DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: foxgom on December 01, 2008, 02:54:55 PM
-
Hi
This is an old one, but apparently still unclear.
Page 32 Threat zone.
Commentaries Page 28.
See also
http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic'3.msg1540#msg1540
See attachment.
The movement of a third Ax out of a contacted column was ruled to be illegal, which I do not understand.
Ax 3 starts at 80 p from Ps 1.
He is not limited by the TZ of Ps 1: he does not reach the TZ, nor enter it, nor does he start in it.
He moves back, then sideways, then enters the TZ of Ps 2 to attack him.
When he reaches the TZ of Ps 2, he line up opposite Ps 2.
I know this means that recoiled chariots and elephants can "dance" to the left and right, which I do not like.
I would prefer the TZ to include all elements at 80p, but I do not think this is the case.
This needs a clear statement, which the commentaries do not deliver.
Something along the lines of:
"An element exactly 80p from the enemys front at the edge of the TZ is considered in to in/out of the TZ".
neil
-
As currently ruled in the Commentary, and (as I understand it) as Phil confirmed when Toby tried to get him to change his mind at an SoA games day, your understanding is right, Neil. The third rank of Ax (and Bw/Ps/Wb(F)/etc, and recoiled El/Ch) are not affected by the TZ as long as they make an initial move backward as their move does not "reach, enter or start in" a TZ.
The advantage of this ruling is that the side edges of the TZ don't affect the neighbouring elements! :)
Tim Child
-
Hi
Tim is spot on. I was equally frustrated with debates about exactly this and Toby answered it very succinctly here:
http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=210.msg1172#msg1172
Andrew
-
This is where the 'straight line movement' principle comes in. Dave Mather and I have been playing this like Phil suggests, if any part of a straight line measured from where you start, to where you end passes through a TZ, then you cannot make that move.
-
While that's fine for games between players who both agree to go that way, it isn't anything supported in the "rules as written". I'd have a great deal of difficulty supporting that particular obiter dicta from Phil in a competition context. :(
Tim Child
-
In a competition context it's much easier IMO - do it as the umpire says and that's all there is to it!
-
It does throw the occasional weird situation but I cannot fault it for its "cleaness of play"
I have become more and more a fan of this "interpretation"
I'll leave it there lest this spawn a doglegging debate /measuring across troops debate
Kind Regards
David Mather
-
Any possibility PB will examine this issue along the grading and others he's working on?
Rgds
Lorenzo
-
Oh My God!!!
Lorenzo Mele and Dave Mather! :) We missed you so much! Why aren't you participating more in this forum? Both of you are, IMHO, true gurus of the DBMM scene. ;) Following you at the Yahho list is a very exhausting work! :-[
-
Well, Neil Fox correctly pointed out two mistakes we did here about rules. I really would like to attend a tournament in UK to exaustively check the rules.
-
Challenge would be good - Ascot April 4th/5th -practice on the 3rd - beer fridge all weekend
Regards
David Mather