|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2019 14:52:09 GMT
Thanks Stevie. Unless there is a clear ruling before Bakewell Matched pairs, I will be ruling that troops in a river will count as in the area terrain going that the river is in where they are.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Aug 22, 2019 15:06:40 GMT
If i can manage to make a river run through a BUA a Wood and aDune i will certainly try
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Aug 22, 2019 15:42:31 GMT
I know Stevie already commented on this sentence, but as usual he makes assumptions: "Gentle Hills and playing surface other than terrain features are GOOD GOING". Terrain features, NOT just area features. Ergo a Rv excplicitely CANNOT be GGo.
In addition, the rules clearly say for Roads "Combat on it is in the going it is passing through." Nowhere does the rules say anything comparable for Rv.
So if an element is only in a Rv, it is in neither GGo, RGo nor BGo. Yes, it's not great when simulating a paltry river, and there are some consequences, which are a bit funny.
BUT with the alternative proposition, where even a "5-6" river counts as good going (mostly), 1 BW moving Kn would still have their QK and Pk and other get their side/rear support. I'm sorry, but a fast flowing body of water counting as GGo is even more absurd than all Rv being as roughly disruptive as RGo.
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Aug 22, 2019 15:49:42 GMT
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Bob has already commented on this, so, no it hasn't been ignored by the 3.0 playtesters. Unsurprisingly he disagreed with Stevie.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 22, 2019 16:22:21 GMT
I will certainly bring it to the FAQ team. That however will be in November.
That of course doesn't mean we will answer it...or even discuss it.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 22, 2019 18:21:35 GMT
Thanks for that Joe. And Arnopov...hey...I don’t know what the answer is...hence why I’m asking the question. But to be honest, I’m far more interested in getting a sensible realistic historical effect, rather than blindly following a rule that may (or may not) be nothing more than a mistake (and contrary to popular belief, there are errors in Phil Barker’s DBA 3.0 rules, that’s why we are lucky we have the FAQ. The river rules may simply be nothing more than an just an oversight, an error, or badly worded). As for ‘absurdities’... BUT with the alternative proposition, where even a "5-6" river counts as good going (mostly), 1 BW moving Kn would still have their QK and Pk and other get their side/rear support. I'm sorry, but a fast flowing body of water counting as GGo is even more absurd than all Rv being as roughly disruptive as RGo. ....so you don’t mind the absurdity of so called Fast Foot moving at the same speed as a Knight then. Even Usain Bolt would have trouble keeping up with a horse!...especially if he were carrying weapons and a shield. But that little absurdity is ok...it’s in the rules, so that’s all right then. And I have never used a pike in a river...have you? So what exactly are you basing your 21st century armchair assumptions on? I base mine on actual historical accounts...what do you use?
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Aug 22, 2019 20:45:40 GMT
Come on! No need to be so petulant and agressive.
For what it's worth I absolutely loath the terrain rules in 3.0, and tried to argue against them back on the old Fanaticus site, way before you got involved. I wasn't a big fan of the fast troop then either, and 4 years of play hasn't changed that. But arguing on and on creates a bad feel, so I just gave up (mostly, I occasionally make a comment, and usually gets a slap on the wrist from Joe, fine). There is really quite a lot I don't like in 3.0, I actually prefer 2.2+, but people play 3.0 in my neck of the wood, and I very much enjoy their company, so I don't make a fuss.
Do I like the Rv rules as they are. Heck no! (you would expect many armies to scout the thing in advance, and a 1-2=GGo, 3-4=RGo, 5-6=DGo or similar would probably enable a bit more finesse).
BUT for combat in Rv, the rules as written are internally consistent, and work OK'ish for a game that's coarse grained, and as of necessity takes some sort of average for most things. They could be improved massively, no doubt, but that's a job for for 3.1, not the FAQ.
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Aug 22, 2019 21:33:49 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/No, to both questions.
Rivers are not Good Going in any circumstances. Nor do they count as the going they pass through.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 23, 2019 8:19:02 GMT
Thanks for that Pawsbill. So the DBA community thinks that:- * only Pk/Sp/Wb should be crippled by rivers, but Bd/Ax/Ps/Mounted are unaffected by them... * hiding entirely inside a river is a legitimate way of avoiding being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights... * and fighting your way across a river that runs through a wood is easier than a river in the open. And there is no mistake, error, miss-interpretation, or anything missing from the river rules... ...they were deliberately designed and playtested in order to give the above results. Fair enough. Looks like if you want to re-fight Alexander’s crossing of the rivers at Granicus and Issus, then you are going to have to use a House Rule for rivers...because he just can’t do it using the DBA 3.0 river rules. He can't even fight his Pikes across a Paltry DBA river without rear support, let alone anything deeper! So be it. I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 23, 2019 9:44:34 GMT
I seem to have been misquoted. What I said was:
“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.”
Given that Rivers cannot be wider than 1BW and that the word “linear” implies that most of the time an element will be partly in the river and partly on adjoining ground. If this is the case it would presumably be ruled that the element counted as being in the going of the adjoining ground that the element is partly in.....thus looking like they count as the going they are flowing through. Especially when the river is portrayed as being very narrow - for example 10mm. The trouble is that the word “linear” implies no width while in the RAW rivers are allowed to be 1BW wide. This introduces all the issues because a river this wide now allows units to be completely “in” linear terrain.
If an element stops entirely in a river then I have no idea what going it is in - but I’m content with what pawsbill says that it cannot be considered as being in good going. Indeed would an element be allowed to stop entirely in a river?
Also to consider is how a river affects shooting and Command distance. If a river counted as GG (or indeed anything other than the terrain it is flowing through) then you would be able to shoot down a 1BW wide river from over 1/2 BW in the middle of woods if shooting edge and target edge restrictions were met and the shooting or target element in the woods were within 1/2 BW of the river bank. This would mean that elements can’t shoot if partly in a river but can shoot down a river. Is that how it should be played? I think not.
Finally if a general is on a river bank beside a wood, with a 1BW wide river running through it and an element over 4BW from the general beyond the wood but in clear line of sight from the general looking down the river. Is that element in command? I’d say no because it is entirely beyond the wood. But if linear terrain now has width and if the river counted as anything other that the terrain it was flowing through then you would have to say it was in command given the element isn’t now considered entirely beyond the wood given that the river has effectively cut a path right through it.
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Aug 26, 2019 22:11:41 GMT
Thanks for that Pawsbill. So the DBA community thinks that:- * only Pk/Sp/Wb should be crippled by rivers, but Bd/Ax/Ps/Mounted are unaffected by them... * hiding entirely inside a river is a legitimate way of avoiding being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights... * and fighting your way across a river that runs through a wood is easier than a river in the open. If you have come to that conclusion, then you are playing rivers wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 26, 2019 23:29:02 GMT
Thanks for that Pawsbill. So the DBA community thinks that:- * only Pk/Sp/Wb should be crippled by rivers, but Bd/Ax/Ps/Mounted are unaffected by them... * hiding entirely inside a river is a legitimate way of avoiding being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights... * and fighting your way across a river that runs through a wood is easier than a river in the open. If you have come to that conclusion, then you are playing rivers wrong. I must admit to being confused. If rivers are neither good nor bad going for combat, then:- * Pk/Sp/Wb will not get any side or rear support, so will be crippled (and face the riverbank bonus). * Knights only ‘quick-kill’ foot if their opponents are in good going, otherwise they recoil (unless doubled). * and troops in a river that passes through a wood would not be in bad going, so no -2 penalty. If as you say the above is incorrect, then just what going are rivers for combat?
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Aug 27, 2019 21:24:51 GMT
If you have come to that conclusion, then you are playing rivers wrong. I must admit to being confused. If rivers are neither good nor bad going for combat, then:- * Pk/Sp/Wb will not get any side or rear support, so will be crippled (and face the riverbank bonus). * Knights only ‘quick-kill’ foot if their opponents are in good going, otherwise they recoil (unless doubled). * and troops in a river that passes through a wood would not be in bad going, so no -2 penalty. If as you say the above is incorrect, then just what going are rivers for combat? Rivers are not any type of going. As you point out, Pk, Sp & Wb (and also LH & Bw) get no rear or side support as the river is not Good going. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me but it hardly "cripples" them (although it severely hampers the Pk). Are you seriously suggesting though, that a formation of men splashing through waist high water should be as effective as one on flat clear ground? Knights won't quick-kill most (but not all) foot that "hides" in a river. But it is hardly a good tactic to hide in a river just to survive from enemy knights. Troops entirely in the river running through a wood would not suffer a -2 penalty. But as soon as any part of the element sticks out, it would be in the bad going of the wood and take the -2 penalty.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 27, 2019 23:20:28 GMT
Pawsbill, clear - thanks. How about the conditions I raise of shooting down a river or measuring Command radius along a river?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 28, 2019 9:10:13 GMT
“Rivers are not any type of going” And where pray does it say that in the rules for combat? All it says on page 6 is:- “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going;...” Note it specifically says “For movement”....thereby explicitly exempting it from combat. Unfortunately, the rules then fails to tell us what rivers actually are for combat purposes. Are you seriously suggesting though, that a formation of men splashing through waist high water should be as effective as one on flat clear ground? If that is the case, then why don’t Blades also suffer from “splashing through a waist high river”? How come they can be “as effective as if on flat clear ground”? Why do Pikes and Spears have to swim, but Blades can walk on water? I have never held a pike in a river...but I know some who have. Alexander’s pikemen fought their way across rivers at the battles of Granicus and Issus. They didn’t seem to think it was such an impediment as some 21st century players do. I’m sorry but when there is a conflict between the accounts of the ancient historians and DBA, then I will go with the ancient historians every time. The fact is part of the river rules are missing. This is nothing new, that’s why we have the FAQ. And the best way to avoid those weird effects that I and Paddy mentioned, and the best way to get plausible realistic effects that match the ancient scholar’s accounts, is to add the missing bit, which is that for combat rivers are the going of the terrain they pass through, like roads. The alternative is to bend over backwards trying to justify DBA’s absurd river effects, and to totally ignore the well documented historical battle accounts.
|
|