Zone of death query

[andrew]

Hi

Please see the attached image.  The Blade is facing up the page and, assuming the Blade is fighting a Warband to his front, he has the 'death zone' area behind him marked with the dotted lines (being a base depth from the original rear).  For the purposes of this query let's assume the Blade dies to a Warband in frontal combat.  There is a second (friendly) Blade in the picture, who has a part of his base behind the dying Blade, which is outside of the the area marked 'ZoD' - but a part of his element is less than a base depth from the rear edge of the element that died.  Does the second Blade die in this instance?  The rule in question is on page 40, in particular this part of the rule:

When an element ... is destroyed while in close combat, all friendly elements with any part directly behind are also destroyed if their nearest part is less than the destroyed element's base depth from its original rear edge, and
 ~ They are foot, and the destroyed element's frontal opponent was Warband.

Cheers
Andrew

[MikeCampbell]

You are an evil, evil man!!

Yes - I guess it dies.......unless an umpire has enough intenstinal fortitude to say that's not what he thinks the rule intended and no it doesn't!

[andrew]

 

I had a very very similar situation last weekend (with my Wb into a Bd) and there was an Auxilia at a funny angle (similar to the picture) but it was partly inside the area marked 'ZoD' (needless to say both died).  Then I was re-reading the rules the other night (as you do) and I saw this particular wording.

I posted this partly to see what others thought.  It seems 100% clear when reading the rules ................ doesn't it.........? 

Andrew

[Valentinian Victor]

Andrew, can you post this question on the DBMM yahoo group site and request this receives clarification when Phil looks at the rules again.
I would be astonished if the element behind is also destroyed, I think Phil's intention was that elements directly behind and in contact with the destroyed element were also destroyed, not that any element some distance behind was also destroyed.

[foxgom]

Hi

I suggest somebody deletes the subject from the web page, we all forget it ever happened and promise never to mention it again !

  :'(

neil

[andrew]

I agree in that it doesn't sit comfortably with me and, for the record, I have *never* played it this way.  But are we collectively right or wrong in the way we have played this in the past?  I would hate to pull this out of the hat against a newbie and drive them away from the game, it's hard enough getting newbies to the table.

It has been worded very specifically and either it assumes the nearest part is directly behind (IMO unlikely), or didn't consider this situation (possible but improbable) or the rules as written are worded correctly (IMO most likely given the history of rule writing).  Could it be justified?  Probably.  Was it intended?  I don't know, and I guess there is only one way to find out.

Andrew

@ Mike : are you umpiring at Hamilton?  If so, what would you rule on this?

[Tim Child]

I have to say that the tempting thing is to adopt Neil's suggestion, and all walk away whistling to ourselves.  "Nothing to see here, folks"!   

I am pretty sure that the wording intended to replicate the ZoD of DBM.  As an umpire, I'd be very tempted to rule against it on the day, but by the strict wording of the rules...  Luckily, 99.9% of all players would never even see the possibility if it presented itself on the table.  Or at least they wouldn't have done until evil genius Andrew publicised it!

Tim Child

[toby]

I think it is fairly obvious that this is not the intention of the rules and that it is just a very slightly loose bit of phrasing that has ended up with this situation.

[andrew]

Hi Toby

It seems to have been very clearly worded and, in my experience, any misunderstandings are usually resolved by conducting a closer inspection of the rules.  It appears such an approach can not be adopted with the scenario posited.  I would be genuinely surprised if Phil has mis-worded something given his style of, and experience with, rule writing.  But equally I cannot fathom that all of us would get this wrong.

I am really really curious to see what Phil has to say about this.

Cheers
Andrew

[toby]

We don't and certainly I don't. I am just guessing from Phil's approach to ZoD in the rest of the rules. From bitter experience, if you put Phil on the spot over individual questions like this, you get random and inconsistent rulings, normally dictated by the exact circumstances of the example. He needs time to consider all aspects of a bit of a rule and its effect on other rules and this was lacking at the very end of the development of DBMM when there was considerable pressure to meet a publishing deadline. The rules on march blocking are the worst example of something that was changed without being polished in Phil's mind, and I think this might be another. My experience of Phil is that he is not writing rules by starting with an intellectual framework, he is writing rules by trying to codify and generalise from vast numbers of specific battle interactions that he knows of from years of study, which is why he gives rules interpretations based on the specific example rather than the text of the rules.