|
Post by Michael Demko on Jan 3, 2018 17:00:39 GMT
The HoTT rule quoted by Simon sounds good to me - except that DBA's conforming rules may make the determination of "movement required to make contact" weirdly unintuitive.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 28, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
Do the fixes depend on being able to force conforming via edge to corner or corner to edge contact?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 28, 2017 21:36:10 GMT
This discussion is fascinating. I have to admit that, reading the rules with no prior experience with the game, I had understood that corner-to-edge contact was not legal, and that corner to corner contact (as in an overlap) did not count as "contact".
There was a ton of verbiage emphasizing "edge contact" or "edge to edge contact", so I had read the rule as meaning: the moving element must get at least a portion of their edge (more than a corner) into aligned contact with at least a portion of the target edge (more than a corner) using their MA - and that this would trigger conforming (which would involve no rotation, except in the exceptional case of rear or side contact).
The practical consequence of this interpretation is that the non-bounding player "offers" an orientation for contact. The bounding player can accept this offer, or in some cases force a rotation of exactly 90 or 180 degrees by contacting to the side or rear. But there is nothing the bounding player could do to cause a non-bounding element to rotate by anything other than a multiple of 90 degrees.
It was not until I saw some of the wackier diagrams in these conversations, and Tony's videos, that I realized many people had a much more liberal interpretation of "edge contact" than I did. I may be biased, but I prefer my earlier ignorant interpretation, because it dramatically reduces the range of positions one has to consider when interpreting the rules.
It is an interesting question though what kind of formation could be used to "game the rule" to give a defender a meaningful advantage without exposing flanks. Is there an archive somewhere of the "geometric tricks" people used in 2.2?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 28, 2017 18:24:38 GMT
Thanks for the advice, everyone!
So I'll go about roughly what I had planned, but fully paint the horses, men and chariots before gluing together the final assembly. And I'll take extra care to make sure I have the positions of everything on the base worked out before I start.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 28, 2017 18:16:16 GMT
A common mechanic in hex-and-counter games is that an obstacle can be shot over if it is at a lower elevation and is closer to the higher unit than to the lower unit.
In a situation like the one you are trying to set up, this might look like: a unit on a hill may fire over a unit at lower elevation (downhill or not on the hill) to hit a target, provided that the unit being fired over is nearer to the shooter than to the target.
I like the esthetics of the situation you are trying to create. The mechanics seems potentially fiddly. Also, the rule seems more realistic for some units than others. Of course long-bows and catapults should be able to fire over others... but what about crossbows, bolt throwers and low-arc guns?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 27, 2017 23:07:09 GMT
I've been painting foot so far, but I will soon have to start work on a Chariot element. Any advice on how to proceed, especially when it comes to the ordering of painting various pieces (chariot, horses, men), assembling them, basing them temporarily, etc?
My initial thought would be to paint the men, horses and chariot separately, but leave unpainted the points of contact (where I'll later apply glue). Then assemble everything directly on its final base and do another round of painting to patch up the bits I had left unfinished. This feels ungainly though...
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 19, 2017 20:40:35 GMT
Thanks for posting, I've been wondering about this for a long time. It hasn't mattered much because I usually prefer all of one element type.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 18, 2017 18:24:22 GMT
For me the gaming comes first, but has motivated a lot of exploration of the history (not just with DBA, but with wargames in general). I love the spatial and kinetic properties of wargames, which is the first motivator for me, but I also enjoy the painting and crafting, and I'm always curious about how well the experience of the game maps on to the real experiences of the people we are simulating. My first army is tied to a period of history my wife is especially interested in
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 18, 2017 18:17:55 GMT
I can be somewhat lawyerly myself, but I do respect someone's request not to be drawn into that. Tony's videos are great, and I don't think we should be directly or by implication holding him and his friends responsible for resolving every point of confusion that the greater DBA community has about the rules.
I asked a question on one of his videos about rules, but I will refrain from doing so going forward. I enjoy the videos greatly, and would hate to be part of the reason they stopped.
There is a section of this forum for discussing rules, and we should probably keep the rule lawyering to that section of the forum, where people can choose to participate or not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 10, 2017 0:41:29 GMT
These are a lot of fun to watch, and full of neat situations and tricks.
Do you ever play with rivers or BUA?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 8, 2017 2:24:38 GMT
Also the much-maligned Auxilia Incidentally, I remember reading a thread some time back with people worrying that Auxilia were under-powered, and I wondered to myself if the choice of board size mattered to their judgement. On a 2ft x 2ft board, there isn't enough deployment room for an entire 12 elements side-by-side... unless you can extend your line into flank corridor. Auxilia let you start with a fully extended line of foot, if that is your desire. With the armies closing as quickly as they do in DBA3, that means either fewer PiPs spent extending or maybe even an early advantage on the flanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 7, 2017 22:17:01 GMT
I read it as the first. Units in camp or fort cannot recoil, so if they lose the consequence is to die. To counter-balance this, they get a bonus in combat.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 7, 2017 12:48:26 GMT
3. Assuming forced marching is allowed should all elements be allowed to do so ?
I tend to think that many (tho' not all) flank marches consisted of more mobile troops for a reason. Perhaps only certain troops should be allowed to force march on arrival - this may make up slightly for the arrival process being arbitrary so for example a force of Greek Hoplites (Sp) can arrive just as quickly as say Huns (LH) where as in reality the Huns are likely to arrive quicker.
There are currently only a subset of element types that can deploy "in the wings" - presumably because they require less effort to dress into the line. At a glance, they look like good candidates for flank marching too.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 7, 2017 2:51:00 GMT
Ug. I'm going to have to withdraw my earlier strong commitment. I have been informed (this afternoon) that there is a good chance I will have to travel (to China) in March, exactly overlapping Cold Wars. Assuming I do make it, I will bring a 15mm Warring States Chinese (specifically II/4c "Chao", who appear to have been a particularly unruly bunch of rebels, rather than anyone important) and some boring not-home-built terrain patches. If I finish painting the Chinese with time to spare, I'll take a look into Byzantine options. It would be a good excuse to diversify a bit. Preview of the work in-progress: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 6, 2017 17:26:51 GMT
I'm planning to attend Cold Wars (this will be my first HMGS convention). I had been hoping to play in the DBA event, though it would be handy to know the scale and any other limitations.
|
|