|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jun 18, 2018 8:41:49 GMT
At the Midland Open on Saturday, a competitor with a Littoral army placed an edifice against a waterway and ran a road up to it. The question then arose, is the attacking player obliged to deploy with his back to the waterway, all other options apparently excluded by the rules?
Opinion varied. there was a feeling that it had been discussed somewhere, but I can't find it.
Is it in the FAQ's. I don't seem to be able to find those either!
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 18, 2018 9:50:22 GMT
I’m afraid you’re right, it’s not mentioned in the FAQ. And anything I say will only cause an argument. Still, that has never stopped me before, so here goes...  Page 8 paragraph 1 says:- “If a road crosses the battlefield, one of the intersected sides must be chosen, otherwise any edge that is not opposite a waterway.” I think the key words here are “one of the intersected side s (of the battlefield)”. The word “side s” implies more than one. Does the road fully cross the battlefield, and intersect two table edges? No. If a Road stops short at a BUA on a Waterway, then only one end of it intersects a table edge. Therefore, the invader is not restricted in his choice of deployment...apart from not choosing that opposite the Waterway. If the defender doesn’t like this, then don’t place a Road that ends at a BUA on a Waterway. In other words, a Road that ends at a Waterway BUA doesn’t fully cross the table...it stops short. 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 martin on Jun 18, 2018 9:50:27 GMT
I looked and couldn't find it either, Scott. I have a feeling this may have been debated in the very early days of v3 and possibly BEFORE the switch to this version of Fanaticus (?).
The debate hinged on whether a road ending at a waterway BUA constituted a road that 'crossed the board', I think.
Martin
EDIT....cross posted with stevie....but basically, "wot he said" 😎
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jun 18, 2018 10:06:43 GMT
Martin,
That rings a bell. In fact I think I offered the opinion at the time (as to whether crossing part of the board was enough) that dipping your toe in the sea at Dover does not constitute "crossing the Channel".
I would prefer to have a reason to object to the ruse, otherwise it is likely to become mandatory for anybody facing a littoral army.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 18, 2018 11:38:53 GMT
Martin, That rings a bell. In fact I think I offered the opinion at the time (as to whether crossing part of the board was enough) that dipping your toe in the sea at Dover does not constitute "crossing the Channel". I would prefer to have a reason to object to the ruse, otherwise it is likely to become mandatory for anybody facing a littoral army. Scott "If a road crosses the battlefield, one of the intersected edges must be chosen [as the attacker's base edge]". (Page 8, first paragraph.) The waterway is on the battlefield. The road doesn't cross the Waterway. Ergo, the road does not "cross" the battlefield. QED |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 18, 2018 11:41:32 GMT
As tournament organiser, I am glad that I wasn't called on to sort this one! However, if I had been, I would have ruled as Stevie and Martin have suggested on the grounds that the road doesn't really cross the battlefield and players should not be made to deploy with their backs to a waterway.
Regards
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 18, 2018 16:10:10 GMT
This is another case of Phil being frugal with his text. Why go into a lot of detail about side selection beyond "if a road crosses the battlefield. " A road ending in a BUA at a water way edge does not cross the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 18, 2018 16:41:40 GMT
To hijack the thread, one discussion was about a littoral landing party.
I did not play the game but was part of the discussion afterwards, the three bases that were part of the landing party came on as a group one of them touching the waterway no problem there.
Could they have been placed in contact with three of the enemy if they had been conveniently sitting at the side of the waterway?
I had never even considered it but unless there is something in the F&Q it actually looked legit to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 18, 2018 18:30:58 GMT
This is another case of Phil being frugal with his text. Why go into a lot of detail about side selection beyond "if a road crosses the battlefield. " A road ending in a BUA at a water way edge does not cross the battlefield. I agree. However, what is the position if a road runs from one edge and finishes at a BUA which is touching the opposite edge? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 18, 2018 19:37:44 GMT
To hijack the thread, one discussion was about a littoral landing party. I did not play the game but was part of the discussion afterwards, the three bases that were part of the landing party came on as a group one of them touching the waterway no problem there. Could they have been placed in contact with three of the enemy if they had been conveniently sitting at the side of the waterway? I had never even considered it but unless there is something in the F&Q it actually looked legit to me. Well Baldie, the rules don’t say you can...but they don’t say you can’t either. It’s another one of those grey areas where the rules have not been thought out properly. Personally (not that anyone cares what I think) it seems utterly ridiculous to me that a Littoral Amphibious Landing can:- Spend time sailing right across a Waterway, in full view of the opposition who are unable to react in any way... then spend time disembarking from their boats, in full view of the opposition who are unable to react in any way... then spend time forming-up and getting themselves organised, in full view of the opposition who are unable to react in any way... then lastly march directly into contact with the enemy, in full view of the opposition who are unable to react in any way... And all this in a single bound, the same single bound it takes an element of Knights to just jump out of their saddles and dismount! I prefer amphibious troops to obey the same rules as those making extra moves:- i.e. they must not start or go within 1 BW of the enemy when landing. After all, sailing across a Waterway in itself is a move, and disembarking is another move, and forming-up and marching into contact is yet another move...what are they on, STEROIDS?! 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 trikak on Jun 19, 2018 8:41:26 GMT
Yes we did bring this point up a while back and it seemed odd then that you could end up with your back to the WW ,one point raised about taking no action is the fact that if your facing Lit army you can deploy with bases facing WW as some did at Bakewell
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 19, 2018 18:54:19 GMT
This is another case of Phil being frugal with his text. Why go into a lot of detail about side selection beyond "if a road crosses the battlefield. " A road ending in a BUA at a water way edge does not cross the battlefield. I agree. However, what is the position if a road runs from one edge and finishes at a BUA which is touching the opposite edge? I was thinking about this too. If a road goes into a City and If a City has two gates, one opening on the edge, then the road does run across the battlefield. This cannot happen with a Fort as it has only a front gate. A road can pass through rough so through a Hamlet and likewise through Bad so an Edifice. |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jun 19, 2018 19:47:49 GMT
You could argue that as PB wrote "A road must run from one battlefield edge towards the opposite battlefield edge" that a road still crosses the battlefield even though it only contacts one edge (cul-de-sac).
David C.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 19, 2018 20:17:37 GMT
I think for tournament purposes we should insist the Road cross the board creating two entry choices for the Invader. Its of course wonky that the Invader might appear from either of two opposite directions but the purpose of tournament deployment is to give each side an equal chance not to make a great deal of sense.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 19, 2018 20:34:18 GMT
It is possible to have two roads connected to each edge and crossing in the center. Then the wonky invader can come from any of four directions:)
|
|
