New (August) version due out soon...

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Lobotomy

A major problem with this is as soon as the element recoils, the TZ projects again, freezing any element behind the front line. My understanding is Phil has always felt we did not use enough reserves. But now he if forcing the use of pips to keep the reserves close, but not too close. The theory is confusing to me.

The geometry is that this generally only occurs if an element less than 20mm deep vs elements less than 20mm deep. (so no mounted for example) Otherwise the recoil will take any TZ off the second rank. I have no problem with this. Heavy foot should be easily pinned.

The other point to note is that more elements now follow up, so renewing combat and blocking the TZ.

Play it out on the table. It actually simplifies the whole flashlight vs carpet issue, with very little adverse effects. (It was derided during the DBMM ddevelopment process as well, but actually works very well.) Simply looking at diagrams that will never actually appear on the table isn't really very helpful.

[Bob Santamaria]

Originally Posted by Martyn

The more bizarre affects of the x-ray ZoC (or Threat Zone) in v3 is partially off set by the longer movement distances..

This does strike me as a very good point.

But as the movement distances in 3 are very much not to my taste, it is no answer for me.

[ferrency]

Originally Posted by Doug

The geometry is that this generally only occurs if an element less than 20mm deep vs elements less than 20mm deep. (so no mounted for example) Otherwise the recoil will take any TZ off the second rank.

This is not the case unless the "exactly at 40mm" case for TZ has been changed.

In 2.2, a 40mm element that recoils is still in ZoC. Unless this has changed, I would expect that if a 20mm element recoils, it will still project TZ onto a second rank behind a 15 or 20mm element, since they will both be at or under 40mm.

So, this works the same for all 15mm and 20mm deep foot (that is: anything not double-based).

Alan

[Pillager]

> If your front unit is impetuous and victorious, it advances forward after destroying the enemy. You now have 2 friendly units facing each other. Even if they are in full front edge contact, this is not 'in close combat'. And each of them extends a zoc through the other.
>

Of course they ARE in close combat. Read the rules:

"It occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element "

[Pillager]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

How, exactly, does a Psiloi threaten a Cav through a 2x2 block of four Pike or Blade?

Good point about Psiloi. They probably ought to not be X-Ray.

[Pillager]

If you give me unblockable ZOC, I can ... move single elements out to paralyze four or more enemy elements at a time.
>

So one of them engages you in close combat, freeing the others to overlap you.

>
they are helpless until they have expended two pips each over two turns (one to retreat out of ZOC, and one on a later turn to move to somewhere useful again).
>

Only if you think that the rule contains an exclusive OR. It simply needs to be clarified that you can do both in the same bound:

"can move only: (a) to contact the front edge of or towards such a TZ-ing element , or (b) only directly to its own rear, "

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by Pillager

Only if you think that the rule contains an exclusive OR. It simply needs to be clarified that you can do both in the same bound:

"can move only: (a) to contact the front edge of or towards such a TZ-ing element , or (b) only directly to its own rear, "

Doesn't the use of (a) and (b) options make it pretty clear that the choices are exclusive?

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by Pillager

Only if you think that the rule contains an exclusive OR. It simply needs to be clarified that you can do both in the same bound:

"can move only: (a) to contact the front edge of or towards such a TZ-ing element , or (b) only directly to its own rear, "

Unfortunately, you emphasized the wrong word...

"... (a) to cantact the front edge of or towards such a TZ-ing element... or (b) only directly to its own rear..."

If choosing option (b), the only movement allowed during its entire move is directly to its own rear.

[Pillager]

It is completely irrelevant whether 2.2 has an exclusive or inclusive OR.

The POINT which SOLVES the problem is to clearly state that it is to be INCLUSIVE.

You keep DENYING the possibility of changes that would solve problems, because you don't want 3.0 to succeed.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by Pillager

It is completely irrelevant whether 2.2 has an exclusive or inclusive OR.

The POINT which SOLVES the problem is to clearly state that it is to be INCLUSIVE.

You keep DENYING the possibility of changes that would solve problems, because you don't want 3.0 to succeed.

On the contrary, I very much want 3.0 to succeed.

My point was simply that the rules as currently written explicitly do not allow what you want them to do. If you can convince the author to change this rule, more power to you.

(Though I would like to see extensive playtesting before such a change was adopted...)