|
|
Post by bob on Feb 18, 2018 17:17:59 GMT
The recent discussion of subsequent moves crossing rivers got me to looking at the terrain rules and I noticed something I had not considered before. First, “ LIGHT HORSE, including all light horsemen (LH) or camel riders (LCm).” So as light horse, light camels Are are allowed subsequent moves. Can they do so in the dunes and oasis?
We know that light horse can make a subsequent move only in “good going.” “Dunes and Oases are BAD GOING except to elements of any type with camels.”
I think this is a place where Phil and his minions forgot to be specific given the new concept of rough going. We do not know if dunes and oasis are rough or good going. We only know they are not bad going.
Given this discrepancy, I suggest that light camels cannot make subsequent moves in dunes and oasis. This is quite a rare event anyway, given so few armies have light camels, And dunes and oasis are rare.
Other opinions on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 18, 2018 18:20:23 GMT
I disagree.
First, what distance should Camelry move in dunes and oases? If they are to treat it as rough going - which appears to be what what you are suggesting - their move is limited to 1BW, which simply doesn't feel right. Or are you suggesting that they should treat it as GG for the move distance, but RG for second or subsequent moves? If so, what is the rationale for this?
By the same token, if Ps are in close combat with Camelry in dunes and their score is less than the Camelry, do they recoil (or flee) or are they destroyed? And if they are destroyed (because the Camelry is in going which it counts as good), why treat dunes as RG for second or subsequent moves?
Incidentally, although both LCm and dunes and oases are rare, I'm pretty sure that most armies which can field LCm have either Dry or Littoral as their home terrain, so it is an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 18, 2018 19:41:35 GMT
I don’t think that Bob is saying that subsequent moves in Oasis or Dunes counts as rough going, only that they do not allow subsequent moves, because although they are not bad going to camels, they are still not good going either. Page 6 paragraph 7: “Dunes and Oasis are Bad Going except to elements of any type of camels.” (Note that it doesn’t say they are Good Going for camels, only that camels movement and combat is not penalized)Page 9 paragraph 3: “Light horse or mounted infantry making a 2nd or 3rd move that is entirely in Good Going.” (Again, camels do not treat Dunes and Oasis as Good Going, only that they ignore the usual penalties)Anyway, if camels treated Dunes and Oasis as good going, so they effectively ignore these terrain features, that could affect Command Distances:- Page 8 paragraph 7: “Command distance is 4 BW for troops entirely beyond…Oasis or Dunes.” (Camels may be able to move and fight unhindered in Oasis and Dunes, but they haven’t got x-ray vision that allows them to see their general through thousands of tons of sand or a mass of palm trees)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 18, 2018 21:23:44 GMT
I don’t think that Bob is saying that subsequent moves in Oasis or Dunes counts as rough going, only that they do not allow subsequent moves, because although they are not bad going to camels, they are still not good going either. Page 6 paragraph 7: “Dunes and Oasis are Bad Going except to elements of any type of camels.” (Note that it doesn’t say they are Good Going for camels, only that camels movement and combat is not penalized)Page 9 paragraph 3: “Light horse or mounted infantry making a 2nd or 3rd move that is entirely in Good Going.” (Again, camels do not treat Dunes and Oasis as Good Going, only that they ignore the usual penalties)Anyway, if camels treated Dunes and Oasis as good going, so they effectively ignore these terrain features, that could affect Command Distances:- Page 8 paragraph 7: “Command distance is 4 BW for troops entirely beyond…Oasis or Dunes.” (Camels may be able to move and fight unhindered in Oasis and Dunes, but they haven’t got x-ray vision that allows them to see their general through thousands of tons of sand or a mass of palm trees)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Okay, Stevie. I "note" that the section you quote from p6 doesn't say that camels treat Dunes and Oasis as Good Going, but neither does it say that "camels movement and combat is not penalized". That is an interpolation on your part - and one that only works if one accepts that camels do, in fact, treat dunes and oases as Good Going. In particular, when considering the issue of close combat between Ps and Cm, it makes a considerable difference whether or not dunes count as GG for camels. If the Cm count the going as good, the Ps are destroyed. If they count it as something else, the Ps either recoil or flee. I don't agree either with your suggestion that command distances might be affected if Cm can count dunes and oases as GG. The rules state that command distance "is 4BW for troops entirely....in or beyond a[n]...Oasis or Dunes". That seems perfectly clear. It is the position of the element relative to the General that counts, not the nature of the going between them. (Marshes and gullies are Bad Going, but do not affect command distance.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 18, 2018 22:34:58 GMT
Excellent points menacussecundus. Rule 6.7 (“Dunes and Oasis are not bad going for camels”) ‘ could’ mean they ignore the penalties, or it ‘ could’ mean that they count such terrain as good going, so it’s a bit ambiguous. However, the combat outcomes on page 11 definitely says:- “Ps are destroyed by camels if in going the enemy counts as good.” What going is it that they count as good?…why, it’s Dunes and Oasis! And if they count Dunes and Oasis as good going for combat, they must count them as good going for movement. That means all movement…including subsequent moves as well. So you're right. (By the way, I only included that bit about Command Distance because of an old argument with a mate of mine…
…see fanaticus.boards.net/post/9142/ )A good general knows when to withdraw from battle.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 18, 2018 23:12:11 GMT
So Stevie you are claiming that if something is good going for combat, then it must be for movement as well? Sorry,
confused I am...
River crossing as a tactical move versus as fleeing comes to mind...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 19, 2018 0:29:51 GMT
Hey, I’m not claiming anything…I’m just trying to follow the rules! Ho kay, let’s look at fleeing over rivers. Rule 9.4: “Paltry rivers can be passed through as if good going”. Rule 12.8: “(A fleeing element) is destroyed if it enters any river.” The key words are ‘fleeing’ and ‘enters’… …it doesn’t matter what you class the river as, nor what its effect on movement is, if you enter it while fleeing then you’re brown bread. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 19, 2018 1:53:51 GMT
I think you missed my point entirely, Stevie. Why does having something treat a terrain type as good for combat, automatically mean it treats it as good for movement? And vice-versa (which was the point regarding rivers...)
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 19, 2018 8:08:06 GMT
Primuspilus
Bob was suggesting that the rules were unclear about whether dunes counted as GG or RG for camelry and that, as a result, LCm could not make a second or subsequent move. I disagreed and pointed out that such an interpretation would have consequences both for first move distance and for combat.
When it comes to rivers, the rules cover the issues adequately, so - with one exception - there is no need for guesswork.
The rules state that "For movement, rivers are neither good nor other going" (page 6). The move distance for elements in a non-paltry river is set given on page 9, but doesn't define what type of going the river is. The movement distance for elements in a paltry river for part of the move is not specified, however, so either one has to conclude that movement in or through a paltry river is not possible or deduce a plausible distance. Most of us seem to opt to treat it as good going.
For combat, elements defending the bank of a non-paltry river get a +1 bonus (page 11). Elements actually in a river suffer no penalty. (Bad Going is specified on page 6 and does not include rivers.)
Menacus S
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 19, 2018 10:13:01 GMT
I have to concur with menacussecundus and stevie.
From page 6 - "Difficult (steep and/or rocky, thickly scrubbed or wooded) Hills, Woods, Marsh and Gully are BAD GOING, which slows the movement of, and is an adverse close combat tactical factor for, some foot and all mounted and may hinder shooting (see P.10). Dunes and Oasis are BAD GOING except to elements of any type with camels."
Followed by - "Rocky, Scrubby or Boggy flat ground, Enclosures (fields subdivided by stone walls, hedges, ditches or in Asia by paddy bunds), are ROUGH GOING, which slows move distances as if bad going, but is not a tactical factor and does not affect shooting."
So BAD GOING terrain and its effects are described. Then we have the following sentence adding Dunes and Oasis to the BAD GOING category for all elements that do not have camels.
ROUGH GOING terrain is then listed with its effects. There is no mention in the ROUGH GOING sentence that Dunes or Oasis are to be considered rough going for elements with camels.
Applying Occam's Razor then for elements with camels Dunes and Oasis are GOOD GOING with all that that implies for movement and combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 19, 2018 14:53:48 GMT
What going is it that they count as good?…why, it’s Dunes and Oasis! And if they count Dunes and Oasis as good going for combat, they must count them as good going for movement.That means all movement…including subsequent moves as well.
The point I was making was that in my admittedly acerbic view, Stevie is apparently applying a blanket statement - it is the argument structure I am questioning. I don't care about sand, camels, dunes, or desert getaways in the oases of Araby. My camels fly through dunes and oasis, and charge down Psiloi therein with reckless abandon and ease. As the rules say they should. But it is unclear to me that the DBx system says "if I treat terrain A as good going for combat if I am element B, then clearly I get to treat it as good going for movement for element B as well." It is statements like this that can contribute to newbie confusion, and should be made carefully. Yes Stevie, I do read what you write, mate!  |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 19, 2018 17:24:08 GMT
What going is it that they count as good?…why, it’s Dunes and Oasis! And if they count Dunes and Oasis as good going for combat, they must count them as good going for movement.That means all movement…including subsequent moves as well.
The point I was making was that in my admittedly acerbic view, Stevie is apparently applying a blanket statement - it is the argument structure I am questioning. I don't care about sand, camels, dunes, or desert getaways in the oases of Araby. My camels fly through dunes and oasis, and charge down Psiloi therein with reckless abandon and ease. As the rules say they should. But it is unclear to me that the DBx system says "if I treat terrain A as good going for combat if I am element B, then clearly I get to treat it as good going for movement for element B as well." It is statements like this that can contribute to newbie confusion, and should be made carefully. Yes Stevie, I do read what you write, mate! Like any rule of thumb, it's a rough guide, but may not cover every situation. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 19, 2018 19:32:02 GMT
Early in the development of DBA3, there were two kinds of going (Besides impassable) - good and bad. So when the rules said dunes and oasis were bad going except for any types with camels, it was clear that those types are good going for camels. Then Phil added rough going. In most places where going was concerned, he expanded the rules to include rough where appropriate. He forgot however, to differentiate what dunes and oasis were for Camel types. A player can always assume that they are still good going for these types, but that is an assumption. When ever the rules refer to bad going, This does not affect camel types. So when the outcome chart says light camels are destroyed in bad going, they are not destroyed in dunes and oasis. If on the other hand there is a reference to good going, the rules do not tell us If this applies to camels. All we know, is that dunes and oasis are not bad going.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 21, 2018 22:29:05 GMT
If it was Phil's intent to create yet another class of terrain (Good Going, Bad Going, Rough and Not Good, Rough or Bad Going - call it Null Going), he never mentioned it. And certainly never thought about it. Stevie is literally right but much care must be taken in reading into Phil's "off the cuff" style. Not having a mediocre mind he never feels compled to be consistent in presentation - a bane for those of us with mediocre minds trying to follow his logic.
Probably he meant that Camels treat Dunes etc as good going but said it in the negative "not Bad Going". This is why we are taught to state rules in a positive not a negative manner (OK they are not Bad Going - so what kind of Going are they?)
By the way Good Going can block LOS (see Gentle Hills).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 22, 2018 0:17:56 GMT
Tom, I don’t know what you mean when you say Phil never mentioned that he planned to create a third type of terrain. He certainly did create rough terrain when in the past,
There was only good in bad going, Plus of course river going. He was just careless when he did not re-write the text for camels in oasis and dunes. In the past it was not bad going and the only other choice was good as they were obviously not a river. When he created rough going he had to make a lot of changes, but I guess he just forget this one and nobody noticed it.
|
|
