|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 9, 2017 10:58:37 GMT
When an element is in a TZ and lined up with an enemy element, can it pivot forwards to put an adjacent element in its TZ too? We encountered this on monday. We know it is against the spirit of the threat zone rule, but couldn't find the bit in the rules which prohibits it.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 9, 2017 11:52:04 GMT
Is it also in the TZ of this adjacent element? If it is not, then no.
The relevant section of the rules goes something like:
A single element or group in, entering or touching the far edge of an enemy TZ can move only: (a) to contact or advance towards line up with the front edge of 1 such element (or contact that camp, city or fort), or (b) straight back for its entire move, or (c) after combat; as an outcome move or if still in contact with enemy and it must conform.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 9, 2017 12:10:04 GMT
Thanks, Chris. The problem is that b) actually says "into or towards contact with such an enemy". The element in question moves towards contact with such an enemy as it pivots. We do not think it should happen but can't see where it prohibits it.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Feb 9, 2017 13:55:16 GMT
I suppose my question would be why does it pivot rather than just move/slide towards the original element? But I agree I don't think there is anything in the rules to stop this if the pivoting is moving towards the original pinning element.
Figure 7a introduces the word 'straight' which isn't in the main body of the rules. This seems to imply that if Warband A were to enter the TZ of Spear X it has the same options as Warband B , which includes "Move straight (towards Spear Y) but not make contact". Even if you took this to mean toward Spear X (which I think is understood rather than taking the exact literal meaning), it would still enable Warband A to move straight forward and pin Spear Y.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 9, 2017 18:32:52 GMT
Hmm. Now I have a copy of 3.0 in front of me you're right. The wording has been changed. In previous versions it was very clear. I would say that the intent was as per previous versions, and that you shouldn't be allowed to do it unless you were already in the TZ. But the actual wording of the rules no longer makes that clear. I miss the precise language of 1.0...
The diagrams do illustrate what moving towards contact entails however, and should really be considered to be just as relevant a source so I would be inclined to disallow the manoeuvre, especially as it's clearly against the spirit of the TZ.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 9, 2017 18:57:25 GMT
.........I would be inclined to disallow the manoeuvre, especially as it's clearly against the spirit of the TZ. But we don't know what the "spirit" of the TZ actually is.
For myself, I can see nothing wrong in manoeuvring to put two enemy elements "in check" and ensuring that only one of the two can attack your pivoted element in the following bound.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 9, 2017 22:52:51 GMT
You try pulling a move like that at the Northern Cup and I'll be having words ;-)
P.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 10, 2017 0:41:34 GMT
I would say that the intent was as per previous versions, and that you shouldn't be allowed. Danger, danger! Inferring intent is perilous and not authoritative. I have no idea what was intended, but isn't this somewhat similar to two groups moving toward each other at an angle? This wouldn't be an issue with the old rolling carpet interpretation of TZs. |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2017 8:26:18 GMT
The threat zone is zone of control that the element exerts in front of it that limits what movement you can make as your element's primary worry becomes that of the element that is threatening it. Is that not clear? I have no idea what was intended, but isn't this somewhat similar to two groups moving toward each other at an angle? This wouldn't be an issue with the old rolling carpet interpretation of TZs. I did indicate that it was an opinion. But regardless, I do not need to inferr intent. The diagrams illustrate what the intent was. And tells you exactly what can be done in a threat zone. Do you not consider them authoritative? Are they not there to settle exactly this sort of thing? Indeed. Damned X-Ray ZoCs. |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 10, 2017 9:03:14 GMT
.........I would be inclined to disallow the manoeuvre, especially as it's clearly against the spirit of the TZ. But we don't know what the "spirit" of the TZ actually is.
For myself, I can see nothing wrong in manoeuvring to put two enemy elements "in check" and ensuring that only one of the two can attack your pivoted element in the following bound.
The aim of the manoeuvre was to prevent the adjacent element (i.e. the one brought into the TZ by the pivoting manoeuvre) attacking a different element in the flank. Now in 2.2 this could easily be overcome by the originally ZOC-ed element actually attacking the ZOC-ing element, thus freeing up the second element by "cutting" the ZOC, but with X-ray TZ this no longer applies. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 10, 2017 10:14:44 GMT
The aim of the manoeuvre was to prevent the adjacent element (i.e. the one brought into the TZ by the pivoting manoeuvre) attacking a different element in the flank. Now in 2.2 this could easily be overcome by the originally ZOC-ed element actually attacking the ZOC-ing element, thus freeing up the second element by "cutting" the ZOC, but with X-ray TZ this no longer applies. Scott My moral compass must be faulty because this still seems like a good move to me.
If the circumstances were slightly different and the element had started just outside the TZ and had pivoted so that it entered the TZ (and, by definition moved towards the element exerting that TZ) but didn't move into contact and finished with both enemy elements in its own TZ, would we be bothered?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 10, 2017 10:16:30 GMT
You try pulling a move like that at the Northern Cup and I'll be having words ;-) P. Too kind, Paul, but I can't really take the credit. |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2017 10:32:07 GMT
The aim of the manoeuvre was to prevent the adjacent element (i.e. the one brought into the TZ by the pivoting manoeuvre) attacking a different element in the flank. Now in 2.2 this could easily be overcome by the originally ZOC-ed element actually attacking the ZOC-ing element, thus freeing up the second element by "cutting" the ZOC, but with X-ray TZ this no longer applies. Scott My moral compass must be faulty because this still seems like a good move to me.
If the circumstances were slightly different and the element had started just outside the TZ and had pivoted so that it entered the TZ (and, by definition moved towards the element exerting that TZ) but didn't move into contact and finished with both enemy elements in its own TZ, would we be bothered?
Nope. Because the initial manoeuvre would have been made when the element has the breathing room to plan for such things. When the element is within the TZ the officers are too busy reacting to the immediate threat they can detect. |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 10, 2017 12:15:49 GMT
The aim of the manoeuvre was to prevent the adjacent element (i.e. the one brought into the TZ by the pivoting manoeuvre) attacking a different element in the flank. Now in 2.2 this could easily be overcome by the originally ZOC-ed element actually attacking the ZOC-ing element, thus freeing up the second element by "cutting" the ZOC, but with X-ray TZ this no longer applies. Scott My moral compass must be faulty because this still seems like a good move to me.
If the circumstances were slightly different and the element had started just outside the TZ and had pivoted so that it entered the TZ (and, by definition moved towards the element exerting that TZ) but didn't move into contact and finished with both enemy elements in its own TZ, would we be bothered?
Not sure morals really come into it. The pivoting element was Carthaginian, and I believe they were proponents of child sacrifice (OK, admittedly that might be something of a generalisation, and there might have been mitigating circumstances...) Scott |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 10, 2017 13:00:09 GMT
Not sure morals really come into it. The pivoting element was Carthaginian, and I believe they were proponents of child sacrifice (OK, admittedly that might be something of a generalisation, and there might have been mitigating circumstances...) Scott In that case it is duplicitous trickery and entirely in keeping with the type of conduct I would expect from a Carthaginian.
(So far, we seem to have introduced officers and national characteristics - neither of which actually feature in DBA. Shall we see what other heresies we can bring in from this one situation?)
|
|
