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
Another ZoC Question
Page 2 sur 4 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2, 3, 4  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Auteur Message
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 11:25 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
For what it's worth Dave, I agree with you on the last point.

So in summary, we are possibly suggesting that B can enter an enemy ZoC, and potentially still combat** a different enemy providing that it still respects the rules about manoeuvring with respect to the most threatening enemy.

** by combat, read shoot at, provide support or attack the flank of an enemy
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ethan
Signifer


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 347
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 11:28 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
madaxeman a écrit:

With that extra piece it meets the criteria as written. Also, as it's been described in the other threads - it's no less parallel and isn't in the ZoC of another unit. thus it isn't any less aligned.


This can't be the full definition of alignment (again for the technical committee as well). If the only criteria for alignment is paralell or not then you can move clear across someone's ZOC until another unit become most threatening, i.e. then exiting the first unit's ZOC, which is clearly not allowed in the rules.

madaxeman a écrit:
My interp (as umpire in this situation) was that as the unit in question was charging into contact with the enemy flank, this could not also be regarded as "moving" towards the ZOCing element, as moving and charging are different thinks, as a move can't end in frontal contact with enemy.


In the FAQ "Charge movements and ZOC “Charges must comply with all the Zone of Control constraints and exceptions (pages 33 to 35).†There is no difference charging or moving wrt to ZOC (which also includes pursuit movements following evaders).
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ethan
Signifer


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 347
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 11:29 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
For what it's worth Dave, I agree with you on the last point.

So in summary, we are possibly suggesting that B can enter an enemy ZoC, and potentially still combat** a different enemy providing that it still respects the rules about manoeuvring with respect to the most threatening enemy.


This then ignores this sentence in the second bullet:

"The unit cannot exit the most threatening enemy's ZOC or move away from it."
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 2:10 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Tim,

for movement into melee without charging see "Losing impact when hit on flank" [http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5793].

Had Keith wanted to advance to give support to his unit in melee I wouldn't have objected.

Ethan,

it seems to me people are introducing factors into the definition of alignment that weren't intended. It's problematic to expand the rules like this and so I agree it's something the TB needs to rule on for all our sakes.

Dave

Edit
[PS see also ZoC question 1 for the idea of moving across ZoCs - ruled out by the TB]
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 2:14 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
For what it's worth Dave, I agree with you on the last point.

So in summary, we are possibly suggesting that B can enter an enemy ZoC, and potentially still combat** a different enemy providing that it still respects the rules about manoeuvring with respect to the most threatening enemy.

** by combat, read shoot at, provide support or attack the flank of an enemy

What I'm saying is that seems to be allowed by the RAW, but it isn't desirable and so needs banning.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
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: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 2:15 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Not quite, Ethan.
Dave's last diagram clearly shows tha B has not exited the ZoC of Z, while it has managed to move closer to Z without the need to change it's alignment through conformation upon contacting the flank of Y.

My subsequent point about starting aligned and then conforming away from that alignment raises the query of rule precedence between the permitted movement in an enemy ZoC, and the rules of conformation upon contacting an enemy.
Here, I suggest we all agree that effectively ZoC manoeuvres take precedence over other movement and Conformation. Thus if B starts aligned with Z, it may not contact Y (since it must conform), and so B may not move past Y unless it is actually charging Z.

The key point here being that the rules provide three possible movement options when in an enemy ZoC (which may be combined) :-
  • To advance in a straight line, thereby moving closer to the most threatening enemy.
  • To turn, wheel and / or slide, thereby increasing alignment with the most threatening enemy.
  • To charge the most threatening enemy.


Also, these options may be further restricted by the presence of other units (as in my last case where B is prevented from advancing past Y).
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: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 2:34 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Sorry, Dave got in first.
I agree that the TB needs to provide a ruling here, or at a minimum some clarity on what may or may not be done under these circumstances.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ethan
Signifer


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 347
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 15, 2017 11:53 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
Not quite, Ethan.
Dave's last diagram clearly shows tha B has not exited the ZoC of Z, while it has managed to move closer to Z without the need to change it's alignment through conformation upon contacting the flank of Y.


If you allow this movement a unit can cross an enemy ZOC until another adjacent enemy becomes most threatening and leave the first enemy's ZOC.
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: Mer Aoû 16, 2017 12:21 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
ethan a écrit:
Ramses II a écrit:
Not quite, Ethan.
Dave's last diagram clearly shows tha B has not exited the ZoC of Z, while it has managed to move closer to Z without the need to change it's alignment through conformation upon contacting the flank of Y.


If you allow this movement a unit can cross an enemy ZOC until another adjacent enemy becomes most threatening and leave the first enemy's ZOC.

Hi Ethan, I agree that if B left the ZoC of Z in some way, then the movement would be illegal. However, it seems that there are certain circumstances where a unit can move in the ZoC of one unit while fighting another enemy (under the rules as currently written). In Dave's example, B moves closer to Z, it does not leave the ZoC, it does not change it's alignment; it apparently complies with all the requirements. Yet it ends up fighting a unit other than Z.

These kind of situations are rare, but not unknown. So the question (which I have raised with the Technical Board) is whether a unit that is in an enemy ZoC should be allowed to manoeuvre such that it fights a different enemy.
The one occasion this is definitely valid is when the unit charges the most threatening enemy, but then contacts a different enemy, and even then there are certain constraints.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 31, 2017 4:20 pm    Sujet du message: Re: Another ZoC Question Répondre en citant
daveallen a écrit:
Next B moves into Z's ZoC to contact Y on the flank in support of A. [Note B does not charge Y, it simply moves into contact as a support]




Again, B obeys all the requirements of the ZoC rule when it moves closer to Z.

However, it seems to me this time B breaks the spirit of the ZoC rule by engaging in melee with a different unit.


This move seems to be an explicit violation of the ZOC rule. Specifically I would point to the diagram on the bottom left of page 34 the final sentence does use the word "charge". But in this example I see no mechanical movement or rule that is different between a charge or a move.


Dernière édition par Hazelbark le Jeu Aoû 31, 2017 8:17 pm; édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Zoltan
Centurion


Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 31, 2017 8:05 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
So it would seem that a unit entering an opponent's ZOC (by whatever means) must ALWAYS react to the ZOCing unit as its first priority. In other words (for example), you can't charge through opponent A's ZOC in order to contact opponent B in the flank. ZOC rules act as a magnet.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 31, 2017 9:18 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I agree the move shouldn't be allowed, but you can't look at just this aspect of the rule on its own. In terms of the rule as written why is example 1 allowed and not example 2?

There is a difference between charging and moving, for instance, if unit B was light infantry it could not charge unit Y, but it could move into contact to give support.

We need a comprehensive explication of the rule that covers this and other problems.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 31, 2017 10:18 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
daveallen a écrit:
I agree the move shouldn't be allowed, but you can't look at just this aspect of the rule on its own. In terms of the rule as written why is example 1 allowed and not example 2?


Ah so you are not arguing for 2 to be permitted. You are saying since 2 is not permitted what about 1?

Citation:
There is a difference between charging and moving, for instance, if unit B was light infantry it could not charge unit Y, but it could move into contact to give support.


Agreed but in this case its immaterial.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Ven Sep 01, 2017 6:09 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Hazelbark a écrit:
Ah so you are not arguing for 2 to be permitted. You are saying since 2 is not permitted what about 1?

No, you have it the wrong way round. I'm arguing both are permitted under the RAW and there needs to be an official interpretation/amendment that permits 1, but not 2.

You might not see a difference between a charge and a move in the circumstances of 2, but I do. The fact we can disagree on it here means that in a competition you're not going to be sure which side of the argument an umpire will come down on. Which isn't good for either side.

Rather than have a long (and tedious) argument about a minor point of interpretation (as so often with DBM) we could just get an authoritative ruling and move on with our lives. Shocked

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Ven Sep 01, 2017 3:37 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
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?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Page 2 sur 4 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2, 3, 4  Suivante
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