In the latest game test IV one of the things that seems to have worked out rather well are the zone of control rules. This is where on a hex or grid map a character can not slide through an open gap between two opposing characters, thereby allowing them to create a line, without having to be in adjacent hexes. It also allows two characters to effectively surround and trap another character by being on opposite sides of him.

Because of the back stab and back-side slash advantages (Attack Level +2, and +1 respectively) there is a tactical incentive for flanking. The zone of control rules therefore come into play as parties want to flank each other. It works out rather well, I think.

This rule creates tactical considerations that I like for the game. The fact that there is a third level theiving skill Stealth that lets the character slip through zones of control is also quite cool.

I am not a big fan of zone of control as it exists now. I think that it may even be unnecessary considering the other rules that Elthos has in place. Part of this feeling is undoubtedly created from my familiarity with D&D 3.5's Attacks of Opportunity rule.

Let's consider the spirit of the rule. To me, a zone of control suggests that an enemy controls "his ground," and is unwilling to let another enemy through.

There are two assumptions here which artificially limit player movement options.

-The enemy wants to prevent movement through a zone of control.
-The enemy is capable of preventing movement through a zone of control.

As ZOC is now, only a skilled (stealthy) opponent can move through ZOCs.

I have the following suggestions, which come from existing Elthos rules.

Allow characters to spend 2 movement points to engage the next visible enemy that moves within reach. This establishes an effective ZOC. If someone wants to move by someone else, they risk getting hit. This establishes the blocking character's intentions and his/her ability will determine the result. It also prevents one character from preventing a lot of people from running by him. Realistically, no matter how skilled you are, if several people want to run by your left and right sides, you can't stop them all.

Other than that, the rear facings, and the attack modifiers that they provide, are more than enough to inspire good tactics; especially with more than one opponent. I also think that should a character try to squeeze through the adjacent squares of an enemy, every step should be accompanied by a pivot toward the enemy, or risk getting attacked in the rear.

Good Points. I think the refinement you're suggesting makes some sense. Especially the point you made at the last game regarding a Hobbit's ZOC being able to block an Ogre from passing by. That really opened my eyes.

The concept, however, for the Zone of Control is primarily a counting moves method that prohibits one human with a movement of 6 to get directly behind another human in one turn. However, as you mention, I did add the pivoting rule after the ZOC rule, and that actually seems to obviate the need for the ZOC rule.

I don't like to make hasty changes to the system, so I'm going to think about this one a bit more, but I do believe you've got a good point, and I'm going to try tooling around with it to see how it works. I don't supposed you'd care to swing by on an inter-game night sometime and try out a few variations and tests? That would be great.

:)

Sure, I'll stop by to test combat.

Let's have 1st, 2nd and 3rd level combatants. Then, we could try 1 on 1 combats at the same level, 1 on 2 combats with differing levels, and other combos.

We might try different arenas too. Perhaps an open arena with a few obstacles, a 10' corridor and a 15' corridor.

We could also have different objectives such as guarding someone, or trying to escape through an area.

After this, we should explore ranged combat.