|
|
Post by whiterose on Dec 13, 2016 2:09:10 GMT
New player here, hello all.
I see that when in an enemy ZOC one of the options is to move towards him. If my element's front is at an angle to his front am I obliged to line up parallel or can I continue on the current course which, whilst not lining up with him, does move my front closer to his.
If the latter, is part of my element allowed to leave the ZOC as long as the bit that remains inside it ends up closer than it started?
It's not easy to illustrate but try to imagine the enemy element aligned on an east - west facing and mine in his ZOC on a north east -south west facing. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 13, 2016 17:50:50 GMT
New player here, hello all. I see that when in an enemy ZOC one of the options is to move towards him. If my element's front is at an angle to his front am I obliged to line up parallel or can I continue on the current course which, whilst not lining up with him, does move my front closer to his. If the latter, is part of my element allowed to leave the ZOC as long as the bit that remains inside it ends up closer than it started? It's not easy to illustrate but try to imagine the enemy element aligned on an east - west facing and mine in his ZOC on a north east -south west facing. Hope that helps. You are required to either line up, advance toward contact, or move into contact. Phil has left the exact definition to the good graces of the players. Generally, we define "moving toward contact" as every part of the front of the moving element must end closer to the front of the element generating the Threat Zone. Technically this does mean that you can move closer and keep the exact same angle to the element's front that is generating the threat zone. I have never seen this create an issue. To answer your second question, no. All of your element's front much move closer to the enemy element generating the Threat Zone. I hope this helps. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by whiterose on Dec 13, 2016 19:30:58 GMT
Thanks. That's interesting because in the previous editions the choices were retreat, move into contact or"line up". Again infuriatingly "line up" was not defined, did it mean turn to be parallel with the enemy front or did it mean turn and slide to be parallel AND have the front corners opposite the enemy front corners? It can be read either way. Fortunately the WADBAG guide to DBA clarified it as the former. A classic example of why PB's obsession with using as few words as possible causes problems.
Looking at the diagram examples of conforming in the new book itself again it's not really clear that you can continue in on an angle. In fact if you are correct then it is possible to march right across an enemy element's front at an 89 degree angle to them, presenting your flank and treating them as if they weren't there. As long as you stay in the Threat Zone and you are angled ever so slightly towards them it's OK because it counts as an advance?!?
Please don't get me wrong I'm not doubting you but it seems to leave a lot of scope for negating the whole point of a Threat Zone. Could it be that the requirement to advance towards the enemy assumes you are already lined up?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 13, 2016 21:55:44 GMT
Thanks. That's interesting because in the previous editions the choices were retreat, move into contact or"line up". Again infuriatingly "line up" was not defined, did it mean turn to be parallel with the enemy front or did it mean turn and slide to be parallel AND have the front corners opposite the enemy front corners? It can be read either way. Fortunately the WADBAG guide to DBA clarified it as the former. A classic example of why PB's obsession with using as few words as possible causes problems. Looking at the diagram examples of conforming in the new book itself again it's not really clear that you can continue in on an angle. In fact if you are correct then it is possible to march right across an enemy element's front at an 89 degree angle to them, presenting your flank and treating them as if they weren't there. As long as you stay in the Threat Zone and you are angled ever so slightly towards them it's OK because it counts as an advance?!? Please don't get me wrong I'm not doubting you but it seems to leave a lot of scope for negating the whole point of a Threat Zone. Could it be that the requirement to advance towards the enemy assumes you are already lined up? No, that wasn't really the direction of the discussion during development. The first text given was to "move toward line up"... an odd construction, but we know what it means, though thankfully we got it changed. Phil, I think, wanted for gamers to work this out themselves. A hard definition can cause great problems. The good news is that in practice, this doesn't seem to cause issues (and I have played a game or two). Remember, the rules forcing elements to conform are now much different as well. Oddly cocked elements and groups are now a detriment rather than the game winner they often were under 2.2. The premium now seems to be on lining up. So, you don't tend to have elements out of line. Could there be a play or trick on this? I suppose... but I haven't found one that really works. Joe Collins |
|
