|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2018 12:58:16 GMT
Strict interpretation of RAW says you get 'extra' plough if you took plough in the compulsory. However, as noted by primuspilus, a village, town, or city with no plough allowed in the vicinity would be ahistorical for most of them. True. Then the word may have been inserted to specifically to limit Plough. Woods (FOREST, TROPICAL) and Difficult Hills (HILLY) are the only other features with "extra" and they are compulsory. I agree that this seems unusual historically but maybe Phil didn't want Plough and BUA on the same battlefield. Maybe he wanted to encourage Enclosures (which strangely need a "natural" shape even though they are fenced!) near BUAs as otherwise you can take a BUA and 2-3 Plough and have a 5/6 chance of a billiard table. If that is the intention then I can live with it, even if it doesn't seem right. Hopefully someone from the testing team/FAQ committee can help enlighten us. Cheers Jim PS How are you modelling Enclosures? |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2018 12:35:17 GMT
Interesting. I may well try this with my stockaded camp until such time as I get my forts built. I may have to tear mine down. Too big. Shame as they are nice Baueda forts. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 15, 2018 22:18:49 GMT
I think "extra" was meant to clarify that you can take the same type of terrain in your compulsory and you optional choices, so long as you don't have more than three of the same type.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 15, 2018 17:09:11 GMT
Can a player take a BUA and 1-3 “extra” plough? I think the answer is "yes" as it meets all the other requirements. The role of the word "extra" seems clearer in the other situations on the terrain chart (FOREST, HILLY, TROPICAL). But it seems reasonable that a battle can occur over a large area of farmland in ARABLE. It's a bit unusual that it's not present in other areas but probably good as I can see it dominating terrain placement and ending up with featureless battlefields 5/6 times. As an aside, are players seeing "patterns" forming in terrain placement to maximise/minimise advantages for specific armies? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 15, 2018 16:52:27 GMT
stevie was responsible for the formatting and the illustrations (as well as ensuring the content was correct!) and I was as impressed as you when he sent them through. It was all done on Word so removing the illustrations shouldn't be difficult. The original Word documents are quite large, hence the PDFs. But without the illustrations, they may be small enough to post. Alternatively, we could move/copy the files to the Wiki so not to clutter the forum? Your thoughts stevie?
Cheerss
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 15, 2018 16:42:39 GMT
I always tell my trainees at work that the only silly question is the question they didn't ask. I'll see if I can make it clearer for you.
1) PIPs are used to make tactical moves by either a single element or a group
2) The same amount of PIPs are used to move either a single element or a group. I say the same amount because PIPs can vary from 0 to 3 depending on the situation (road movement, specific type of elements moving, command/control difficulties).
3) There are restrictions on what constitutes a group and what a group can do:
a) all elements must face in the same direction and be in side edge and corner to corner contact with another element of the group (except a wheeling column, which only needs corner to corner)
b) groups can only move forwards the same distance or wheel through the same angles
c) group move through bad going is only possible as a one element wide column unless the group is composed entirely of psiloi
So in effect, most of the time it's the same cost of PIPs to make a tactical move and that is usually 1 PIP. Groups are temporary, fluid arrangements, which can change often not rigid structures like for example Napoleonic regiments. To illustrate look at the example of three warband in side to side contact in Woods. They are considered a group for combat. But can only be moved by single element moves because they are in bad going, costing triple the PIPs. If they are still in this formation once completely clear of the bad going, they can move on as a group for a single PIP payment.
Clear as mud!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 15, 2018 10:59:11 GMT
I must say that I do like the idea of personalised cards with your own elements. Great idea Bob!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 15, 2018 10:50:37 GMT
Wow! They're muscle bound! Lot's of good beef in Mesopotamia I guess from the Ox on the standard.
Seriously, they look quite nice and I'm sure they'll paint up a treat! But I'm committed to the Eureka release so not for me...unless they mix well...then maybe the officer...ok maybe more!
Gee, I need help with this addiction to miniatures!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 13, 2018 22:02:33 GMT
Great! Not only are they beautiful but that link also reminded me of their Byzantines, Sassanids and Skythians! The lead mountain grows on and on...  Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 13, 2018 21:59:35 GMT
Over to you stevie.  Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 13, 2018 21:57:28 GMT
You're too harsh Greedo!  Even the Later Spartans can have three non-spear elements (4Ax/Ps, Ps, Cav). Aitolian can give Thessalians a few more hoplites plus some light troops. Illyrian is historically plausible but never happened and the Aux could help. Outside the EAP period then Brasidas or Agesilaus could make for some fun. EAP should take Thebans/Ionians to match the HI and allow the bows to fight the cavalry. Interestingly, I/60c doesn't allow Hoplite allies, which makes Plataea a bit difficult to simulate. Otherwise Lykian can give you 4xSp and 1x3Bd to stiffen your line as well as some Aux. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 13, 2018 21:39:49 GMT
I was fortunate enough to play a few games with stevie on Sunday. (More of his fabulous hospitality and the gracious welcome from the North London Wargames Club another day). We had the opportunity to bounce ideas about in the car. One thought that came to me was that Phil Barker may have the solution that we were looking for. Phil's HFG rules provide a generic black powder game. But he envisioned period specific supplements. Unfortunately they haven't materialised yet (always hope) but maybe there is something there for Ancients.
Could a future DBA have the current purple book, unchanged with all lists, as Section A and then period specific sections for those inclined in Section B? These may be based on the Army list "Books" or be further narrowed. They could include army list changes and specific rules for that period only. If you want the broad sweep rules you have them. If you want more period feel then they are there as well. Tournament organisers could even choose to use one or the other. Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too?
I'm not sure about playing around with the number of elements, largely because of the deadliness of hard flanking. Though many battles had disproportionate numbers, the reports seem to indicate that the ancient and medieval generals were either able to match the width by adjusting depth or anchoring flanks. I'm not sure how this can be achieved with DBA without hanging a flank in the breeze. I'll have to open up the PDF and read medievalthomas' rules.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 12, 2018 20:58:48 GMT
The credit for this card is all stevie's.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 11, 2018 10:32:23 GMT
Sad to think someone would cheat over toy soldiers!
One way around the problem would be for one player to provide all the dice and the opponent chooses which dice to use. The opponent can also request one swap during the game. That should hamper someone with a loaded dice.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 9, 2018 7:57:19 GMT
They are little works of art genonsteel! Very envious but in a good way.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
Even the Later Spartans can have three non-spear elements (4Ax/Ps, Ps, Cav).