ZOCs and turning to face

We played our first game of BI-2 this evening. Later Fatimids against Early Crusaders. For the most part very slick, a couple of events that sent us scurrying through the rules which is hardly surprising and mostly to check that things were/weren't the same as we would expect.

In the end a hard earned win for the Fatimids - the Mamelukes were extremely effective but spent most of the game shooting martyrs err I mean pilgrims, whilst the Frankish foot sergeants ground the abid-al-shira and berber foot into the ground killing the Fatimid general in the process. Still they did enough damage that when the Mamelukes stormed around the left flank the Franks broke and ran.

Only one thing made us question the rules as we realised the ZOC effect meant that once CL got into the flank of the CP1, there was literally nothing the CP1 could do to turn and face them. So we overruled the rules at that point.

You can't wheel in a ZOC as written, even to charge. So once the Turkomans had the knight's flank in their ZOC all the knights could do was run straight ahead towards the table edge. The CL have no difficulty maintaining position and keeping the ZOC pressure on. Very strange and a real WTF? moment.

Either we missed something or there's a bit of a flaw here. Any thoughts?

Any comment on this?

What options does a unit have when the enemy has a unit on its flank exerting a ZOC?

How can a CP turn and charge such a unit for instance?

Watching a CL literally herd a unit of CP1 off the table edge by forcing it to move straight ahead or be shot to death was a real turn off.

In a multi-command game this could be dealt with by getting the initiative but BI is essentially IGO-UGO.

Another one for a house rule. From my understanding the ZOC is to prevent players from doing gamey unrealistic tactics near the enemy and not encourage it so I would do the same as you and ignore the ZOC rule if it prevents a logical response.

Christopher

well this is a limit case with CP with no possibility to move forward. You can anyway move back.

dadiepiombo wrote:well this is a limit case with CP with no possibility to move forward. You can anyway move back.

I appreciate that you can do that but moving backward and ending disordered with CL on your flank is no better than moving forward and ending disordered with CL on your flank.

And it isn't restricted to CP, any unit that finds itself in the ZOC of a unit to its flank is doomed - a single forward move is not enough to get away.

The Rules wrote:The only moves allowed to a Unit already inside an enemy
Zone of Control are:
1) Move in a straight line directly towards the enemy Unit exerting the Zone of Control.
2) Move directly to the rear.
The only exception to this is when the Unit exerting the Zone of Control is not to the front of the Unit caught in the ZOC. In this case a Unit may move straight ahead (almost as if ignoring the ZOC) but this movement will result in Disorder (if already disordered it will not be further penalised).

If there was an option to pivot to face ( I accept that pivot and charge if fast enough may be a bit much) - even if doing so generated disorder - it would be a vast improvement but as it stands this rule just generates bad, gimmicky, geometry based silliness.

the only improvement I see (my original idea) is that you can move foward with no disorder when in a ZoC.
I take time to think about.

Hi so far I have only played one game of Basic Impetus 2 but played Impetus before. In our BI2 game this situation did not arise but we chatted about this.

One thought I had is that if you can see you are going to be outflanked you have a choice to pivot to face earlier? I agree very annoying as a CL unit is then pulling your CP unit out of position and into doing something you don't want to.

Also the other hope is that you win the initiative roll for the next go so in this case would be able to wheel?

Cheers Jez

if you have a CL on the flank that puts you in its Zoc (but could also charge you on the flank), something went wrong.
In Impetus you cannot turn either.

I think that allowing the unit that it is in enemys ZOC to move forward if it finish its move outside it will work fine. The same as in impetus.
When i red the rules i noticie that a disordered unit of CP in the situation described cant do anything but spend one turn to recover from disorder, and move backwards in the next one.
But i thought it was Lorenzo's idea of how must be played.
I dont like geometric tactics in wargames too, and i wanted to ask about it.

in Impetus you can move out of a ZOC and continue moving, you can wheel (at the risk of triggering a reaction) to face - in fact you have many options, not least the possibility of winning imitative and going again.

In BI-II none of that is true. CL getting into a flank ZOC position is certainly advantageous and what they want to achieve, and frankly not that hard to do much of the time.

In no way am I suggesting that such a position shouldn't be significant but penalizing the ZOC'd unit such that all it can do is shuffle forward or back in disorder is way out of proportion.

And bear n mind that this is just easer to achieve with CL - any unit can develop a flank ZOC, once it does so the ZOC'd unit is utterly crippled.

RainDog wrote:I think that allowing the unit that it is in enemys ZOC to move forward if it finish its move outside it will work fine. The same as in impetus.
When i red the rules i noticie that a disordered unit of CP in the situation described cant do anything but spend one turn to recover from disorder, and move backwards in the next one.
But i thought it was Lorenzo's idea of how must be played.
I dont like geometric tactics in wargames too, and i wanted to ask about it.

Not sure you're seeing the same situation RainDog

The CP can move forward (or back) as it stands but ends in disorder - then guess what the CL does? Because I guarantee you won't have moved beyond t's ability to renew the ZOC - oh and of course it will shoot!

This is absolutely not how it is in Impetus where you have a gamut of options - some good, some bad.

Hi Zippee,

We discovered this today and it certainly caused a lot of head scratching! Never mind CL an S unit exerting a ZoC on the flank of a unit can be just as bad and in our second game I purposely tried to exploit it. With comparatively few units on a large table or when an enemy is destroyed there are often gaps to be exploited, a 2+2 move can take the S through then all kinds of trouble follows being able to pin units so they can only go forwards or back ending in disorder. The funny thing is S can't melee non-S so I was wondering why they are so powerful? They do seem a bit of a game changer at the moment, it could be beware to any army that doesn't have them! Hence my post on a reacting alternative but I haven't had time to play test it yet. Cheers

So far I have not registerd as an issue and we had 2 competitions.
Anyway I plan to add one Ace that allows you to ignore a ZOC and perform some offensive action. Still to work out, but could be enough to reduce the possibility for the opponent to rely too much on such possible gamey trick.

Don't know how your competitions run or feedback Lorenzo.

However it took precisely one game for my small group of players to find this problem. We then spent the next 4 games trying to resolve / overcome it.

It's a complete game breaker and as a consequence we haven't bothered to play BI-II again.

That's our feedback - you won't get more because we're not playing the rules because of it..

It's up to you whether you consider it important enough to act upon - and no I don't think adding an Ace is sufficient. The effect of flank ZOC needs to be reviewed to allow the affected unit to do something other than shuffle forward or back.

I will consider, making some more specific tests, but I want to understand how people play, because sometimes they concentrate on one aspect loosing the general view.
Like those who play the game and say it takes too long as they don't move forward with any unit waiting for the opponent to advance.

We will hopefully have Roger's mini Basic Impetus tournament in Bristol UK in a few weeks (see events thread) and can see what arises here and comment back?

Personally although only played six games so far not come across this particular issue and I still feel as a player you have to see the possibility that this might happen and wheel units in anticipation that they may be outflanked.

Anyway looking forward to the competition.


Cheers Jez

Yes Jez, the tournament may show how much of a problem this is, now that we are all aware of it.

One possible solution is to allow a wheel in a ZOC, but only towards the unit exerting the ZOC (so pivoting on the corner nearest that unit). That would at least allow a sensible response, as Zippee said in his first post on this topic. It would still limit the actions for a unit in a ZOC.

I can understand if you don't want to start publishing amendments to the rules, Lorenzo, but an easy answer to that is to have a 'whole battle' ace which allows such wheeling (not just a one-off ignoring of the ZOC). Those who see this as a problem in any specific game can choose that ace. And those who don't (possibly because of the armies involved) could choose something else.

RogerC

yes the idea of the battle ace is a start

hi everyone

i have read plenty about the ZOC and its effect. i never played BI1 but i believe it was the exact same, so this is nothing new!

for my penny's worth. you buy the rules...they are yours..period! play them how you like, add house rules, bin parts whatever

everyone i know think they are a good set of rules that introduces players into the period, so IMHO it would be a shame to completely throw them away on one rule point.

adapt the rule to suit your gaming circle and keep enjoying playing the game...not fighting the rules

have fun

frazer wrote:
for my penny's worth. you buy the rules...they are yours..period! play them how you like, add house rules, bin parts whatever

Trouble is that sentiment doesn't help with universal understanding, the ability to conduct drop in games, the facility of tournaments or even the ability to have coherent and sustained helpful comment on these forums.

It's pretty much a given that everyone accepts you can do what you like in your own house.

The wider world of the forum, public games and intercollegiate information isn't anyone's house, it's a collective. It helps immeasurably to have a collective repository of endorsed amendments and refinements.