|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 15:10:01 GMT
i might be wrong, of course!
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 14:18:14 GMT
Some years ago, some members of our club, who played WRG 6th ed. tended to stand over our DBA boards and make comments to the effect that it didn't' look like a war-game. I was tempted to make up some 6mm armies and put them on 60mmm frontage bases to demonstrate that it was possible to play DBA and make it look like "a war-game". Indeed to look just like a game of WRG 6th ed. (if you counted the number of groups of troops for a 1500 pt game, it was usually 12, plus or minus about three). But in the end I couldn't be bothered. Nonetheless, it would look distinctly less abstract.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 14:02:22 GMT
Thanks, Martin. I must have missed that thread.
Menacussecundus and Stevie, do you suggest the obligation to pursue punishes the column? As I read the rules, each element just pursues ½ BW.
Baldie, I think it is more complex than the blade dying. If defeated, he blade would recoil ½ BW, which means it would push back the psiloi, as it cannot interpenetrate it. The psiloi, however is a "pushed back" element. Pushed back elements who are already in contact with another element are destroyed. So it is the psiloi, not the blade, who are destroyed. The Ax and Cv would be unaffected.
I think.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 8:02:14 GMT
Zendor,
Good question!
As in another active thread (" how is it possible" in rants and raves), I have never noticed this before. We would play that only the blade element pursued, but the rules do not appear to say that. Even if we interpret it as saying that elements only pursue if they are in the subsequent list of elements that do pursue (knights etc 1BW, blades and pikes ½ BW), and it is a somewhat liberal interpretation of the language to say it does, then what would happen in the Cv element was a Kn? Would the element pursue 1 BW and shunt the Ps and Ax forwards into the back of the blades?
It may be that the rule as written is a victim of PB's love of brevity and should say something like "Elements in a column pursue if they are in a column immediately behind an element which itself pursues and are of a type which would would normally themselves pursue". If I remember correctly, in 2.2 elements would only pursue if they had been involved in the fighting by providing rear support, and I really don't see why this has been changed.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 16, 2020 17:52:55 GMT
That’s a very good point, Bill. I’ve just tried a 20mm deep base in contact with a 60mm deep base and Mark’s Method still seems to work – draw a line from the hills centre point through the nearest point of the contact edges and whichever front edge is nearer the hills crest is uphill. Does this work or can you offer an alternative simple method? Colin The rules imply that all hills consist of a ridge from one end to the other. Most people would actually perceive a hill as an irregular cone sloping up to a point (the summit). If given the chance, I would always suggest that we play the latter, and assume that he hill is essentially conical. We should then define a point as the summit and mark it in some way. To find which element is uphill extend a line from the summit to the elements. If the line contacts a rear edge first, that element is uphill. iI it contacts the side edges, continue the line through the point where the front edges meet. The element through which the line then passes is downhill. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 11, 2020 18:28:48 GMT
The art of splitting hairs four ways - I assumed! Colin Splitting a hair four ways would be pilotetrasection. Or perhaps more specifically longitudinal tetrapilosection, to distinguish it from simply cutting a hair into four bits, which would not need a surgical postgraduate qualification. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 9, 2020 19:09:55 GMT
Tetrapilectomy Well, thank you for teaching me a new word, Arnaud… and such a fun one! It might be useful one DBAday. Colin In what context is it being used here? In medicine/surgery it would mean the removal (-ectomy) of four (tetra) hairs (pilo). Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jan 31, 2020 22:13:52 GMT
In my Welsh Open case, the 3Bd only appear “too strong” because at vital moments, when they desperately needed not to roll low vs Kn generals, they pulled a rabbit out of a hat and rolled EVEN with the opposing Kn / HCh. 1 in 36 chance? Two games in succession? Pure fluke... On any other day I have a strong suspicion their luck might have run out far sooner, leaving mangled Valhalla-bound Vikings strewn across the battlefield and caught between the spokes of gloating generals’ chariots. All the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up, to allow a flukey ‘perfect storm’ at just the right moments. Martin, Why do you think rolling even is a 1 in 36 chance? If the factors are 4 against 3 then by my calculation it is 5 in 36 (dice rolls of 1 v 2, 2 v 3, etc), and against ordinary knights it is 6 in 36, so 1 in 6. Or do I misunderstand your post? Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jan 10, 2020 8:37:06 GMT
But a potential "lock-in" at the pub sounds excellent! 🍻 I think the issue is that you will be on the wrong side of the locked door! Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 18, 2019 10:31:11 GMT
I think only "c" counts as giving support.
To rationalise it for my personal use, I assume that in situation "c" the rear ranks are giving impetus to the front ranks in a physical sense and also providing a morale boost making them less likely to recoil or disintegrate (be "destroyed"). In "b" the combat factor is only defensive (i.e. indicates the likelihood of the pike block standing rather than backing off) as the pike can't destroy the Ps or LH, only make them withdraw for a reorganisation or rethink. The rear ranks here are not actively involved in the fight. If contacted in flank or rear they are free to turn to face the new threat. If shot at there is no risk to the shooters of hitting their own troops (unless they are really bad shots).
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 17, 2019 9:25:43 GMT
Sorry, Bob. How does "b' differ from "c"?
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 11, 2019 13:09:27 GMT
I am not sure the romping was a hump issue.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 11, 2019 10:07:38 GMT
Having scooped the "most challenging army" with my Tuaregs a couple of years ago, was a bit miffed that they managed to do so well this time whereas Mark Johnson's Tuaregs, which only differed by a couple of elements, romped home (in as much as camels ever romp) in last place.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Nov 11, 2019 8:51:49 GMT
I did look. Somewhat disappointed that there it looks like there are only 2 other events less than 2 hours drive. You could always move house, of course. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 18, 2019 21:10:43 GMT
They look absolutely fine too me too. Are you sure you want to lighten them up?
Scott
|
|