What does TOWARD mean? (52.2.c).

[zendor]

Gentelmen, can someone explain in a formal and precise way what is meant by toward in 52.2.c.
There is no explanation of this word anywhere in the rules.
I have given some diagrams below. Which of the following movements are acceptable and would count as "...toward front contact or alignment with the enemy stand" ?

Rules wording.


Movement of the single stand to the side


A group move of two stands. One is already in the TZ of the enemy stand, and the other is not yet. At the end of movement only one are in TZ.


A group move of two stands. One is already in the TZ of the enemy stand, and the other is not yet. At the end of movement both are in TZ.


Movement of the single stand at an angle to the enemy's TZ.



***
Here's an .odg file for LibreOffice with diagrams. In case someone needs them to make a diagram in response. LINK to Dropbox

[David Kuijt]

#1 is legal but stupid.

#2 and #3 are legal. Every point on the stand is getting closer (or staying the same with respect) to a matchup with the appropriate opposing point of the enemy stand putting them in zoc. Easiest way to determine this is to look at the corners. Left corner (pivot) of the red stand on the right stays the same; distance to the rightmost corner of the blue skirm zoccing it stays the same. Right corner of the same red stand gets closer to the left corner of the blue stand we were talking about. Same is true about the other pair, where the red stand comes into the ZOC and continues approaching the blue stand that created it.

#4 not legal. The leftmost corner of the red stand gets closer for the first part of the move, then starts moving away from the matching corner of the blue stand exerting the ZOC. As soon as the leftmost corner of the red stand passes the left edge of the zoc (the line exerted perpendicular to the front, extended by the left corner of the blue stand) from that point on it is no longer moving toward front contact or alignment with the enemy that is exerting ZOC upon it.

Of course, it could move up to 2mu any way it wanted -- so likely it could move a bit further. But that is using 52.2.d, not using 52.2.c.

[Delphin]

#1 is legal but stupid.

But what about this?

Is it still legal? If so, then ZOC does not protect a friendly stand from a flanking charge, which breaks some tactics.

[David Kuijt]

#1 is legal but stupid.

But what about this?

Is it still legal? If so, then ZOC does not protect a friendly stand from a flanking charge, which breaks some tactics.

See the last sentence of 52.2.d. Illegal.

If you're in ZOC (or move into ZOC) you cannot attack a stand that isn't ZOCcing you.

Ah, I think I see your point -- you're saying that you're moving into ZOC using a bizarre version of 52.2.c, so the last sentence of 52.2.d doesn't apply to you?

That's pretty legalistic. We might fix the wording if we ever come out with a version 1.1 (by adding the last sentence of 52.2.d to 52.2.c also) but I'm not really sure it is necessary. After all, if you attack a second stand, you are clearly NOT "moving toward front contact" towards the zoccing stand. That's sort of like telling your spouse "I am on the way to get groceries" when she catches you at the bar watching go-go dancers, and using the argument that the bar was on the way to the grocery store. She would most likely not be sympathetic to your argument. So I think the intent and the rule is clear enough as it is.

[Delphin]

Ah, I think I see your point -- you're saying that you're moving into ZOC using a bizarre version of 52.2.c, so the last sentence of 52.2.d doesn't apply to you?

Yes, you right.

That's sort of like telling your spouse "I am on the way to get groceries" when she catches you at the bar watching go-go dancers, and using the argument that the bar was on the way to the grocery store.

Excellent simile

Ok, I will use this answer as a case law. Thanks!

[chris6]

[/quote]
That's sort of like telling your spouse "I am on the way to get groceries" when she catches you at the bar watching go-go dancers, and using the argument that the bar was on the way to the grocery store. She would most likely not be sympathetic to your argument. So I think the intent and the rule is clear enough as it is.
[/quote]

That`s my boy! Great idea! That`s the reason to play Triumph!, good ideas for everyday situations!

[zendor]

#1 is legal but stupid.

#2 and #3 are legal. Every point on the stand is getting closer (or staying the same with respect) to a matchup with the appropriate opposing point of the enemy stand putting them in zoc. Easiest way to determine this is to look at the corners. Left corner (pivot) of the red stand on the right stays the same; distance to the rightmost corner of the blue skirm zoccing it stays the same. Right corner of the same red stand gets closer to the left corner of the blue stand we were talking about. Same is true about the other pair, where the red stand comes into the ZOC and continues approaching the blue stand that created it.

#4 not legal. The leftmost corner of the red stand gets closer for the first part of the move, then starts moving away from the matching corner of the blue stand exerting the ZOC. As soon as the leftmost corner of the red stand passes the left edge of the zoc (the line exerted perpendicular to the front, extended by the left corner of the blue stand) from that point on it is no longer moving toward front contact or alignment with the enemy that is exerting ZOC upon it.

Of course, it could move up to 2mu any way it wanted -- so likely it could move a bit further. But that is using 52.2.d, not using 52.2.c.

Thanks David!
I suspected what the answer would be, but just wanted to make sure so I wouldn't have any doubts.
So no more go-go dancing, just direct contact with the front only.