|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 17, 2020 17:00:56 GMT
Now hang on a minute:-
Tom says "There is no requirement to ‘stay lined-up’ in a TZ...”
Joe says “I disallow any moves inside a TZ that makes an element less lined-up at any point in the move...”
Don’t these two statements contradict each other?
To be fair to you both, the TZ rule on page 9 does say:-
(a) to line-up its front-edge with one such enemy (the ‘designated target’) generating the TZ , or you could instead
(b) advance into or towards contact with such an enemy (but not so’s the distance to contact/line-up increases), or
(c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.
(Not mentioned is the fact you can also leave other TZ’s if you line-up or conform to your ‘designated TZ target’)
...so perhaps you are both saying the same thing in different ways, and it's just me misinterpreting you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 17, 2020 17:32:59 GMT
Well, actually, no. There is no contradiction.
I interpret the Threat Zone rules as being very restrictive. In my opinion the diagrams do as well. I am following their lead. The text doesn't explicitly cover every scenario possible. One can ignore the diagrams (they are not part of the rules, or they actually weren't written by Phil, or they are full of errors, or the examples are not general- they only answer that specific situation, or some combination of all of these) and come up with all sorts of moves from the current text.
I was hoping that the diagrams would put some of these issues to rest. They of course haven't. (I am not being fair... they actually have.)
I would bet good money that even with a careful re-write and more diagrams we would have the same type of issues.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 18:07:37 GMT
I think it would be simple enough if we can form some consensus on the hierarchy of certain rules. IMO, at or near the top would be that an attacking element has to conform to the defending element. After that, this diagram is utterly easy to decode as there is no rule that allows the Ps to shove the Ax sideways out of the way in its effort to come to grips with the Bd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 18:14:14 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? If I may, I believe you just made up a rule. Bd does not have to conform. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 18:17:29 GMT
I think it would be simple enough if we can form some consensus on the hierarchy of certain rules. IMO, at or near the top would be that an attacking element has to conform to the defending element. After that, this diagram is utterly easy to decode as there is no rule that allows the Ps to shove the Ax sideways out of the way in its effort to come to grips with the Bd. This is already covered in some detail in the rules surely? Page 9, section headed MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY, second paragraph. (The one which starts "A single element contacting a single element.....") And, at the risk of repeating myself, the Ax isn't shoved out of the way. It doesn't move. The Ps contacts the front edge of the Bd and conforms to the extent possible. It cannot conform fully because the Ax is in the way, so the Bd then has to conform (or fight as if overlapped. Player's choice.) |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 18:20:00 GMT
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? If I may, I believe you just made up a rule. Bd does not have to conform. I did not make up a rule. What I said was the Bd has to conform OR FIGHT AS IF OVERLAPPED (page 9). |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jun 17, 2020 18:25:54 GMT
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? If I may, I believe you just made up a rule. Bd does not have to conform. No, he hasn't. When a single element contacts another, it must conform to it, unless this is blocked (which in this case it would be), so then the contacted element has to conform or choose to fight as if overlapped. See 'Moving into Contact with the Enemy' and Figure 13a. It's a moot point in this case, as I agree with Joe and wouldn't allow the move... P. |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 18:34:55 GMT
Page 9 of Purple: "A single element contacting a single element conforms to it."
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 18:45:07 GMT
Page 9 of Purple: "A single element contacting a single element conforms to it." Please read the rest of the paragraph. In particular, the sentence which starts "If conforming to a front edge contact by contactors is prevented by......" |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 18:52:54 GMT
Except you're forgetting that the Ax exerts a TZ itself on the Bd. The move you claim is supported by the text on page 9 would effectively forcibly draw the Bd element out of the Ax TZ. The honest answer is this is a stupid move that the attacker simply needs to engage the Bd with the Ax before activating the Ps.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jun 17, 2020 19:07:52 GMT
Except you're forgetting that the Ax exerts a TZ itself on the Bd. The move you claim is supported by the text on page 9 would effectively forcibly draw the Bd element out of the Ax TZ. The honest answer is this is a stupid move that the attacker simply needs to engage the Bd with the Ax before activating the Ps. Or he withdraws the Ax, if possible, straight back to a point that then allows the Ps to interpenetrate and hit the Bd without any of this 'swerving out of the TZ' nonsense to do it... The fact that the Ax exerts a TZ on the Bd is irrelevant here, which is reinforced by figure 13a, where the Ax, if it conforms to the Bd to fight without overlap penalty, is also moving out of the TZ of the Hd to do this. p. |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 17, 2020 19:31:41 GMT
"Hd"?! Which of Zendor's diagrams are you referencing. The one I've been commenting on has only 3 elements ( Bd defending against 1 Ax and 1 Ps_
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 17, 2020 20:26:03 GMT
Well, actually, no. There is no contradiction. I interpret the Threat Zone rules as being very restrictive. In my opinion the diagrams do as well. I am following their lead. The text doesn't explicitly cover every scenario possible. One can ignore the diagrams (they are not part of the rules, or they actually weren't written by Phil, or they are full of errors, or the examples are not general- they only answer that specific situation, or some combination of all of these) and come up with all sorts of moves from the current text. I was hoping that the diagrams would put some of these issues to rest. They of course haven't. (I am not being fair... they actually have.) I would bet good money that even with a careful re-write and more diagrams we would have the same type of issues. Joe Collins Fair enough Joe. Interestingly enough, I and my little gang have already been playing that way for some time now... ...although we were doing so because we thought the FAQ ruling said you must stay lined-up. From now on we too will disallow any moves inside a TZ that makes an element less lined-up with its ‘designated TZ target’ at any point during a move. Which has the same effect anyway...is a glass half full or is it half empty? (I think it was Star Trek’s Mr Spock that once said “A difference that makes no difference is no difference“)  |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 20:39:14 GMT
Except you're forgetting that the Ax exerts a TZ itself on the Bd. The move you claim is supported by the text on page 9 would effectively forcibly draw the Bd element out of the Ax TZ. The honest answer is this is a stupid move that the attacker simply needs to engage the Bd with the Ax before activating the Ps. The TZ of the Ax is irrelevant, because conforming is not a tactical move. (You only make tactical moves in your own bound.) Following your reasoning, if the Bd were contacted on its right side edge by the front edge of an enemy element, it wouldn't turn to face because that would also draw it out of the Ax's TZ. As for it being a stupid move, let's assume Green has rolled more than 1 for PIPs. He moves the Ps to contact the Bd. The Bd isn't going to destroy the Ps (either the Ps wins, or it is recoiled or it flees). If the Bd then conforms to the Ps, the Ax is no longer in the Bd's TZ and can move to close the door on the Bd. Ensuing combat is then Bd 5-1 for being overlapped = 4 v Ps 2, with the Bd being destroyed on a recoil. If the Bd doesn't conform, the combat factors are still 4 v 2, but the Bd isn't destroyed if it recoils. So probably the Red player would elect not to conform. Whichever Green element moves into contact, the Bd starts at a +2 in combat. It can destroy the Ax. It can't destroy the Ps. Is moving the Ps really that stupid? You also need to bear in mind that the rule applies to any type of element; it won't always be a Ps, an Ax and a Bd involved. Replace the Ps with a Kn and have that attack the Bd. Does that look like a good choice? |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 17, 2020 20:43:01 GMT
"Hd"?! Which of Zendor's diagrams are you referencing. The one I've been commenting on has only 3 elements ( Bd defending against 1 Ax and 1 Ps_ None of them. paulspier referred specifically to figure 13a - which is on page 22 of the rule book. |
|
