| Auteur |
Message |
lionelrus
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4828
Localisation: paris
|
 Posté le: Mer Mai 19, 2021 4:05 pm Sujet du message: |
 |
A prayer was done to El Kreator, and He answers.
More seriously, we ask the question to him and he said : any troop in terrain that penalize etc... can't exert any zoc. I think he will post himself in few days.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Soranon
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 19 Juil 2012
Messages: 2640
Localisation: Toulouse
|
| Posté le: Mer Mai 19, 2021 8:16 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| kevinj a écrit: | Maybe a diagram would help here so that translation is less of an an issue.
So, MF 1 and MF 2 are units of Medium Foot patially in a forest, facing in the diredtion of ^.
The red box represents the area 1 UD from their front.
For MF 1 this clearly extends across the terrain so MF 1 would not be able exert a ZoC across it.
Does the same apply to MF 2 as, although, the ZoC does not go though the penalising terrain, the Unit itself is in it? |
The rule is very clear in this case : a unit does not exert a ZOC into or from terrain that penalises it during combat (p38)
It's clear in french too : "Une unité n'exerce pas de zone de contrôle dans ou à partir d'un terrain qui la pénalise au combat"
So I don't understand why some people still argue about this subject : In the exemple above, MF2 is in a terrain that penalise it so it can't exerce Zoc on his front !
It's just a question of just reading the words correctly, without any wrong meaning.  |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 726
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Mer Mai 19, 2021 9:52 pm Sujet du message: |
|
To say what you mean is not the same as meaning what you say.
Mf2 not having a zoc is a radical concept that is not obvious unless you mean to say it. Then you can see the meaning of what you say.
Bed time I think.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1675
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 4:38 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Soranon a écrit: |
So I don't understand why some people still argue about this subject : In the exemple above, MF2 is in a terrain that penalise it so it can't exerce Zoc on his front !
It's just a question of just reading the words correctly, without any wrong meaning. |
Agreed. People are choosing to over complicate. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 505
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 7:04 am Sujet du message: |
|
I don't yet have my V.4 rulebook but I note that V.3 included an official amendment to p.35 (Exceptions to ZoC) that says: "A unit does not exert a ZoC in, into or from terrain that penalises it during combat".
This amendment replaced the wording: "A unit does not exert a ZoC when in terrain that penalises it during combat". So clearly, EK had to make it crystal clear under V.3 that if non-lights are in penalising terrain they lose their ZoC. No doubt he will do the same here for V.4 (with a sigh of frustration).  |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 726
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 7:24 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Hazelbark a écrit: | | Soranon a écrit: |
So I don't understand why some people still argue about this subject : In the exemple above, MF2 is in a terrain that penalise it so it can't exerce Zoc on his front !
It's just a question of just reading the words correctly, without any wrong meaning. |
Agreed. People are choosing to over complicate. |
The over complication is as written.
Was it so difficult to say troops in combat penalising terrain don't have a zoc?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 726
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 7:47 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Zoltan a écrit: | I don't yet have my V.4 rulebook but I note that V.3 included an official amendment to p.35 (Exceptions to ZoC) that says: "A unit does not exert a ZoC in, into or from terrain that penalises it during combat".
This amendment replaced the wording: "A unit does not exert a ZoC when in terrain that penalises it during combat". So clearly, EK had to make it crystal clear under V.3 that if non-lights are in penalising terrain they lose their ZoC. No doubt he will do the same here for V.4 (with a sigh of frustration). |
There we go just add "in" , not so difficult eh
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 8:23 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Soranon a écrit: | So I don't understand why some people still argue about this subject : In the exemple above, MF2 is in a terrain that penalise it so it can't exerce Zoc on his front !
It's just a question of just reading the words correctly, without any wrong meaning. |
I don't think anyone has been arguing on this thread.
However, the first responses to the OP were wrong, so there is a problem with the rule which needs clarifying.
English is a messy language and the grammar of complex sentences can be confusing. Here the question is does the phrase "from terrain" describe the position of the subject or object (unit or ZoC). A casual reading of the rule could be that because MF2's ZoC is wholly outside the woods it isn't coming from terrain. It takes a more careful read to see that the restriction applies to the unit that's exerting the ZoC and not to the ZoC itself.
An easier way to think about it is if you can accept that if MF2 was in melee it would be penalised even though its front edge, where the fighting was occurring, was completely free of the woods, then you can accept the woods similarly affect the front edge's ability to exert a ZoC. In other words, the whole of the unit fights, not just the leading edge, so the same logic applies to exerting a ZoC.
Once you see that it becomes impossible to unsee it and you might think somebody who thinks differently is being deliberately obtuse. Sometimes they are, but more often it's just a case of misreading.
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Dernière édition par daveallen le Jeu Mai 20, 2021 9:31 am; édité 2 fois |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 726
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 9:08 am Sujet du message: |
|
Yes.
A question is always easy if you already know the answer.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 505
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 9:21 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Dickstick a écrit: | | Zoltan a écrit: | I don't yet have my V.4 rulebook but I note that V.3 included an official amendment to p.35 (Exceptions to ZoC) that says: "A unit does not exert a ZoC in, into or from terrain that penalises it during combat".
This amendment replaced the wording: "A unit does not exert a ZoC when in terrain that penalises it during combat". So clearly, EK had to make it crystal clear under V.3 that if non-lights are in penalising terrain they lose their ZoC. No doubt he will do the same here for V.4 (with a sigh of frustration). |
There we go just add "in" , not so difficult eh |
It’s a shame, indeed odd, that the carefully worded V.3 amendment was not carried over verbatim to the V.4 wording. Was the word “in†deliberately dropped? On reflection did EK have second thoughts about non-lights completely losing their ZoC when “in†terrain? Or was it just a sloppy editing cock-up? All will be revealed in the fullness of time; or will it? 😆 |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1675
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 6:27 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: |
However, the first responses to the OP were wrong, so there is a problem with the rule which needs clarifying.
(snips)
Once you see that it becomes impossible to unsee it and you might think somebody who thinks differently is being deliberately obtuse. Sometimes they are, but more often it's just a case of misreading.
|
Sorry. none of the first responders have any kind of "sane person to listen to" card that would lead people in a different direction. The first "sane person" was Lionel who is correct in what he posted. The very nature of open forums allow mobs to shout. They did and confused lots of people.
Now I too was confused by the mob, until I tried to read what the mob invented. And I couldn't see they PoV. Just the words weren't there. But you are right that some people see the wrong thing and I are convinced of its rightness.
Still the words as written are clear and that is the intent. If you are all messed up, you aren't capable of being a threat. Its logical too. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 726
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 8:20 pm Sujet du message: |
|
You sound like a shit hazelbark.
250 years of butchering English by you country doesn't mean you understand English English.
I'm upset by your lack of understanding. [/list]
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1675
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 10:00 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Dickstick a écrit: | You sound like a shit hazelbark.
250 years of butchering English by you country doesn't mean you understand English English.
I'm upset by your lack of understanding. [/list] |
Thank you for the compliment. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1675
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 10:14 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Hazelbark a écrit: | | If you are all messed up, you aren't capable of being a threat. |
Just for clarity, when I wrote the above I meant to be referring to the Unit in terrain. If troops are discombulated by terrain they are not capable of being a threat. The "you" was a reference to troops. Not a person. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Jeu Mai 20, 2021 10:31 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Hazelbark a écrit: | Sorry. none of the first responders have any kind of "sane person to listen to" card that would lead people in a different direction. The first "sane person" was Lionel who is correct in what he posted. The very nature of open forums allow mobs to shout. They did and confused lots of people.
Now I too was confused by the mob, until I tried to read what the mob invented. And I couldn't see they PoV. Just the words weren't there. But you are right that some people see the wrong thing and I are convinced of its rightness.
Still the words as written are clear and that is the intent. If you are all messed up, you aren't capable of being a threat. Its logical too. |
If there's any shouting here it's coming from you not from the people who made a simple error in reading a rule and accepted their error as soon as it was pointed out.
Calling them an insane mob is gratuitously offensive, bullying and counter to the Game Etiquette described on page 10 which calls on players to be "courteous and respectful of their opponent".
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
