"TY Dash Move and Direction of Travel" Topic

In our own rules we have a very strict rule for facing after a move to prevent a vehicle from maneuvering to present a weak flank or rear to an enemy and then simply spinning around to present its front armor. I don't believe that real world armies are so polite! They'd gladly take the flank shot.

In TY they've returned to the requirement to face the direction of travel during a dash move (but not for tactical moves). But oddly enough I can't find a definition of direction of travel! Has anyone else found one? According to the rules and example of play the smallest move segment constitutes a "direction of travel". IIRC 2nd edition was more clear in this area. Any opinions?

It's not directly explained in the text, but it's heavily implied between the text and the diagram. So to me "direction of travel" is the direction you were traveling at the end of the move.

The diagram on p. 30, where the two movement types is demonstrated, shows this. If you look at the picture you'll see there are two M1s, one is moving Tactical and the other doing a Cross Country Dash. The tactical moving tank was able to turn a bit from the direction of travel whereas the other dashing tank ended its moving facing the direction in which it was traveling at the end of its move.

The text above the picture gives us this little nugget, "When moving at Tactical speed, a Team can end its movement facing in any direction." So that is one of the advantages of performing a Tactical move and it's a cost of performing a Dash move. In other words it's an exchange- speed for protection.

So if you want to move in one direction, but want turn yourself 180 degrees in the other to avoid getting a flank shot then you have to perform a tactical move. If you want to go to that place quickly and are willing to take the chance of getting an "up the kilt shot" then dashing is what you want.

I think you can understand your dash path to be the shortest smooth route, avoiding terrain and enemies. So adding a notional 1mm zigzag at the end to turn around would violate that.

In that case, your tank should be tangent to this path.

The problem is that there is no criteria, definition, or limitation provided for the rule.

I believe that the intent MIGHT be along the lines of "aim the vehicle at your desired end point and move it in that direction up to its dash move distance". And you can make the minimum adjustment needed to go around intervening terrain.

But why wouldn't they just say that? In the absence of that specific explanation maybe their intent is closer to 3rd edition? 1mm might be considered out of bounds but what about a hooking flanking maneuver around the flank of an enemy platoon?

If one can hook around a wooded area on a curved path then it seems perfectly reasonable to curve around a flank using a faster move ending up facing the enemy. At that point, whether curving around trees or curving around to flank an enemy the execution is the same and appears to be in line with the rules.

hmmm…

You'll have to stop trying to 'rules lawyer' the Team Yankee rulebook. It was specifically mentioned that the page count was kept low, partly by not including pages of detailed dictionary definitions. The wording intent is I think, quite clear as it is written.

VIS, I understand your question completely. I'm only played FoW a couple times many years ago so I'm not bringing any of that baggage with me when I read the Team Yankee rules.

The movement rules are very simple…maybe too simple. As is sometimes the case with derived rules, prior knowledge of the game's roots is sometimes assumed by the writer.

Reading the rules simply as written, there is no restriction on the direction of movement, how many time I can turn, to what degree, at any given speed.

Therefore there is no difference (in final facing or position) if I move 8" forward and *pivot* 180 or make a dash forward 16" and turn around, come back 8" for a total of 24".

I end up in exactly the same place with only difference is that in the former I can fire and in that latter I cannot.

Of course this is a silly example that would never happen on the field of play, but it serves to illustrate the rule mechanism.

My assumption, when I read the rule, was that the direction of travel is simply in one direction from point of origin to the point of completion. However, VIS brings up a good point in that my assumption doesn't work if my Dash is in the form of 'J' or hook.

Of course this is a silly example that would never happen on the field of play, but it serves to illustrate the rule mechanism.

But your example isn't silly, it hits the nail on the head!

Here's where it would be an issue.

M1 Abrams
Cross Country Dash Move 28"
Front Armor 18
Side Armor 8

T-72
Tactical Move 10"
125mm gun AT22

EXAMPLE A
The T-72 is about 17" away from the M1 and off to the side a little bit. The M1 needs to zip by the T-72 to contest an objective beyond the T-27 or maybe to set up a defensive position in that area.

Like an NFL wide receiver, the M1 runs a button hook pattern past the T-72 dashing 27" and then cutting back 1" for a final range of 10". The M1 is now 10" behind the T-72 and facing it. This denies the T-72 a side shot even if it makes a full tactical move. There's noting inconsistent with the rulebook. Just like the example in the rulebook in which the tank faces in the direction of the curve at the end of its move, the M1 in this example faces the direction of its final (really tight!) curve.

Now, in a tourney situation, who's the game-y guy: the M1 player who executes the move or the T-72 player who objects that he can't get a side shot after the M1 moves? Based on the text, one can easily argue that the T-72 player would be whining if he objected to a smart move that contested the objective AND provided a better armor facing while staying within the rules.

EXAMPLE B
An M1 conducting a fighitng withdrawl wants to take up a position in a gap between two bits of impassable terrain 27" away but facing its pursers.

It dashes 27" to the gap and then cuts back 1" to face its pursuers while occupying the gap. Again, not only consistent with the letter of the rule but also oddly consistent with the spirit of the rule in that the M1 did in fact end its move facing the direction of travel just like in the book's example.

EXAMPLE C
A variation on B, a tank could use the 28" move to zip around a piece of terrain, cut back, and then dare an enemy to come around that terrain piece on the move.

The thing is, all of those examples may in fact be what Phil intended! There's no hint that the starting point in used as the reference point for determining final facing while the example does in fact include a curved path with no requirement that the curve or final turn be of a certain type.

Draw an imaginary line in your head when you do the move. You have to be facing the same direction as the direction of travel the model took to complete the move. Say it was in a line straight ahead, you need to be facing straight ahead. If it's a j shape curve you need to finish your move facing the direction the vehicle used to get to the end position.

If that isn't clear enough, then get a piece of paper and draw a letter J on it. At the end of the J put an arrow on it. That's the direction you're meant to be facing.
link

If it's a j shape curve you need to finish your move facing the direction the vehicle used to get to the end position.

That's exactly what XRays and I wrote! :-)

kyoteblue,

It's really not a "tournament" or "rules lawyer" question here. I don't play tournaments and I'm a great believer in sportsmanship and playing to the intent and all that.

It's simply a question of clarification and trying to understand what the book is trying to tell me to do. Is that bad?

Often, I see rules that are written well enough for the average case. It's when you get near the edge that things become a little unclear.

Hopefully some who is reading this has played in one of the demo games of took part in the Team Yankee demos this past weekend at Flames or War and get help.

McWong73,

Precisely! So, the direction of movement is the facing at the end of the movement. Since there are no restrictions on the number of changes of direction, the Dash simply lets you go further but prevents you from shooting. Tactical moves means you can't move as far, but you can face any direction at the end and shoot.

Clear enough.

What this *doesn't* do is prevent anyone from presenting front armor to the enemy at the end of the move if the move is executed carefully. I don't have any experience to draw on, but it was suggested that the "same direction" would prevent cheesy moves. If, indeed, that was the intent, I'm not sure that the rule isn't stated a little too simply.

On the other hand, it could be written perfectly for the designer's intent. This might just be part of the movement "abstraction" and be perfectly acceptable.

I don't know the answer.

BTW, I've turned on the forum on the TY site, but it might take a couple of days to be approved. That TY site is not the friendliest site. There's really nothing there that tells you that you have to go into your membership profile to turn on forum access. I fond out quite by accident. The store leaves much to be desired as well. There are no detailed description of products. Clicking on a product just gets you a picture of the box top. theWarstore.com had all the pre-releases up for preorder two days before the official TY web store. What's up with that?

Yeah, I suspect when they wrote that they just assumed that folks were coming in from FoW and would know what they meant.

I flipped the switch to turn on the forums and I can see them now, but permission to post is still pending. They *really* need to have a talk with the company doing their web page.

McWong,

I think you just summed it up quite nicely. There are several issues in TY where there seems to be an assumption of FoW experience. But as in this case questions arise as to which wxperience! How restrictive or permissive did they intend this to be?

@kyote: I'm not a tourney player either and just play very casually and only rarely with a local group. The first time I played with them I didn't know about 3rd edition's permissive "turn any time" rule and kept giving up flank shots. They couldn't figure out why I was doing that until wwe realized that I was essentially playing the previous rule! So this rule would effect even casual players.

On reading it I felt they were trying to move thinking beyond maximising play for tournament junkies and shifting it towards the more casual crowd, but suspect over time they will shift back to more detailed rules, especially the special rules.

That makes complete sense in light of the TY setting. I imagine that while many players will take the traditional FoW approach of pitting troops against one another regardless of "faction" many will also stick to scenario play or at least red v blue and try to avoid blue v blue.

One key indicator: discussion has been dominated by Russian vs American gear rather than either wntirely on its own. In other words, it's 125mm gun vs front of Abrams and virtually nothing about 125mm gun vs any other AFV whether Abrams or T-72.

With FoW it's usually about a given company vs any opponent, allied or axis.

That may change with new factions (Abrams vs Challenger!) but maybe not.

Those sort of conversations are usually the domain of tournament types I've found.

The only thing I'm playing around in my mind at the moment similar to that is more around the increased importance of air assets. A 6 x 4 table doesn't really do modern air all that well, and I'm thinking of using an 8x5 minimum, probably 10 or 12 x 5 is best.

Have yet to get a handle on how infantry works and its role in the game, but that reflects my FoW mindset where infantry can and will ruin a tanks day of you let them.

I like the 8x5 table idea (although maybe 8x6 would be "easier" to mock up).

As for the dash…. I go for the common sense idea. If you think you are "gaming" the system by turning to face at the end of a dash…. you are. A dash implies moving straight toward your end point, curves, turns and facing seems against the spirit of the rule.

A dash implies moving straight toward your end point, curves, turns and facing seems against the spirit of the rule.

At face value I agree with you Ted but after giving it some more thought one can imagine totally legitimate cases being made for just such a button hook maneuver.

The best case is probably the hasty defensive position. The platoon races to a given location and then turns to face the primary threat axis. That case becomes even stronger when one factors in terrain.

And it appears that the example in the book encourages a more permissive reading of the rule. The tank in question moves in a completely arbitrary arc around the wooded area. There's zero correlation between the tank's maneuver and the woods AFTER the tank clears the woods…it's still a curved path!

It's not as if they've tried to impose a turn radius A La the old 40K rules. The curve is clearly arbitrary, does not relate to the starting point in any way, and is not controlled by any terrain feature at that point.

Finally, they could have written a more restrictive rule but clearly chose not to. The best evidence is that they've done it in the past and it's not hard to do.

In our own rules a vehicle has two or three Action Points to spend, one move action costs 1 AP, and the vehicle may pivot/turn only at the START of a move action. Alert enemies can react at the end of any single move action.

So it can "turn" essentially three times during its activation but at the end of any single move action it's facing away from the action's starting point. This means it may be forced to give up a flank shot since Alert enemies can react at the end of each move action (and shoot actions cost 2 AP so, by definition, if a vehicle is moving flat out it's not moving as far while trying to shoot).

Other games and previous editions of FoW included that sort of approach but the clearly chose not to this time.