all this, instead of just giving us vague outlines and statements that are not true. Which I think means that the "banana" move allowing the Ps to contact the Bd in zendor's initial set up is permitted. (Although it moves away from the Bd for part of the move, it ends in front-edge contact.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 17, 2020 8:13:52 GMT
Apparently so Menacussecundus...and Zendor’s pictures showing the Psiloi wiggling and wandering out of a TZ is not aiming to contact or line-up with their original ‘ designated target’ (I find that the concept of a ‘designated target’ makes things much easier to understand). My mistake with FAQ ruling was taking it too literary and confusing ‘cause’ with ‘effect’. Yes, what the FAQ says is true...the Blade in the question does stay lined-up with the Spear. But this is an ‘effect’, not a ‘cause’, and the FAQ doesn’t explain WHY it stays lined-up. What is actually happening is the Blade is in one TZ, as it’s already lined-up with the Spear, which becomes by default its ‘designated target’. And because the Blade can only move forwards to make some sort of front-edge contact with its designated target, OR, at least try to line-up to the front-edge of that designated target (being drawn to it like a magnet), it cannot wiggle or wander from that lined-up position. Thus the ‘effect’ is to stay lined-up, but the ‘cause’ is due to being magnetically drawn to the Spear front-edge and not move away from it. Now I understand.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 17, 2020 9:41:54 GMT
By the way, this also explains the movement of Spear-B in Figure 7b.
The reason it is not given an option to line-up/move towards/contact Blade-X,
even though it enters the TZ of Blade-X, is because it started or entered the
TZ of Blade-Y first, and that becomes its ‘designated target’ for that bound.
The jigsaw is beginning to make sense...
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 11:58:12 GMT
Which I think means that the "banana" move allowing the Ps to contact the Bd in zendor's initial set up is permitted. (Although it moves away from the Bd for part of the move, it ends in front-edge contact.) But all rules jurisprudence aside, do you actually believe that is how Phil intended the rules to work? |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 12:45:59 GMT
Which I think means that the "banana" move allowing the Ps to contact the Bd in zendor's initial set up is permitted. (Although it moves away from the Bd for part of the move, it ends in front-edge contact.) But all rules jurisprudence aside, do you actually believe that is how Phil intended the rules to work? I have absolutely no idea, Roland. If it were possible to have less than zero knowledge, that's about where I would be. I certainly wouldn't have played the game that way. In fact, until zendor started this thread and I looked at the wording again, I would have said the move wasn't allowed under v3. It was under 2.2 though, so one is left guessing whether Phil intended to ban it or wanted it to continue as before. |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 13:24:18 GMT
I fail to see how pushing the Ax out of the way to engage the Bd can be justified.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 14:41:36 GMT
I fail to see how pushing the Ax out of the way to engage the Bd can be justified. The Ax doesn't move. The Bd has to conform (or fight as if overlapped). This would also be the case if the Ps started its move from outside the Bd's TZ or if it were partly in and partly out of the TZ and could contact the Bd by moving directly forward. Do you have a similar objection to either of those scenarios? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 17, 2020 15:20:19 GMT
Roland, nor do I. As a tournament director, I disallow any moves inside a threat zone (or touching its far edge) that make an element less lined up at any point in the move. I would also quit any game where my opponent demanded such a move. Playing out some simple scenarios show how doing otherwise would allow and encourage lots of geometric tricks with conforming and flanking. Whether these tricks would be worth the pip expenditure is an open question. Everyone of course can play the game as they wish.
There are quite a few fundamental disagreements within the community on the play of Threat Zones. Most of the issues have not been uncovered here on Fanaticus as of yet. I am afraid that we will have to wait for a new version of the rules for more definitive answers.
Joe Collins |
|
