|
|
Post by bob on May 23, 2021 2:59:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on May 23, 2021 11:32:15 GMT
Interesting question Bob.
As you said it hinges on whether you consider 'moving to contact' to mean extending an existing contact or initiating a new type of contact.
My own view would be that as it's a new type of contact the Kn is still moving into contact, it's just a different form of contact, so I'd say it would be destroyed if it loses, but I could understand someone playing it the other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 23, 2021 12:40:56 GMT
I'd come at the question another way. Can the Kn fight the Art if it remains where it is? I assume the answer to this is "no" and that, for combat to occur, the Kn has to move. That sounds like moving into contact to me. (But then, I don't play HotT.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 23, 2021 13:31:13 GMT
I think Sheffmark and Menacussecundus have sussed it.
If you can’t fight in your present location, you have to move your front-edge into contact.
Indeed, this would even apply if the Kn were in mutual side-edge contact with the Art.
Moving the front-edge so that it touches the enemy is still spending a PIP to make a
voluntary tactical move...in other words, 'to charge the enemy'.
However, turning to face a flank or rear attack costs no PIPs and is not a voluntary tactical
move…it’s compulsory involuntary conforming, so that doesn’t count as ‘moving’ or 'charging'.
(Think of it this way: the Kn isn’t doing the charging, it’s merely reacting to an enemy charge)
|
|
|
|
Post by zaotlichiye on Sept 2, 2021 21:28:37 GMT
I would interpret it the other way. "Moved into contact" implies "moving from not in contact (with that artillery)". But they were in contact at the end of last bound and they are in contact this bound, so they have not moved into contact this bound.
Now if it said "moving into close combat contact" it would be different...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 3, 2021 8:56:42 GMT
Yes Zaotlichiye, the HoTT Artillery combat outcomes are sloppily written, leading to several alternative interpretations. (See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2301/paladins-artillery-destroyed-contact ) When there is a discrepancy like this, I often revert to ‘common sense’, both in HoTT and DBA, and imagine how I myself would react if I were in that particular situation in real life. And it seems pretty odd to me to have a line of Knights saying “old Fred at the end of our line is already in corner-to-corner contact, so it’s ok for the rest of us to spend a PIP and physically change our position and location by charging into frontal close combat with the enemy without this counting as ‘moving’...” Personally, I think the combat outcome chart should say:- If score less: Paladins, Artillery Destroyed if in contact and score less than close combat opponents. And moving a Knight's front-edge into contact IS moving and charging. |
|
|
|
Post by zaotlichiye on Sept 3, 2021 15:20:02 GMT
You have changed the scenario. If the knight in contact ends up in front edge contact, then (IMO) it is not vulnerable. If it's a different knight element that was not in contact at the start of the bound, then, yes, it can be destroyed.
It does seem harsh that a Kn can crash into the rear of Art, the Art spin around and destroy the Kn...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 3, 2021 16:34:30 GMT
Hmmm…I suppose it all depends on what “moving into contact” actually means.
With your interpretation, an element of Knights could move into corner-to-corner contact with
Shooters/Artillery/Magicians, and in their next bound either ‘shut-the-door’ and attack them in
the flank, or shift sideways and attack them frontally (depending on ZOC of course)…yet in both
cases be totally immune to their ‘quick kill’ against Knights because they were already ‘in contact’
with these via corner-to-corner touching and are not “moving into contact” with them.
That seems like exploiting a badly written rule to me.
I think it would be better if it were worded as you suggested:-
“(Knights) that have moved into close combat contact this bound”
It’s simple, straightforward, and makes sense, and I’m pretty sure that was what was intended,
no matter what the wording actually does or doesn’t say.
For me, a charge is moving from a position where the men are not in close combat to a position
where they are (i.e. getting their front-edge touching). And Knights charging Shooters, Artillery
or Magicians run the risk of being ‘quick killed’.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 4, 2021 10:22:42 GMT
Oh…and there is one more thing that also needs to be taken into consideration. Some time ago here on Fanaticus there was a debate about whether Artillery in DBA that starts a bound already in corner-to-corner contact, because the enemy themselves moved or pursued into contact, could then ‘shut-the-door’ and attack such an enemy in the flank to cause their recoil to become a destroyed result. The main argument for those that think they could (ignoring the ‘common sense’
absurdity of having a handful of artillerymen trundling their machines into a close
combat flank attack…imagine Napoleonic cannons or WW2 howitzers doing this!) was that as the Artillery were already in contact, physically moving them into a new position, location or orientation is not “moving them into contact” since they were already in contact at the start of their bound. Those against this notion used the following logic:- Is the Artillery spending PIP’s to physically move?……..yes. Would such a move result in contact with an enemy?…yes. Then the move cannot happen. (And it doesn’t matter if they already started in corner-to corner or mutual side-edge
contact…they are still making a move that ends in contact)Fortunately HoTT is much clearer and page 17 “Tactical Moves Ending In Contact” says:- “Artillery cannot move if that move would end in any contact with the enemy.” Nonetheless, if we apply the very same logic to Knights:- Are the Knights spending a PIP to physically move?…………...yes. Would such a move result in close combat with an enemy?…yes. Therefore they are moving and charging into contact, and are vulnerable to being ‘quick killed’ by Shooters, Artillery or Magicians they have moved into contact with. (And it doesn’t matter if they already started in corner-to corner or mutual side-edge
contact…they are still making a move that ends in contact)In short, if we are going to allow moving not to be classed as moving in one case, then surely we should be consistent and do the same in the other case as well.  |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Sept 4, 2021 16:52:29 GMT
Well said, Stevie. Case closed. Can't be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaotlichiye on Sept 6, 2021 0:34:30 GMT
There's no arguing taste, especially if you don't have a preference. You have made your point well, and you understand mine, so that's that. I've just started reading through the rules and have no idea whether this rule makes much practical difference. Just from reading, it looks to me like Artillery is a bit weak already.
|
|
