|
Post by stevie on Aug 29, 2019 22:29:33 GMT
I do apologise Tony...but that is what Fanaticus is for, to debate issues like these. It’s better to thrash things out here than in the middle of a game. (especially a tournament game) I’ll just ask the following question:- Do players want Alexander’s pikemen to fight their way across a river at Issus? Yes or No. And I’ll leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 29, 2019 22:36:22 GMT
OK, so did the community reach a consensus on rivers? FAQs? Or will GM's just prohibit their use?
Where did we land, guys, or did we agree to leave it hanging?
Uugh, rules by committee!
BTW, how do I activate pings? I don't get any!
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 29, 2019 22:38:23 GMT
I really don't see a problem with the rules as is...Page 6 describes the dimensions of a river and what terrain it can pass through and that it is neither good going or bad going, that its banks can be defended and can be crossed by referring to the rule on page 9 which instruct you to dice to determine the type of river(if it's banks can be defended or if speed and movement restrictions apply) when the first element off-road attempts to cross the river.
The next and only reference to rivers in combat is the tactical factor of +1 if "defending any but a paltry rivers Bank off-road on page 11.
However, although not directly mentioned other factors do and don't apply.... any troops in Bad or Rough going defending the river do receive a - 2 factor if it applies to them. Also any troops who are in the river that would receive a bonus factor for side or rear support do not do so as it is neither good or bad going so they do not apply,but if the element defending the bank is entitled to flank support and is in good going then they do receive the bonus.An element that has a quick kill ability could find it negated in the same circumstances.
The - 2 factor for bad or rough going or the bonus for defending would apply if the crossing is by road.
This seems pretty straight forward to me.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 29, 2019 23:16:42 GMT
Ah but Haardrada, the river rules on page 6 DO NOT say that rivers are neither good nor other going.
It says that “For movement, rivers are neither good nor other going...” For movement...not for combat...ONLY for movement. This is the misconception that I keep (repeatedly!) pointing out to everyone. And if rivers are neither good nor bad going, FOR COMBAT, you get weird absurd river effects, plus Alexander’s pikemen can’t fight their way over a river, like they did at Issus, without rear support.
(I’m now gonna suffer the wrath of Tony for causing him another e-mail ping. Sorry...but people keep reading into the rules things that are just not there)
|
|
|
Post by j on Aug 29, 2019 23:31:19 GMT
I really don't see a problem with the rules as is...Page 6 describes the dimensions of a river and what terrain it can pass through and that it is neither good going or bad going, that its banks can be defended and can be crossed by referring to the rule on page 9 which instruct you to dice to determine the type of river(if it's banks can be defended or if speed and movement restrictions apply) when the first element off-road attempts to cross the river. The next and only reference to rivers in combat is the tactical factor of +1 if "defending any but a paltry rivers Bank off-road on page 11. However, although not directly mentioned other factors do and don't apply.... any troops in Bad or Rough going defending the river do receive a - 2 factor if it applies to them. Also any troops who are in the river that would receive a bonus factor for side or rear support do not do so as it is neither good or bad going so they do not apply,but if the element defending the bank is entitled to flank support and is in good going then they do receive the bonus.An element that has a quick kill ability could find it negated in the same circumstances. The - 2 factor for bad or rough going or the bonus for defending would apply if the crossing is by road. This seems pretty straight forward to me. Unfortunately, other people disagree & therein lies the problem. I am only seeking consensus, enlightenment & an end to this... Regards, j
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Aug 30, 2019 1:59:38 GMT
Pistols at 10 paces at dawn, says I. Oh, but wait, maybe slings at 10 paces? More in keeping with the period.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 30, 2019 4:56:44 GMT
Ah but Haardrada, the river rules on page 6 DO NOT say that rivers are neither good nor other going. It says that “ For movement, rivers are neither good nor other going...” For movement...not for combat...ONLY for movement. This is the misconception that I keep (repeatedly!) pointing out to everyone. And if rivers are neither good nor bad going, FOR COMBAT, you get weird absurd river effects, plus Alexander’s pikemen can’t fight their way over a river, like they did at Issus, without rear support. (I’m now gonna suffer the wrath of Tony for causing him another e-mail ping. Sorry...but people keep reading into the rules things that are just not there)I get what you are saying Stevie and my post giving a brief description does reflect the misconception... the element in the river is not impeded in combat and only movement and would be entitled to any combat bonus that applies which doesn't seem right. A referral to FAQ is probably the best outcome from this discussion as an argument is not going to resolve the issue. If the element in the river was regarded as in neither good going nor bad going for combat that it does not receive any combat bonus would that resolve the issue?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 30, 2019 7:29:56 GMT
I get what you are saying Stevie and my post giving a brief description does reflect the misconception... the element in the river is not impeded in combat and only movement and would be entitled to any combat bonus that applies which doesn't seem right. A referral to FAQ is probably the best outcome from this discussion as an argument is not going to resolve the issue. If the element in the river was regarded as in neither good going nor bad going for combat that it does not receive any combat bonus would that resolve the issue? Not entirely, Haardrada. There would still be an issue with some combat outcomes ("Destroyed if in good going", "Destroyed if in bad going", Destroyed if in going the enemy counts as good", "Flee if in bad going" etc)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 30, 2019 7:32:00 GMT
If the element in the river was regarded as in neither good going nor bad going for combat that it does not receive any combat bonus would that resolve the issue? I can only refer you to my post here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/24572/(which saves me from having to repeat myself) And yes, an FAQ arbitration decision is required...hence the title of this thread. And, contrary to popular belief, I am not the only person in the world who thinks this. Here is something from over 3 years ago:- DBA v3 Rules Clarifications for ALTON DBA Matched Pairs 23/04/2016.
RIVERS • Tactical movement in a river must be directly forwards or backwards, except that an element may divert by the minimum necessary to line up in close combat with an enemy element. • Elements may recoil into or out of a river. A fleeing element which enters a river is destroyed. • Flank or rear support IS permitted whilst in rivers, unless part of the element is in rough or bad going. • Deployment in a river is NOT permitted.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 30, 2019 9:58:44 GMT
If the element in the river was regarded as in neither good going nor bad going for combat that it does not receive any combat bonus would that resolve the issue? I can only refer you to my post here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/24572/(which saves me from having to repeat myself) And yes, an FAQ arbitration decision is required...hence the title of this thread. And, contrary to popular belief, I am not the only person in the world who thinks this. Here is something from over 3 years ago:- DBA v3 Rules Clarifications for ALTON DBA Matched Pairs 23/04/2016.
RIVERS • Tactical movement in a river must be directly forwards or backwards, except that an element may divert by the minimum necessary to line up in close combat with an enemy element. • Elements may recoil into or out of a river. A fleeing element which enters a river is destroyed. • Flank or rear support IS permitted whilst in rivers, unless part of the element is in rough or bad going. • Deployment in a river is NOT permitted.
Yes, I would have written that....but....Definitely DON’T take me as an authority on this matter, stevie 😳. I’m certainly not on the FAQ team, and most likely wrote that after a certain amount of uncertainty on the issue became apparent at the time, and while less aware of the contentious nature of the rules on this. TBH, that was a ‘rules clarification’ I published for the tournament at the time (3yrs back), but I’m very much coming to the conclusion that I may have had it distinctly wrong. It may well be in line for a rewrite before April 2020’s tournament. My current feeling on the matter is very much inclining towards the ‘no rear or flank support in river’ and ‘river is neither good nor bad going, inc. for combat’ viewpoint, but await any forthcoming clarification. Martin Apologies to Tony A.....another ‘ping’ on the phone 😵
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 30, 2019 10:44:28 GMT
Thanks for that Martin. I wasn’t aware that it was actually you that wrote the “Alton Matched Pairs Rules Clarifications”. Look everybody...I have a very simple solution to this issue that will please both parties. Those that want:- * hiding in rivers to avoid being ‘quick-killed‘ by Kn and SCh... * Cv doubled in a river to be destroyed by Sp/Pk/Hd instead of fleeing... * troops in a river that passes through woods to have a combat advantage... * and to rob side and rear-support from troops in a river, thus making it impossible to refight Alexander’s pikemen crossing the river at Issus... ...then by all means apply the ‘neither good nor other going’ conditions to combat in rivers. (Even though the “For movement” river rule specifically says don’t do this) Those that want:- * sensible river effects, and think all the above is absurd... ...then use a “House Rule” that says “for combat, rivers are the going they pass through, like roads”. There you go...everyone gets what they want, and everybody is happy. No more need be said, so I’m not going to post anything else in this thread (Hurrah!).
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 30, 2019 12:02:22 GMT
Those that want:- * sensible river effects, and think all the above is absurd... ...then use a “House Rule” that says “for combat, rivers are the going they pass through, like roads”. There you go...everyone gets what they want, and everybody is happy. No more need be said, so I’m not going to post anything else in this thread (Hurrah!). I like the proposed house rule, but.....what if the river overlies the edge of the terrain piece, so that it is good going on one bank but bad going on the other? Perhaps a further house rule that the river has to be either in the terrain piece or out of it?
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 30, 2019 12:27:13 GMT
Those that want:- * sensible river effects, and think all the above is absurd... ...then use a “House Rule” that says “for combat, rivers are the going they pass through, like roads”. There you go...everyone gets what they want, and everybody is happy. No more need be said, so I’m not going to post anything else in this thread (Hurrah!). I like the proposed house rule, but.....what if the river overlies the edge of the terrain piece, so that it is good going on one bank but bad going on the other? Perhaps a further house rule that the river has to be either in the terrain piece or out of it? Which is why I’d prefer the house rule “Rivers must be less than 15mm wide” which has the same effect and solves the two terrain issue. Tony - Ping!
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Aug 30, 2019 21:44:53 GMT
Pawsbill, clear - thanks. How about the conditions I raise of shooting down a river or measuring Command radius along a river? An element even partly in a river cannot shoot. That is stated in the shooting section.
Rivers have no effect on command distance.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 31, 2019 5:02:05 GMT
I think it is plausible to take the RAW as written and interpret them as paddy and stevie would like, namely that a River is considered the going that it is in for combat.
Firstly, we have terrain features as AREA and LINEAR with all other space as GOOD GOING. An area, by definition, has a perimeter and encompasses everything within it, including the River. The rules state that "It (a river) can cross any feature except...". Crossing a terrain feature doesn't change its integrity. Its perimeter would continue beneath the river feature. It doesn't divide the feature into two separate pieces, (otherwise you may have to discard part of a feature!). So elements within the terrain feature are governed by all the rules of the terrain feature, except that "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going..." I think this is important because being "in" a river and defending the "bank" of the river are not absolutes in DBA3. This rule is clear: "An element is defending the bank if it is entirely on land and its close combat opponent is at least partly in the water". So the defender gets the bonus even if the back corner is in river. The defender may well be over 1/2BW from the river. But what going is the combat occurring in? What terrain is the combat occurring in? The rules only give us the following: "An element only partly in GOOD GOING is treated as in the other going. But if a River is passing through a Wood then this rule does not apply. This rule works for Area terrain as it must be 1BW away from other Area features and Roads have specified rules for movement and combat. Rivers?
However, DBA3 adds further complexity by grading rivers into 3 groups. If we just accept the rule as rivers take the going they are in then paltry rivers in Woods are worse terrain for combat than deeper, fast flowing rivers in the plains. This is not sensible.
I think that the combat terrain of a river should be dictated by the combination of its nature and the going that it is in. So a paltry river would be good going, a normal river would be rough going, and a difficult river should be bad going. However, if the river is passing through terrain that is worse than its nature then the area terrain takes precedence. But that would require a rule change which is beyond the remit of the FAQ team. So I wish them luck sorting this one out!
For those interested in PB's view on rivers, I will follow this post up with a summary of how he deals with rivers in DBMM (where rivers do get classified as Good/Rough/Difficult). For those interested in PB's view on Issus and Granicus, I can refer you to his book on Alexander's campaigns.
Cheers
Jim
|
|