|
|
Post by sheffmark on Jan 23, 2022 13:50:03 GMT
Well, if you end up in a position with an enemy threatening your front and another threatening your flank then you are in a bit of a pickle! You probably shouldn't be able to escape in an orderly manner. Either freeze, fight or break. So I agree that you cannot enter TZ backwards, unless you're pivoting to line up to the enemy. Certainly can't back across it. Cheers Jim If in 2 threat zones, I think you can choose one of the threat zones to back away from - see diagram 7b. I agree that you can't back into a threat zone - unless you are backing out of another one. Jim If you're threatened (and this is a threat zone, so troops are moving towards you, close enough to threaten but not yet close enough to contact) by troops from front and flank, I think it's perfectly sensible to 'get the heck out of there' before you get hit from both sides. The rules allow you to do this and as a consequence you can legitimately back through, or out of, a flanking elements TZ. I don't think anyone would have problem with this as you are retreating from a threatening position. Simon I don't think diagram 7b says you can choose which TZ to back away from. In fact it says Spear A may not back out of the TZ as the move is "blocked by Spear B". It also says it "must be in a straight back without deviation" (presumably there's a word missing somewhere?) In the rules section it says the element moves back to it's own rear, so it doesn't matter from what angle to TZ is being applied, which in the case being discussed is part of the problem. However I think Stevie is on the right lines in terms of a suggested solution. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Jan 23, 2022 14:08:31 GMT
But on a serious note, we wouldn’t be having this conversation if a little more consideration had been applied to the wording of the Threat Zone section:- (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy, or (c) if a single element that starts the bound in a TZ, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. Of course the rules don’t actually say this…but perhaps they should have. Then this ludicrous situation wouldn’t be possible. So there we have it…either use common sense to understand the meaning/spirit/purpose/reason for the TZ rules (although badly worded with flaws), OR, blindly follow the TZ rules exactly as they are written and expect to see more backward ‘Moonwalk Manoeuvring’ to avoid the TZ limitations. The choice is yours… Hi Stevie I think this would work, although maybe you'd also need to tighten up or clarify how you enter a TZ. For example, can you move so that your rear edge touches or enters the side edge of a threat zone? If you can and you stop, then there is nothing to stop you backing through that zone the following move, even with your addition. The preceding sentence says, "An element or group which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only...." The key part being that it's only the front edge touching a TZ edge that seems to count. Having said all that, I totally agree with the general feeling, that it's such a cheesy move that anyone trying it would be severely looked down on for doing it! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 23, 2022 15:11:52 GMT
I’d just like to re-emphasise that line that you quoted Mark:-
"An element or group which is at least partly within
or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ
or touches its far edge can move only...."
So no, it’s not only the front-edge that matters…ANY part within a TZ limits movement.
This leads us to what ‘within’ means.
The very last sentence of paragraph 10 on page 2 says:-
“Within means at or closer than”…
...but this is not true is it.
Touching the side-edge of a TZ area is not classed as being ‘within’ the TZ…
…but touching the TZ far-edge will limit movement (see Figures 7a, 7b, 7c).
My (admittedly crude) suggestion means you should only back-out of a TZ
if you started the bound already in it…not when you deliberately choose
to wander into one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jan 23, 2022 15:42:20 GMT
If in 2 threat zones, I think you can choose one of the threat zones to back away from - see diagram 7b. I agree that you can't back into a threat zone - unless you are backing out of another one. Jim If you're threatened (and this is a threat zone, so troops are moving towards you, close enough to threaten but not yet close enough to contact) by troops from front and flank, I think it's perfectly sensible to 'get the heck out of there' before you get hit from both sides. The rules allow you to do this and as a consequence you can legitimately back through, or out of, a flanking elements TZ. I don't think anyone would have problem with this as you are retreating from a threatening position. Simon I don't think diagram 7b says you can choose which TZ to back away from. In fact it says Spear A may not back out of the TZ as the move is "blocked by Spear B". It also says it "must be in a straight back without deviation" (presumably there's a word missing somewhere?) In the rules section it says the element moves back to it's own rear, so it doesn't matter from what angle to TZ is being applied, which in the case being discussed is part of the problem. However I think Stevie is on the right lines in terms of a suggested solution. That suggests to me that if Spear B were not there, Spear A would be able to reverse out. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 24, 2022 0:57:49 GMT
Jim If you're threatened (and this is a threat zone, so troops are moving towards you, close enough to threaten but not yet close enough to contact) by troops from front and flank, I think it's perfectly sensible to 'get the heck out of there' before you get hit from both sides. The rules allow you to do this and as a consequence you can legitimately back through, or out of, a flanking elements TZ. I don't think anyone would have problem with this as you are retreating from a threatening position. Indeed you are correct. Rules as written (RAW), you can fallback from a combined front and flank threat zone. In fact, you could enter a new TZ, up to the point where your far corner reaches its closest point to the new enemies near corner ("to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy"). That way you are falling back directly to your rear and moving closer to corner to corner alignment. Next turn, you could withdraw directly to your rear across this new TZ. Now I may be missing something but this type of movement ploy seems possible to me, RAW. Happy to be shown otherwise as, like stevie, I think it's ludicrous. I just don't see this era having this sort of command and control to pull off these movements in proximity to the enemy. Falling back to open space is one thing but hop-scotching between TZ seems extreme. I'd like to see "fallback moves must end outside any TZ otherwise not permitted" but potentially allow the element to pivot and perfectly face one enemy element if this causes unseen issues. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 24, 2022 9:34:28 GMT
Since the current TZ rules are not well thought out and have a flaw in them that allows
‘Moonwalk Manoeuvring’ to avoid the TZ limitations, and we are considering ways of
addressing the situation, perhaps we should decide on what we DO want them to say.
Consider the following rough diagrams:-
① ▌ ▌------> Here the blue element starts in two TZ, and can back-out of both of them.
▄ (I think most players would say that is perfectly reasonable)
② ▌ ▌------> Here the blue element starts in one TZ, but backing-out enters another new TZ.
▄ (Should it keep going, or should it stop when it enters the new TZ?)
③ ▌------> This is similar to diagram ② above: backing-out enters another new TZ.
▄ ▄ (Again, should it keep going, or should it stop when it enters the new TZ?)
If players think it should be allowed to keep going and ignore the effects of the new TZ,
then perhaps the TZ rule should say:-
“(c) if a single element that starts the bound in ANY TZ, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.”
If players think it should stop the moment it enters the new TZ, since it didn’t start the bound in this new TZ,
then perhaps the TZ rule should say:-
“(c) if a single element that starts the bound in THAT TZ, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.”
Personally I think the second interpretation is better.
For realistic reasons = entering a new TZ presents a new danger, affecting movement and local command decisions.
For gameplay reasons = clever positioning can trap a fast moving enemy by cutting-off their line of retreat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jan 24, 2022 11:58:50 GMT
Now you great law masters have had a few days thought a pleb like me could chime in.
I would have thought
A unit in a threat zone can make a move straight back, if this takes them into another threat zone they can ignore it as the original threat zone instigated the move straight back situation.
If a unit not starting its move it in a threat zone moves into a threat zone it needs to start following rules for entering a threat zone line up or move towards. ( granted the neatly now ignores the move direct back bit )
If a unit is in two threat zones it cant choose which to back away from it just moves back towards it own base rear edge at whatever angle it is already at.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 24, 2022 12:54:48 GMT
That is certainly one solution Baldie, and follows the:-
“(c) if a single element that starts the bound in ANY TZ, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.”
It would at least prevent the ridiculous backward ‘Moonwalk’ that avoids the TZ movement limitations.
▌---------> Here the Blue unit starts outside of any TZ, yet the current TZ rules allows
▄ ▄ ▄ it to move straight backwards for its entire move across the enemy’s front.
(Threat Zones?…what Threat Zones…the enemy just waves as we pass by… backwards!)
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 24, 2022 12:59:17 GMT
You can't back into a Threat Zone. If moving backwards it would have to stop at edge. To move in a TZ you must become more aligned with the TZing Element or move straight forward toward contact. As you can't contact an Element moving backwards and you are not aligning your front edge you can't make the move. TomT Hello guys, I completely agree with TomT. And … as some of you know my credo … 1. Read the rules and 2. Keep it simple. The rules say: „An element … whose front edge enters an enemy TZ …“ So entering an enemy TZ with an element‘s read edge is not allowed! No reverse gear perpendicular moonwalking passing through enemy TZ! And … the reason for a TZ created by an enemy element is, elements in that TZ have to deal with that enemy and can‘t ignore it! Cheers Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 24, 2022 13:06:50 GMT
I agree Ronald…  …but what about this?:- ③ ▌------> This is similar to diagram ② above: backing-out enters another new TZ. ▄ ▄ (Again, should it keep going, or should it stop when it enters the new TZ?) Perhaps it would be better if the TZ rules added just a single word:- "An element or group which starts at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only (a), (b), or (c)...." |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 24, 2022 13:24:49 GMT
I agree Ronald… …but what about this?:- ③ ▌------> This is similar to diagram ② above: backing-out enters another new TZ. ▄ ▄ (Again, should it keep going, or should it stop when it enters the new TZ?) Perhaps it would be better if the TZ rules added just a single word:- "An element or group which starts at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only (a), (b), or (c)...." Hi Stevie, for me, the blue element has to stop before entering the TZ of the red element in the right position. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 24, 2022 17:12:34 GMT
Although it may seem to be a little bit harsh, there is some justification in what you say Ronald. After all, why should moving backwards be less affected by a TZ, yet troops moving forwards are fully affected by them? Shouldn’t the TZ effects apply no matter which way you’re facing? Especially as most troops are not really stepping backwards but have turned 180°, marched off in the new direction, then turned back. (It ain’t easy to get horses to step backwards…for up to 4 BW…
galloping at the same speed as they can move forwards… ) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2022 2:15:13 GMT
I certainly like the idea that part your front edge must enter TZ. But will that cause problems with elements having to rotate 3/4 of a circle to reach an enemy element in order to enter with its front corner/edge?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 25, 2022 8:03:39 GMT
Although it may seem to be a little bit harsh, there is some justification in what you say Ronald. After all, why should moving backwards be less affected by a TZ, yet troops moving forwards are fully affected by them? Shouldn’t the TZ effects apply no matter which way you’re facing? Especially as most troops are not really stepping backwards but have turned 180°, marched off in the new direction, then turned back. (It ain’t easy to get horses to step backwards…for up to 4 BW…
galloping at the same speed as they can move forwards… )@ stevie Hi Stevie, maybe that's the reason why 'the rules say' : "TZs do not affect outcome moves"  And the tactical move of "moving straight back to its rear" should only be an option for an element to get out of an enemy TZ, it was formally in ... and not to get into a TZ, it was formally out. Cheers Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 25, 2022 9:47:22 GMT
I certainly like the idea that part your front edge must enter TZ. But will that cause problems with elements having to rotate 3/4 of a circle to reach an enemy element in order to enter with its front corner/edge? Jim Hello Jim, no - I don't get the point (elements having to rotate 3/4 of a circle to reach an enemy element in order to enter with its front corner/edge)? Cheers Ronald |
|
)
)