3 Medieval Battles - Move to Contact

[Pillager]

Don't think that separate rules for single vs groups would ultimately simplify.

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by khr

Can the knights "X" move through the pikemen's threat zone (blue) to face the enemy knights?

The only part of the rules that can be read to allow it is the "...part of another element between...". Knights "Y" could be seen as "Between" the pikemen and "X" when the group enters the threat zone.

You have interpreted the rule correctly and there is no strain. A "threat zone" extends only to the point where it touches another element. Since the contact is with knight Y, knight X is free to move into front edge contact the enemy knights, either as a single element or as part of a group.

I don't think that additional rules are necessary.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

You have interpreted the rule correctly and there is no strain. A "threat zone" extends only to the point where it touches another element. Since the contact is with knight Y, knight X is free to move into front edge contact the enemy knights, either as a single element or as part of a group.

I don't think that additional rules are necessary.

I think this is a nice interpretation, but no where do the rules say " a TZ extends only to the point where it touches another element". Some form of that line inserted into the TZ rules would be a wonderful addition. Would suggest the following

A TZ extends equally from the front edge of an element to the first part of any enemy element it meets and stops there.

Not sure if this would fix problems as shown in the original question (it might), since a group moving across a TZ will have the elements at one end of the group enter a TZ before closer friendly moving elements do so, and the more distant elements could potentially be forced to alter their movement in reaction to this threat zone.

It boils down to interpretation, which is said by everyone. In this case, alternate interpretations should, in my opinon, be minimized by defining how groups react while moving in a TZ. Clarification in this case would require a few more words, but I think could be accomplished.

[Martyn]

Originally Posted by Matt

I think this is a nice interpretation, but no where do the rules say " a TZ extends only to the point where it touches another element". Some form of that line inserted into the TZ rules would be a wonderful addition. Would suggest the following

A TZ extends equally from the front edge of an element to the first part of any enemy element it meets and stops there.

Not sure if this would fix problems as shown in the original question (it might), since a group moving across a TZ will have the elements at one end of the group enter a TZ before closer friendly moving elements do so, and the more distant elements could potentially be forced to alter their movement in reaction to this threat zone.

It boils down to interpretation, which is said by everyone. In this case, alternate interpretations should, in my opinon, be minimized by defining how groups react while moving in a TZ. Clarification in this case would require a few more words, but I think could be accomplished.

Isn’t this a continuation of the old discussion which has occurred under every version of DBA which has boiled down to the alternative rolling carpet or flashlight interpretation.

Most people seem to accept the rolling carpet and presumably that is the intention in v3. However, I would agree that it should be made clear in the rules so that there is no need for this discussion yet again.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Martyn

Isn’t this a continuation of the old discussion which has occurred under every version of DBA which has boiled down to the alternative rolling carpet or flashlight interpretation.

Most people seem to accept the rolling carpet and presumably that is the intention in v3. However, I would agree that it should be made clear in the rules so that there is no need for this discussion yet again.

No knowledge about your first comment, but agree whole heartedly with the second. Seems like just a few words could go a long way, or maybe a diagram...

[Martyn]

Originally Posted by Matt

No knowledge about your first comment, but agree whole heartedly with the second. Seems like just a few words could go a long way, or maybe a diagram...

I have made the comment direct to Phil that diagrams would be of huge benefit. His response has been, yes, they are in production but are not ready yet.

It does make me wonder why, when we are on the final run up before release the diagrams have not been provided.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by Martyn

Most people seem to accept the rolling carpet and presumably that is the intention in v3. However, I would agree that it should be made clear in the rules so that there is no need for this discussion yet again.

I've never actually accepted the "rolling carpet" version (nor the "flashlight" version really). It all boils down to the meaning of the word "between".

"Between" was clearly defined for shooting in DBR, "no part of another friendly or visible enemy element is between imaginary lines connecting one front rank shooting edge corner to any corner of the target element and the other to an adjacent corner without crossing or passing through any element except the target."

Well, clearly defined for Phil Barker anyway. There were even some actually useful diagrams...

The wording in the "crossing an enemy element's front" sections of all of his games is nearly identical so I have to assume that he meant more or less the same thing for all of them.

This is also, more or less, the same definition used in HoTT.

Now I admit that referring to a game (DBR) that very few people other than myself own isn't really fair... but I do think this shows clear intent across the games. I just wish that Mr. Barker would admit that not everyone interprets his rules the same way and would post polite and complete FAQ's for his games.

Mind you, I'll play it any way that my opponent is comfortable with. The impact on the game of the various definitions of "between" is relatively minor. I just prefer the definition found in DBR and HoTT...

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Gamer

I've never actually accepted the "rolling carpet" version (nor the "flashlight" version really). It all boils down to the meaning of the word "between".

"Between" was clearly defined for shooting in DBR, "no part of another friendly or visible enemy element is between imaginary lines connecting one front rank shooting edge corner to any corner of the target element and the other to an adjacent corner without crossing or passing through any element except the target."

Well, clearly defined for Phil Barker anyway. There were even some actually useful diagrams...

The wording in the "crossing an enemy element's front" sections of all of his games is nearly identical so I have to assume that he meant more or less the same thing for all of them.

The "shooting" heuristic has some serious problems when used for ZOC, though. There are non-trivial cases where a number of elements all in the 40mm square in front of a single enemy are none of them in "ZOC" if shooting is the heuristic used; there are other cases where many elements are all within ZOC at the same time. I made a webpage many years ago showing peculiar cases for the three major ZOC heuristics (carpet, flashlight, and shooting); eventually the debate more or less resolved with carpet being the one with the fewest bizarre or offensive cases.

But I think Phil has said he does not like the carpet heuristic, so evidently he means something different. Until a diagram comes up, hard to say what.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

The "shooting" heuristic has some serious problems when used for ZOC, though. There are non-trivial cases where a number of elements all in the 40mm square in front of a single enemy are none of them in "ZOC" if shooting is the heuristic used; there are other cases where many elements are all within ZOC at the same time.

I've never seen a situation where no element is in "ZOC".

Originally Posted by david kuijt

I made a webpage many years ago showing peculiar cases for the three major ZOC heuristics

Is this still out there somewhere? I'd love to see all the work you've done on this. I thought I'd followed this debate fairly well, but non-gaming life takes me away from this sort of thing somewhat regularly and I missed this...

Originally Posted by david kuijt

Until a diagram comes up, hard to say what.

Wouldn't that be nice...

Thanks for the answer. As I said, I'll be happy to play it in any way agreed upon. As long as my opponent and I are playing it the same way, I'll have fun playing.

[Martyn]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Gamer

Is this still out there somewhere? I'd love to see all the work you've done on this. I thought I'd followed this debate fairly well, but non-gaming life takes me away from this sort of thing somewhat regularly and I missed this...

I was waiting to see if somebody else would respond, but, in the absence of anything else

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/ZOC/ZOCheuristics.htm

I hope that helps. (I hope it works )