Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
arc of shooting
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Question sur la règle V4
Auteur Message
didrobert
Signifer


Inscrit le: 14 Jan 2016
Messages: 317
Localisation: nantes
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mar 30, 2023 9:24 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
It's the reason why you've plenty of very good ADG players in UK ( winner in normandy last we for example ) ! because you sleep with the rules book , dream about it and read it wholly !!
then asking questions wich make the rules clearer !!!
did
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Envoyer un e-mail
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mar 30, 2023 10:07 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
harryKonst a écrit:
As I understand from the answers, you say that for the Shooting Zone the flanks extend 1UD left and right of the shooting unit, and so its the same like Zone of Control, anything that contacts the flanks, is not within the Shooting Zone and cannot be shot. You accept this 1 UD of extension, like the rule of Zone of Control? Is that it or it’s my mistake? But if that is what you say, then you are wrong my friends. The rule of Shooting Zone about its width, refers to a whole one UD distance to either side, not a Zone of Control distance to either side. 1 UD is more than Zone of Control, by definition on page 35 where it says exactly that.
So, if we accept that a unit that contacts the flank border of the Shooting Zone of a shooting unit cannot be shot, then the same must happen when it contacts the front border. Therefore the Cavalry at exactly 4 UD from the front of the bowmen, cannot be shot. That's certainly not the rule, of course.

No Harry, while I realise that English is not your native language, I don’t think you have understood the answers. 

To be “within arc†to the side is unchanged from V3 - if you can put a 1UD base flat on the table, then even if it touches the firer and target, the target is out of arc. There is a usefulll diagram in the old rules that was omitted here. 
The change in V4 was to apply the same definition to shooting to the front - a target that is exactly “at†a distance is not “within†the distance, and is therefore out of range.

The diagrams on p57 show the shooting zones. Targets must lie inside these zones - the boundaries are now all considered to be outside the zones. 
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
harryKonst
Archer


Inscrit le: 04 Juil 2017
Messages: 63
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mar 30, 2023 10:58 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Thank you Ramses II for your clear answer. I fully understand what you say, but I don't agree with the meaning you give to the word WITHIN. To be clear, when a unit is AT 4 UD from a Cv unit, is also WITHIN charge range of that cavalry unit, that has a 4UD charge distance. Do we agree on that? In my prospect of the word WITHIN (and according to dictionary that for a distance it means less or EQUAL to), AT is a part of WITHIN. In other words, when you are AT a distance you are also WITHIN that distance. On the contrary when you are WITHIN a distance you are not necessarily AT, you might be from zero to AT.
As for the rule itself, how do you know that it is unchanged from version 3? Because as I see it, the opposite happened. The rule of Shooting Zone became clearer and did change from the inconsistency the previous rule had.So, now all the border of a Shooting Zone is treated the same (as is rational to believe) and there is no difference between front and flank edges. If you have access to the people of the TB or the author of the rulebook and you are fully aware of what is going on here, I have no reason not to believe you, but the wording of the rule must change. They must add the word LESS in the description of the Shooting Zone (... The shooting zone is a rectangle ....and the width of its shooting edge plus LESS than 1UD to either side.). Because as it is now, the boundaries are in the zone.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mar 30, 2023 2:12 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Hi Harry
Please check the diagram in shooting zones in V3, and the corresponding text for the front and side zones. These show both the original definition of front range “at†and the side arcs “withinâ€. It is these intentions that were carried over to V4
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Neep
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 124
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mar 30, 2023 2:42 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Harry, a couple of things that might help clarity. A better choice of translation would probably be "in". Also the diagrams on page 57 should show the arc zone fading beyond the far end. The arc is conceptually unlimited in depth and the diagram cuts it off at range which creates some ambiguity.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
harryKonst
Archer


Inscrit le: 04 Juil 2017
Messages: 63
MessagePosté le: Ven Mar 31, 2023 1:30 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II and Neep, thank you for the answers. Ramses, we will keep playing shooting ( here in Greece), as in version 3, and whatever contacts the flank edges of the shooting zone will be considered to be out of it, since as I realize that's what the universal ADLG community does. Unless the author or an official clarification might say something else in the future.
Neep, yes, in that case the use of the word IN would be a better choice and make things clearer (if that is the intention of the author).Nice talking to you guys! Smile
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
navigator
Archer


Inscrit le: 09 Sep 2018
Messages: 68
Localisation: robin hoods bay UK
MessagePosté le: Mar Avr 18, 2023 7:45 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
its pointless talking about v3... we play v4.. v3 is dead and buried. If there is still uncertainty then a clear ruling is needed by the author . We are comfortable in our group with how we now play it. ( in diagram only one unit each side of the central unit can fire- when enemy is perfectly aligned.)
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Question sur la règle V4
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum