Auteur |
Message |
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Ven Sep 01, 2017 8:08 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | daveallen a écrit: |
You might not see a difference between a charge and a move in the circumstances of 2, but I do. |
So explain to me how the difference would work? |
See
Losing impact when hit on flank
[http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5793] _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence
Dernière édition par daveallen le Sam Sep 02, 2017 9:50 pm; édité 2 fois |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
gregfilip
Légionaire
Inscrit le: 15 Fév 2017 Messages: 109
|
Posté le: Sam Sep 02, 2017 10:48 am Sujet du message: |
|
Such a great game ,top in the preference of players across europe and still hasnt solve the most crucial aspect back form the old dbm days .ZOC.
Just a simple official wording will solve everything.
BTW ..how did players in salamanca solved simillar circumstances ..and what was head judge rulling on this? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1537
|
Posté le: Sam Sep 02, 2017 6:09 pm Sujet du message: |
|
daveallen a écrit: | Hazelbark a écrit: | daveallen a écrit: |
You might not see a difference between a charge and a move in the circumstances of 2, but I do. |
So explain to me how the difference would work? |
See [http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5793] |
I understand that situation very well thank you.
What I don't understand is your position seems to be that the diagrams in this thread would be differently legal or illegal based whether this is a charge or a move to support. So rather than me put words in your mouth, I am asking you to explain the difference you see in these diagrams between moves to support and charges. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1537
|
Posté le: Sam Sep 02, 2017 6:12 pm Sujet du message: |
|
gregfilip a écrit: | Such a great game ,top in the preference of players across europe and still hasnt solve the most crucial aspect back form the old dbm days .ZOC.
Just a simple official wording will solve everything.
BTW ..how did players in salamanca solved simillar circumstances ..and what was head judge rulling on this? |
Well this appears to not have been an issue for over a decade and the appropriate people are on a proper holiday. So I suspect it won't be too much longer before this is all cleared up. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Sam Sep 02, 2017 8:25 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | I understand that situation very well thank you.
What I don't understand is your position seems to be that the diagrams in this thread would be differently legal or illegal based whether this is a charge or a move to support. So rather than me put words in your mouth, I am asking you to explain the difference you see in these diagrams between moves to support and charges. |
As to the difference between charging and moving to support. It comes down to this.
There are some circumstances where a unit that can't charge can nevertheless move into contact with an enemy to engage it in combat. The thread I referenced above shows how Light Infantry can engage in combat the flank of a unit it is not allowed to charge under the contact restrictions.
Now I'm making an analogy here with that situation - Unit B is not allowed to charge Y because of the ZoC rule. But, provided it does not ignore the other restrictions, it can move into contact with the flank as shown.
As you say, there is no functional difference between a charge and a move into contact, but they aren't the same thing. In both cases one is allowed and the other isn't.
I don't think it was the intention, but that's how the rules are.
Dave _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1537
|
Posté le: Lun Sep 04, 2017 3:15 am Sujet du message: |
|
so your position is these are allowed as moves but not as charges? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Lun Sep 04, 2017 7:59 am Sujet du message: |
|
Yes _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
plefebvre
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 30 Déc 2009 Messages: 1166
|
Posté le: Lun Sep 11, 2017 4:06 pm Sujet du message: |
|
This is the official answer to the question raised by the second example of the third post.
This move is not legal. The rational is : as it moves to contact Blue Y, Red B has part of its front which enters and then exits the Blue Z's ZOC.
Obviously, by considering the rule about movements in ZOC, some definition are to be clarified such as : to align, to exit the ZOC. Also the text could be more clearly presented.
The problem will be solved by the next updated FAQ which is almost completed and will be soon released.
The Technical Board director _________________ patrick lefebvre
"sic transit gloria mundi" |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Centurion
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015 Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
Posté le: Mar Sep 12, 2017 6:13 am Sujet du message: |
|
So just going back to the original post and the two examples at the start of this trail. In both diagrams, Red B moves into a position to provide support to Red A fighting Blue Y. In the first example, Red B simply moves alongside Red A. In the second example Red B contacts the flank of Blue Y. In both cases, Red B is simply providing support to Red A which is the "primary fighter" against Blue Y.
However, the Technical Board ruling appears to indicate that a unit can use its ZOC to protect the exposed flank (or rear) of a friendly unit, preventing an enemy moving through the ZOC. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1537
|
Posté le: Mar Sep 12, 2017 1:54 pm Sujet du message: |
|
While we will see the details. I think the technical board is going to rule that the ZOC is powerful and can't be as easily ignored in this situations much as it has been played.
I would guess that we are going to see a restatement of the rules that units have to respond to ZOCs.
But we will see when the DT gives details which we all await. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Mer Sep 13, 2017 2:15 pm Sujet du message: |
|
plefebvre a écrit: | This is the official answer to the question raised by the second example of the third post.
This move is not legal. The rational is : as it moves to contact Blue Y, Red B has part of its front which enters and then exits the Blue Z's ZOC. |
I have no problem with the ruling, but I don't think the rationale is adequate.
A better rationale would be to amend the rule to prevent a unit in (or entering) a ZoC charging or engaging in melee with any unit except the ZoC-ing one.
The reason for this is if we outlaw any move in which a ZoC-ed unit "has part of its front which enters [or starts] and then exits" an enemy ZoC then the following also become illegal:
1)
Where B has moved to support A.
2)
Where if the red unit wants to wheel or half turn to align with blue part of its front edge will exit the ZoC.
Dave _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1537
|
Posté le: Mer Sep 13, 2017 2:37 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Dave, if it was not made clear the DT is getting a full detailed explanation that may or may not include points you are saying.
What they have told us, is how they will rule.
What is coming is the support, so we can implement it in games with varying circumstances. I believe that goes to what you are asking.
I am not part of the process, but from what I think I observe. Some very smart, experienced players debate and present competing views and solutions. They develop a recommendation or recommendations. Then El Kreator digs through them and engages them to lock it down. Then its final form is hashed into words. We I think await ifs final form. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Mer Sep 13, 2017 2:56 pm Sujet du message: |
|
If you think my reasoning is wrong I'm happy to hear it, but knock off the patronising tone. _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mer Sep 13, 2017 5:17 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Dave, I think your diagram makes a good point.
The other question is whether you think the Red unit should be allowed to manoeuvre to / in these positions, or whether the rule should be modified to ensure the (red) unit moves directly towards the ZoCing enemy unit on entry to that ZoC (which would be much more restrictive). |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1537
|
Posté le: Mer Sep 13, 2017 7:35 pm Sujet du message: |
|
daveallen a écrit: | If you think my reasoning is wrong I'm happy to hear it, but knock off the patronising tone. |
Sorry that comes naturally to me. Ask anyone, its who I am. Apologies. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|