|
Post by peteduckworth on Feb 25, 2024 15:12:41 GMT
VERY special thanks to Andy for organising the draw, policing the timing & coordinating the results. He did a most excellent job (which I managed to make rather harder in several details.
Shamefully I've committed the faux pas of winning my own tournament (though TBF it's Andy's really).
Listed with player name, army number, points (5 win or Bye, 3 winning draw, 2 absolute draw, 1 losing draw 0 loss) and in parentheses the tie breaker (EE's Destroyed)
Results:
1 Pete Duckworth III/52 25 (22)
2 Neil Mason I/51 22 (25)
3 Paul Hodson III/64b 21 (21)
4 Connor Truby II/32a+ 21 (17)
5 Martin Myers I/43c 20 (20)
Paddy Myers IV/55b 20 (20)
7 John Saunders I/32c 20(17)
8 Martin Smith II/22a 18(17)
9 Tim Rogers II/25 17(20)
10 Kevin Casey I/17a 15(18)
11 Mark Johnson III/39 15(15)
12 Pete James I/1b 15(14)
13 Russell Spain I/3 15(13)
14 Chris Kemp III/66a 12(18)
15 Colin O'Shea III/50 12(16)
16 Tony Green II/69b 11(17)
17 Philip Donald IV/59a 11(12)
18 Bruce Williams I/2a 10(13)
19 Steve Etheridge IV/12b 10(11)
20 Phil Steele IV/30 7(9)
21 Ken Gordon IV/30 7(5)
Thanks everyone for coming and making it a really good day: good humoured, supportive and generous as ever.
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 25, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
Shame on you
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 25, 2024 17:03:07 GMT
You'd never catch me doing anything as outrageous as that....#Britcon2023.... ;-)
P.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 25, 2024 21:18:08 GMT
Armies seen at the Mercian DBA- (21 players) Nabataeans Zanj Revolt Massagetae Ghaznavids Melanesians Teutonic Order x 2 Samurai Carthaginians West Franks (not Normans đ).Sumerians Early Polish Spring and Autumn Chinese ie âI/32 otherâ Sargonid Assyrians Sassanids Bosporans Ottomans Early Egyptians Hyksos Later Tâang Nubians Updated, following Peteâs results post.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Feb 25, 2024 22:35:42 GMT
Dear all, as the issue of hill rules came up in my game with Diades yesterday, I've just had a read in Fanaticus of the Great Uphill Debate that followed the Bakewell Winter Warmer in February 2020.
Not having run into this discussion before, can I â at the unintended risk of reopening settled issues - tentatively summarise as follows?:
(1) Elements in close combat get an advantage if they are uphill, but the rules do not define what "uphill" means. This has made it necessary for players of the game to agree on a definition.
(2) The definition which seems to have concluded the Great Uphill Debate, at least for tournaments in England, is the one given by Simon in a pre-Bakewell post on 21.11.22: "An element will count as uphill if any part of its front edge is on the hill and if a straight line drawn from the central point (conical hill) or the nearest point of the ridge line (ridged hill) to the centre of the combat passes through that element first."
(3) Some think it is better for hills to (a) rise to a single point and (b) take the form of a cone when they do this. (a) is compatible with the requirement in the rules for hills to rise to a "centre line crestâ, because a point is just a special kind of line. But this is not a necessary part of defining âuphillâ â the definition in Simonâs post applies to both types of hill.
(4) The Great Debate only dealt with how hills affect close combat. It did not deal with how they affect shooting or command. That makes sense because, unlike for close combat, the rules on shooting and command are already complete and clear. Hill crests can block shooting and line of sight, and the rules explain under what conditions this happens. There is therefore no need to supplement or alter them.
(5) It is worth pointing out, however, that under the rules a (non-difficult) hill will only be able to block shooting or line of sight if it rises to a full crest line and not a single point.
Am I missing something?
Paul H
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 25, 2024 22:47:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Feb 26, 2024 9:39:57 GMT
and jolly nice they are too! Thanks for all your work on keeping us together visually.
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Feb 26, 2024 9:43:12 GMT
Armies seen at the Mercian DBA- (21 players) N Updated, following Peteâs results post. Technically my "Normans" were West Frankish to keep the agression lower...
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Feb 26, 2024 17:59:11 GMT
(4) The Great Debate only dealt with how hills affect close combat. It did not deal with how they affect shooting or command. That makes sense because, unlike for close combat, the rules on shooting and command are already complete and clear. Hill crests can block shooting and line of sight, and the rules explain under what conditions this happens. There is therefore no need to supplement or alter them. Are you suggesting that an element can shoot over a hill so long as the shooting does not pass over the crest line (of an elongated hill) or centre point (of a conical hill)? I think the rules would allow this, but would be surprised if anybody I have played with in the UK would see the sense in it. On the rare occasions that, shooting on a hill at a target on the same hill, has come up in my games we have agreed that there should be half a base width distance on conical hills or on the âendsâ of elongated hills for a shooter to see the target... but there is, as yet, no UK agreement on this.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Feb 27, 2024 11:34:59 GMT
I think we need to distinguish between where the rules as written need supplementing and where they might need changing.
There seem to be plenty of examples of things in the rules that need supplementing. Having no definition of âuphillâ for close combat is clearly an example. Players have to decide how to interpret this and it is good that a common definition has been reached.
There are also, in my view, plenty of things in the rules that could advantageously be changed. To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a âfleeâ result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. But I think that the advantages of playing the rules as written, of having a single reference point that everyone can turn to, outweigh the advantages of changing them on particular points.
Concerning the way in which gentle hills affect shooting and command distance, I think the rules are clear. Hills are required to have âa centre line crestâ. You canât shoot, and command distance is reduced, if the element you are measuring to is âentirely beyondâ a crest.
Up to now, I have found it helpful to think of hills in DBA as being shaped like cornish pasties. The crest line runs all the way from one end to the other, rising to a bulge in the middle and then falling. This has seemed to me a natural interpretation of âa centre line crestâ. With hills shaped like this, the shooting rule as written certainly produces an anomaly. An element at one end of the hill can shoot, over the bulge, at an element at the other end, provided that both are on the same side of the crest line. But I think this is quite a rare case, and not worth changing the rules for.
Maybe Iâm reading the rules wrong, and they are not as clear as I think. Maybe theyâre clear but the anomaly, for example in the case of conical hills, is bigger/more serious than I think and is one of the cases (which should presumably be rare if at all) that could justify moving away from the rules as written. In any case, interested to hear your view.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Feb 27, 2024 11:40:40 GMT
To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a âfleeâ result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed.
I didn't even know this existed until yesterday (thanks Paddy) - seems totally counter intuitive as to how a swirling mass of LH are supposed too work. As if they haven't gotten enough going against them as it is.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 27, 2024 12:17:38 GMT
To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a âfleeâ result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. I didn't even know this existed until yesterday (thanks Paddy) - seems totally counter intuitive as to how a swirling mass of LH are supposed too work. As if they haven't gotten enough going against them as it is. We have brought this in as a change to the DBF rules, currently in Beta phase of development P
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Feb 27, 2024 12:34:23 GMT
To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a âfleeâ result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. I didn't even know this existed until yesterday (thanks Paddy) - seems totally counter intuitive as to how a swirling mass of LH are supposed too work. As if they haven't gotten enough going against them as it is. We have brought this in as a change to the DBF rules, currently in Beta phase of development P Praise be to the God's of DBF - I found it a bit of a 'gamey' rule tbf
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 27, 2024 13:04:08 GMT
I think we need to distinguish between where the rules as written need supplementing and where they might need changing. There seem to be plenty of examples of things in the rules that need supplementing. Having no definition of âuphillâ for close combat is clearly an example. Players have to decide how to interpret this and it is good that a common definition has been reached. There are also, in my view, plenty of things in the rules that could advantageously be changed. To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a âfleeâ result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. But I think that the advantages of playing the rules as written, of having a single reference point that everyone can turn to, outweigh the advantages of changing them on particular points. Concerning the way in which gentle hills affect shooting and command distance, I think the rules are clear. Hills are required to have âa centre line crestâ. You canât shoot, and command distance is reduced, if the element you are measuring to is âentirely beyondâ a crest. Up to now, I have found it helpful to think of hills in DBA as being shaped like cornish pasties. The crest line runs all the way from one end to the other, rising to a bulge in the middle and then falling. This has seemed to me a natural interpretation of âa centre line crestâ. With hills shaped like this, the shooting rule as written certainly produces an anomaly. An element at one end of the hill can shoot, over the bulge, at an element at the other end, provided that both are on the same side of the crest line. But I think this is quite a rare case, and not worth changing the rules for. Maybe Iâm reading the rules wrong, and they are not as clear as I think. Maybe theyâre clear but the anomaly, for example in the case of conical hills, is bigger/more serious than I think and is one of the cases (which should presumably be rare if at all) that could justify moving away from the rules as written. In any case, interested to hear your view. Depends slightly which way the pasty is pointing, hodsopa. If the crest (?crust) is roughly parallel to the base edge troops can hide behind it. However, if it runs parallel to the side edges, one could get some improbable results, including Artillery being able to hit troops on flat ground (Good going) on the far side of the hill.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 28, 2024 7:34:25 GMT
To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a âfleeâ result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. I didn't even know this existed until yesterday (thanks Paddy) - seems totally counter intuitive as to how a swirling mass of LH are supposed too work. As if they haven't gotten enough going against them as it is. We have brought this in as a change to the DBF rules, currently in Beta phase of development P âŚno chance that the LH destruction might be intentional/realistic? A deep swarm of LH who, in Close Combat, are doubled might accurately represent the front part of the element attempting to flee in severe disorder and they and possibly others being killed in the crush/mayhem which ensues [??]âŚperhaps.
|
|