Author Topic: Moving from a third rank (Read 2373 times)

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

Tim Child · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2008, 01:29:44 AM »

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

andrew · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2008, 08:40:35 AM »

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

Valentinian Victor · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2008, 01:34:09 PM »

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.

Tim Child · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2008, 11:26:02 PM »

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

MikeCampbell · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2008, 08:15:22 PM »

In a competition context it's much easier IMO - do it as the umpire says and that's all there is to it!

DaveMather · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2008, 09:51:47 AM »

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

Lorenzomele2001 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2008, 10:46:00 AM »

Any possibility PB will examine this issue along the grading and others he's working on?
Rgds
Lorenzo

landmeister · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2008, 01:49:19 PM »

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!

Lorenzomele2001 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 08, 2008, 01:51:37 PM »

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.

DaveMather · « **Reply #10 on:** December 08, 2008, 08:46:46 PM »

Challenge would be good - Ascot April 4th/5th -practice on the 3rd - beer fridge all weekend

Regards

David Mather