|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2022 10:46:31 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 I'll try and explain. The arrows indicate the front edge. If Green wants to attack black but can only enter TZ with its front edge then it will need to do some type of rotation/pivot to bring a front corner around to enter TZ, possibly expending a lot of movement (e.g. Spears). Currently, I think players would just sweep green across rotating into position as it moved. I hope that explains it. Like I said, I like the idea that TZ must be entered by front edge. Jim  ![]()  |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 25, 2022 11:12:04 GMT
Hello Jim, well - green doesn't have to rotate 3/4 of a circle on a corner ... just an about turn (measured by the element's diagonal (1,x BW) ... pivot 180 degrees around the center point) ... and move forward!  Cheers Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jan 25, 2022 13:07:13 GMT
I think the TZ rules do make sense if you interpret the "....or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge..." as meaning you can only do so with your front edge.
So - if entering a TZ you can:
1. Line up its front edge
2. Advance into or towards contact
If you start in a TZ you can do the above as well as having the option to move straight back to your rear for the entire move.
Cheers Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 25, 2022 13:33:28 GMT
I think the TZ rules do make sense if you interpret the "....or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge..." as meaning you can only do so with your front edge. So - if entering a TZ you can: 1. Line up its front edge 2. Advance into or towards contact If you start in a TZ you can do the above as well as having the option to move straight back to your rear for the entire move. Cheers Simon Hello Simon, yes, but the guys where asking, whether it's possible to use this straight backward move (out of the threatening TZ) to pass through another (newly entered) TZ also!?  That's where I'm saying 'no'! Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jan 25, 2022 15:30:14 GMT
I would say no as well although, where TZs are overlapping, I would let them go back as long as they remained in the first ZOC even if this meant entering the second ZOC.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 25, 2022 15:42:59 GMT
I’m in two minds on this issue, but I do agree with both Ronald and Simon:- 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 meets 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 meets the new TZ?) Note that the blue element in diagrams ② and ③ has voluntarily chosen to make a backwards tactical move that enters a brand new TZ (that it did not start in) with its rear-edge, not its front-edge. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 25, 2022 17:34:16 GMT
Hi guys,
Let‘s have a look at the paragraph THREAT ZONE (page 9): It describes in three points (a, b and c) which are the possible ways of an element moving in an enemy TZ, but not moving into it.
a) and b) are possible ways to get closer to the (threatening) enemy.
c) is the only way to get away from the (threatening) enemy.
And - what is a TZ?
It‘s the area or distance, in which an element can‘t no longer ignore the TZ generating enemy element!
But moving „backwards through and passing by“ is just ignoring the TZ generating enemy element - and that doesn‘t make any sense to me.
Cheers
Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 25, 2022 20:33:24 GMT
The TZ rule will break down if you allow backing into TZs. I think you can generally spin around without before entering so its not that great a problem.
If in multiple TZs to start you only need to consider one so you can backout of multiple zones.
But you can't back out and into a new zone. This no real world or game sense.
Rule should have been clearer so I'll tighten up in current stuff.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 25, 2022 21:47:41 GMT
Actually Tom, things might have been better if the TZ backing-out rule had said:- “(c) If a single element, to first turn to face the enemy generating the TZ then move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.” That makes more sense than trying to cross the enemy front… …they would be backing directly away from the threat. (It’s what I do when trying to avoid a fight!  )Oh well, we will just have to make do with re-interpreting the current TZ rules. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2022 22:25:26 GMT
It is unfortunate that an about face costs more than 1 BW of movement, being the diagonal distance across the element base. This makes movement more fiddly as compared to simply using the longest corner to corner distance for a single element move. It would be better if it cost 1 base depth of movement. That's how I imagined the contact would occur. It's ironic that a discussion about a situation to avoid combat will end up making contact more difficult, particularly for heavy infantry.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jan 26, 2022 7:20:53 GMT
jim1973Hello Jim, actually we play it the way, using the longest corner to corner distance. I just wanted to explain to you, that you don't have to use such "exotic" moves like turning 270 degrees around a corner. Cheers Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 26, 2022 7:58:57 GMT
We use the same distance measurement, corner-to-corner.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 26, 2022 9:57:23 GMT
Although somewhat controversial, the very top of page 9 says:- “Movement is measured in a straight line, from the starting point of the furthest moving front corner of the single element or group to that corner’s final position.” Therefore:-  (Think of it as the file leaders turning on the spot while the men
behind each file leader passes through to form up behind them) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 26, 2022 11:02:55 GMT
No problem with that analysis stevie if you want to turn around on the spot. After all, real troop depth would only be pencil thin in comparison to our bases. But if you want to approach the enemy (or simply move forward) you would now need to expend your base depth. It uses less movement to take the diagonal.
As Roland (and likely most of the rest of us, including myself) explained, we measure the corner to corner distance. To do this, we have to allow the concept that we enter TZ with something other than our front edge. So I'm not sure this cheesy play can be stopped with the RAW. I think it would take a few more sentences to sort it out in the rules.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 26, 2022 16:01:05 GMT
Like many sections of the rules, the "threat zone" section generated quite a bit of discussion and many, many revisions. We had many of the same observations that are voiced here. I personally like the version that was put forth November of 2013. That however was replaced twice... once with an version that only considered the front edge of an element. This was generated by some of Phil's personal confidants that were not on the discussion group. At that time, Phil dropped out of the discussion due to some health issues. Upon his return we convinced him to change things back... but he kept the mention of the front edge.
If fading memory serves... we decided that the backing into a threat zone to rush across it next turn was silly... but not worth the extra rules to prevent.
If the bounding player wants to avoid it... then don't move to generate the situation. If the bounding player wants the produce it... his opponent can move to prevent it... either by contact or by moving such to limit the move.
Such situations rarely occur during games. I have yet to see it used to generate an advantage. DBA3 is harsh on players that use non-linear formations... and this was done on purpose.
Until I see this start being used for advantage, I don't think it needs addressing. There are more vexing threat zone interpretations that can be used for advantage... and these have been discussed at length on this board.
Joe Collins
|
|
)