|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2019 8:46:50 GMT
In order to save repeating everything, the main gist of the issue can be found here:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/23569/...and discussions both for and against can be found on page 2 of the same thread. So, on with the question:- ---do rivers count as good going for combat, even though they don’t for movement?--- Yes or no. And whatever your final decision, can we please have it included in the next FAQ. Thanks in advance... Stevie Later Edit Paddy649 has an even better interpretation:- --For combat, do rivers count as the going they pass through? (even though they don’t for movement)--- See fanaticus.boards.net/post/23622/
|
|
|
Post by somecallmetim on Jul 24, 2019 11:43:54 GMT
I can’t quote a technical answer from the rules, but for Christ sake - how could fighting in a river EVER be good going???
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 24, 2019 11:54:33 GMT
The RAW is clear. Terse, and economical, but unambiguous. Rivers are not defined as being of any going anywhere in the book, therefore they are not of any going, good, rough, or bad. The oft misquoted "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going;" is the introduction to a section that describes (surprise!) how movement works in rivers. It doesn't say anything about the "going" status of river related to combat, nor does it need to as the rules work perfectly well as written.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2019 13:35:10 GMT
I’ll I can do is repeat my myself. I can’t quote a technical answer from the rules, but for Christ sake - how could fighting in a river EVER be good going?? Alexander fought his way across the Issus River against 10,000 mercenary Hoplites. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_IssusA Pike CF of 3 against a Hoplite CF of 4 with a +1 for side-support and a +1 for riverbank bonus... ...CF 3 v CF 6 means the Pikes have 3 chances out of 36 of recoiling the Hoplites, and 9 chances of being doubled and destroyed themselves (this becomes 15 chances of being destroyed with just one inevitable overlap, and 21 chances (!) out of 36 with two overlaps). So you tell me how Alexander did it, and with Pikes...or were all those ancient historians lying. Or is it a case of Phil Barker WANTS rivers to be good going, and it’s only the players that are misinterpreting the “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going” rule, by trying to apply it to combat, even though it specifically says don’t do this, that is causing rivers to be unplayable if you have Spears or Pikes (which NEED their support, or they are useless). The RAW is clear. Terse, and economical, but unambiguous. Rivers are not defined as being of any going anywhere in the book, therefore they are not of any going, good, rough, or bad. The oft misquoted "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going;" is the introduction to a section that describes (surprise!) how movement works in rivers. It doesn't say anything about the "going" status of river related to combat, nor does it need to as the rules work perfectly well as written. True...what type of going is a river for combat is not defined anywhere in the rules. All we have is a list of terrain that is Bad Going, and a list of terrain that is Rough Going. “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”...so what is it for combat, NOT movement? Hence my question to the FAQ Team and the DBA 3.0 Playtesters...who should know the answer. The bottom line is this:- * do you want to make it impossible for Alexander to fight his way across a river with Pikes?...........yes or no. * do you think it’s ridiculous to have foot hiding in a river to avoid being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights?....yes or no. * do you want rivers to be playable or not? Honestly, if you have an invading Spear or Pike army, and your defending opponent plops a river with a road crossing it onto the table, you might as well pack up and go down the pub! Or, get it over quickly by charging into the river and committing suicide...then go down the pub. Ah, but that is only if people disobey what is written and try to apply the “ For Movement” to combat. Treat rivers as good going, for combat, as the rules imply you should, and then they become playable.
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Jul 24, 2019 16:01:30 GMT
Or, get it over quickly by charging into the river and committing suicide...then go down the pub. To go off on a tangent (something I am prone to do), Years back playing a campaign with the first edition, my Frankish army had the misfortune to encounter a Gothic army (half knights, half skirmishers) in fairly open terrain. I figured take my whipping to get on with the campaign, charge. My warriors who went into the woods after the skirmishers lost 3 elements. The warriors who fought it out with the Gothic cavalry in the open got all my high dice, while the knights couldn't roll diddly squat. They lost 4 elements and the Franks won the battle. The Gothic player's teenage son said, "those guys in diapers beat your knights?" (the Gallic army stood in for Franks) Good lord, the son must be pushing 40 by now.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2019 17:05:58 GMT
Oh, one more thing. I may have found another bit of evidence to bolster my case. On page 6 there is a section called “Area Terrain Features”, and it consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph describes the sizes and shapes of the Area Terrain Features. The second paragraph lists all those Area Terrain Features that are Bad or Rough going. But there is a line in the second paragraph that says:- “Gentle Hills and playing surface other than terrain features are Good Going”. As this is in the “Area Terrain Features” section, it must be referring to Area Terrain Features, and not the Linear Terrain Features, which has its own separate following section. Things would be sooo much clearer if that line in the second Area Terrain Feature paragraph had said:- “Gentle Hills and playing surface other than AREA terrain features are Good Going”. Then perhaps it would be harder to misinterpret the “For movement” rule in the Linear Terrain section. (A bit tenuous you might think......but hey, don’t blame me for the rules being so badly written!) So I ask the FAQ Team and all those who playtested DBA 3.0 prior to publication:- ---do rivers count as good going for combat, even though they don’t do so for movement?---
Yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jul 24, 2019 20:28:38 GMT
I’ll I can do is repeat my myself Alexander fought his way across the Issus River against 10,000 mercenary Hoplites. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_IssusStevie, Not sure your Issus example wholeheartedly supports your point, From the reference you quote: "Things did not go well for the Macedonians in the beginning. Their center phalanx, having to advance across a river and up a fortified bank, suffered severely against the Greek mercenaries waiting for them on the other side. Arrian noted that a hundred and twenty Macedonians “of note” (probably meaning officers) were slain here, and the Macedonians were forced to retreat across the river." And then I believe it was not the Phalanx that made the winning move? Cheers Simon
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 24, 2019 22:41:05 GMT
Through the many years of playing WRG rules and its DBA/DBM successors I always thought a river was regarded as an obsticle rather than bad terrain?
The movement penalties for crossing one and the combat bonus in certain circumstances for selected elements have been used to define river usage.
The rules on river crossing covered in the last paragraph of Battlefield Terrain on page 6 and River Crossing on page 9 do seem to cover it or is there a need to find better rules of showing rivers in gaming terms or are the current rules not comprehensive enough for the DBA scope?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 25, 2019 9:58:21 GMT
Yes Simon, Alexander’s Pikes did have a tough time crossing the Issus river. But there is a big difference between having a hard fight and being slaughtered! Without rear support: CF 3 v CF 6...the pikes are massacred. With rear support: CF 6 v CF 6...a tough fight. Could go either way. Even if the Hoplites recoil and the Pikes pursue, they will very likely be overlapped and pushed back into water next bound. Now I ask you...which of these two scenarios best fits the Battle of Issus? Let us look at some other scenarios, just concentrating on ‘like v like’ troops. Hoplites trying to cross a river defended by other Hoplites:-Without side support: CF 4 v CF 6...the attackers have just 6 chances in 36 of recoiling the defenders, and 4 chances of being doubled and killed themselves. (this becomes 9 chances with a single overlap, and 15 chances with two overlaps) With side support: CF 5 v CF 6...a tough fight. The attackers either need a bit of luck, or some help from friends hard-flanking the defenders. Warbands trying to cross a river defended by other Warbands:-Without rear support: CF 3 v CF 5...the attackers have just 6 chances in 36 of recoiling the defenders, and 6 chances of being doubled and killed themselves. (this becomes 12 chances with a single overlap, and 18 chances with two overlaps) With rear support: CF 4 v CF 5...a tough fight. The attackers either need a bit of luck, or some help from friends hard-flanking the defenders. Pikes trying to cross a river defended by other Pikes:-Without rear support: CF 3 v CF 7 (!)...Ha! Need I say more. With rear support: CF 6 v CF 7...a tough fight. The attackers either need a bit of luck, or some help from friends hard-flanking the defenders. Yes everybody...troops in a river should be penalized. And they are...their movement is limited and they give the enemy a +1 riverbank bonus. But I very much doubt that Phil Barker ever intended that some troops (i.e. Pk and Sp) should be crippled while others (i.e. Bd, Ax, mounted) are not... AND then have to face a +1 AS WELL!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 25, 2019 10:00:59 GMT
I think Haardrada has hit the nail on the head. Phil Barker perceives rivers to be an obstacle...not a special type of going.
Until we get a definite ruling from the FAQ Team, it’s up to each of us to choose their own interpretation.
If you want to make it impossible for Pikes and Spears to fight their way over a river, and think that having foot abandoning a riverbank and instead stand in the water to avoid being ‘quick killed’ by Knights is realistic... ...then interpret the rules so that rivers are NOT good going.
If you DO want to make it possible for Pikes and Spears to fight their way over a river, and think that having foot standing in water to avoid being ‘quick killed’ by Knights is an idiotic unrealistic ‘gamey’ idea... ...then interpret the rules so that rivers ARE good going.
It all boils down to this simple question...do you want rivers to be playable in DBA 3.0 or not?
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 25, 2019 11:40:58 GMT
Exageration and more exageration...
Rivers are absolutely playable as is. I often use longitudinal rivers. Transverse rivers however are very likey to result in a draw, and are rarely used in tournaments for this reasons, nothing new here.
I also had a look at that Alex Mac. vs LAP behind a Rv you keep banging about. If the Rv is paltry, it's nowhere near as hopeless as you make it. The trick is not too fight the LAP Sp, but focus on the Ax and Mounted; only a noob would engage the Sp with unsupported Pk (esp. if the river is not paltry). Definitely not guaranteed, but not hopeless either. If the Rv is not paltry, then it's a draw.
Alternately, nothing stops you from using a purely decorative river, without game effects.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 25, 2019 12:08:11 GMT
Ha! Tell Alexander the Great he was noob for engaging the Persian Hoplites with his Pikes at Issus! Or did he know something that we don’t? He certainly didn’t think it was impossible...but then he didn’t have the DBA rules to misinterpret.
And it doesn’t matter what type of river it is...if rivers are NOT good going, then even paltry rivers will strip away side and rear support, as well as allowing foot to avoid being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jul 26, 2019 7:35:18 GMT
Am I missing something here? Page 6 says “AREA TERRAIN FEATURES can be BG, RG or GG.” Also “LINEAR TERRAIN FEATURES include Ww, Rivers and Roads.” (Phil Barker’s capitals not me shouting.) And “It (a linear terrain feature) can cross any terrain feature (+ exceptions.)
So asking whether a river counts as GG for combat is a meaningless question as a river doesn’t have that property. It is the terrain that it is running through that counts. If a river did count as BG or RG then I would expect it to be laid over a piece of area terrain with those properties.
So Issus would be Pk with rear support vs Hoplites with river bank bonus. As Stevie says - a tough fight!
But let’s look at Issus and 2 points come out: 1: The Pinarus River isn’t a straight line. It bows out towards Alexander by about 150m at points - I estimate 1-2BW. So the LAP army can’t just line up their Hoplites along it. The can chose to follow the bank placing their Sp at funny angles and thereby getting the river bank bonus but not flank support OR they line up slightly backward of that and get the flank support and not the River bank. It is either/or not both. Importantly this makes it a 5vs6 fight against the Phalanx and not a 6vs6. 2: How you model the LAP army at Issus using DBA is debatable. There are more than 12 important elements on the map and DBA only allows 12. At most the LAP can have 5 Sp but that is at the expense of Kardakes which were on either flank. Hence maximun amount of Sp is 3 but then Darius placed himself in a LCh in the middle - so 2Sp one side (probably the Persian right) and 1 Sp the other. We all know that 1 Sp doesn’t get flank support - so it is a 5vs6 fight on that flank where the Phalanx beat the Hoplites back while the Hypaspists took on the Kardakes while Alex and his LH destroyed the Persian lancers to come in and Hard flank the Hoplites being pushed back. On the other flank only 2Sp is incredibly vulnerable to losing its flank bonus to one unlucky die roll. If that happens then it is a 4vs6 fight and the Phalanx push them back:
So not as tough a fight as Stevie suggests and I think DBA with RAW gets Issus pretty right in my book.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 26, 2019 10:43:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Jul 26, 2019 12:59:33 GMT
In DBA 2.2, as you know, rear support is applied in case: "...neither supported nor supporting element is in bad going". So, the statement is little different form 3.0: "...and both are in good going". So, as I get it rights, Pikes and all other receive rear support in all types of rivers in 2.2.
Also in confirmation of this, The Unofficial Guide to DBA 2.2 tell us in a River section: "Good Going or Bad Going? Technically, rivers aren’t considered either good going or bad going. But since they don’t have any of the normal affects of bad going, you can safely treat them as good going with the special conditions described in this section".
I know it's completely not relevant for 3.0, but just interesting fact that can somehow helps to resolve this situation
|
|