|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 30, 2018 10:38:31 GMT
My games are largely a blur, Martin.
First up against Bill'S Koguryo Koreans. Lost the initial combats before the dice turned in my favour allowing me to scrape a 4-3 win.
Next game was against Terry's Emishi (6 Bw and 6 Ps). His Bw didn't manage to do much against the massed Hd and weren't able to get into range to take on my mounted without coming into the open (which he didn't want to do) so a 1-1 draw.
Mark's Central Asian Turks manoeuvred well (i.e. threw high for PIPs) swamping my left flank taking out some of the hd and pulling another out of position which allowed him to get into (and surround and kill) the mounted elements. All over very quickly.
Phil's early Sui invaded as far as the river which I had put down (and which ultimately proved to be a raging torrent). I tried some sniping with my Bw, but got the worse of the exchange, losing both elements. At that point, we established the state of the river. Neither of us was prepared to risk attempting to cross it so we agreed a draw. (2-0 to Phil.)
Final game against Peter's Central Asian Turks. His manoeuvering was less successful and my 2 Bw were able to combine their shooting on his LH killing 2 in successive bounds. He then charged home on the Bw killing one, but in the next bound my Kn General slid across to take the place of the Bw which had been destroyed and the other Bw element closed the door on the LH which was in column. I won the resulting combat and with it the game. (4-1)
The Hd were painted specially for the competition and, having read up a little, I went for a uniform look within each element. (Given that they were militia and that their clothing and equipment were provided by the regional authorities.) The rest of the army was drawn from my CACS army for which I used figures from an earlier Chinese range.
|
|
|
Romans
Sept 29, 2018 21:29:56 GMT
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 29, 2018 21:29:56 GMT
Early Imperial Rome go with Corvus Belli, great figs but not quite a full range anymore unfortunately. Some way short of all the options these days, Baldie.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 29, 2018 21:27:59 GMT
Fourteen* participants and a fun theme. Terry was battling Arnaud in the final when I left. Thanks to Bill and the other PAWS members for hosting the event.
*Actually 16. Good job one only has to be able to count up to 12 to play DBA.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 28, 2018 16:49:05 GMT
I would go for (b). The extra 10mm depth oughtn't to matter, but there will be times when it does, and having a gap is, in my view, even worse. (Which is why I replaced the Essex HCh in my Neo-Assyrian army with ones from Mag Mil.)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 27, 2018 17:36:34 GMT
So not much chance of getting a definitive ruling from the FAQ committee then!
And when do you think that the limitation "If this is not possible the move does not happen" applies, Tom?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 27, 2018 9:56:02 GMT
Chris: Your post is a bit difficult to follow... I take it there was more discussion on the FB page and that we are seeing only part of it. Breaking it down into smaller bits would be helpful. Here is my take... 1. The Cav is the one forced to conform. It cannot, therefore it cannot contact. Conformation in this case is triggered by contact to a front edge... the front edge of the single Aux... Yes, there are still odd occurrences in DBA where elements cannot contact. This is one. DBA 3 has eliminated successfully most of them. I have never seen this to be an problem in either standard games or tournaments. That includes in all versions of DBA from the first. If this starts being an issue, or if some clever person establishes a game winning strategy with it... then I think the DBA FAQ team will address it. I just don't seeing it being a big issue. However, I would be interested in your take, especially the echelon left scenario. Joe Collins The discussion in this thread is just the visible part of the iceberg of debate on the Facebook page, Joe. I disagree with Chris' view, the phrase "moving a front edge into contact with enemy always results in combat" notwithstanding, and the reason I disagree is that what constitutes movement into contact is governed by the conditions in the following sentence. If it were the case, that either the contacting or the contacted element has to conform once front edge contact is made, the sentence "If this is not possible the move does not happen" is redundant, because the the situation can never occur. I don't see the echelon deployment - if I have understood it correctly - being a problem. The counter-move would surely be to attack the RH element (i.e.the one furthest forward) with three elements, two side by side and, ideally, the third "closing the door". Good chance of destroying the RH element, but even if one doesn't, the supporting element alongside has the next element in the echelon in its TZ so it can't close the door next turn.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 24, 2018 17:56:28 GMT
Indeed Scott, just looking for alternative scenarios. What about the top cavalry slides across the back of the Calvalry fighting the chariot, just outside the chariot threat zone, Slides down the side and closes the door on the chariot? Is that 4 base widths of a move? One across, one down, one plus to close the door. I would say not allowed, Bob, because it doesn't start on the opposite side of a line prolonging the side edge it would contact when closing the door at the end of the move.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 23, 2018 21:11:15 GMT
Too deep to be legal, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 21, 2018 16:03:57 GMT
Well Menacussecundus, if that were the case, then figure 1c could be a ‘tadpole’ shaped (or dare I say it: sperm shaped) terrain feature with a long thin tail 1/10th of a BW deep and a larger 1½ BW round ‘head’ at the other end. I’m not sure if people would class that as legal. (And I certainly wouldn’t like to see my opponent plopping sperm shaped stuff all over the table! )Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
I didn't draw the figures, Stevie, but yes, I take the view that a tadpole shaped piece of terrain would be in accordance with the rules. From your response, I assume that you do not, but I don't see what you - and the "many people" you pray in aid - are basing this on. (Incidentally, if you choose your opponents carefully, the other eventuality is unlikely to occur.)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 21, 2018 15:49:31 GMT
No part of a feature may be less than 1BW in size. So its illegal. TomT Where does it say this in the rules, Tom? No part? Not any part? I don't believe this is possible.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 21, 2018 12:54:19 GMT
Hmmm...I don’t think it is quite legal. Page 6 paragraph 6, Area Terrain Features, and figure 1b, both say:- “...must fit into a rectangle of which the length plus width totals no more than 9 BW.” The ‘Arnopov Cross’ shown above can only fit in a rectangle that is 6.5 x 3.3 BW...which totals 9.8 BW. So it’s too big. The second reason depends upon the interpretation of the phrase “each feature must have both a length and a width of at least 1 BW”. I’ve always taken it to mean that every part of a feature must be at least 1 BW deep...and the ‘arms’ of the of the Cross are only ½ BW. Having said that, if the ‘Arnopov Cross’ were 6 x 3 BW, and each ‘arm’ were 1 BW deep, then I’d say it was legal. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Yep, no dimension can be less than 1BW is the way I read it too. I don't think that works in purely geometrical terms. I can't manage diagrams, but look at Fig 1c. It is 1.5 BW wide at its widest point, but its width must be less than 1BW as one moves towards the right hand and left hand ends, especially the latter. (Otherwise the two sides are quasi-parallel lines never less than 1BW apart and so never meeting to form the end of the feature.) I also think that the piece might be able to fit into a 9BW rectangle if one were to rotate it so that the long part fits across the diagonal, but if not, reduce the length by ½BW and it's rule compliant.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 21, 2018 10:22:31 GMT
It doesn't have to be "roughly oval" under v3, Martin. You're harking back to 2.2. And it satisfies the requirement for it to be more than 1BW wide at its widest point. Whether it is "a natural shape" might be open to question, but I dare say examples could be found somewhere in nature.
I reckon it meets the letter of the rules. I shall leave it to theologians to debate the spirit.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 20, 2018 20:37:46 GMT
Having just admonished someone on one of the Facebook groups who said he used a PDF version of v3, I felt I ought to apologize when he said it was one which Sue Laflin-Barker had posted in the Yahoo Group in 2016.
I can't find it on the Yahoo Group now - which isn't to say it isn't there somewhere - and don't remember it - which doesn't signify much either. Does anyone else remember seeing it? And, if so, does anyone know what became of it?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 20, 2018 20:31:03 GMT
I seem to recall one of the Chinese armies lists (Nao?) where it expressly says that 3 Pk can't support 4Pk (or may have been other way round). From this I would infer that this is an exception and so generally 3/4 Pk can support each other. Don't have the lists to hand so can't check right now. Simon The army you refer to is III/36 Nan-Chao & Ta-Li and only guards (4Pk) can support guards... P. But, since it doesn't say "guards can only support guards", presumably they could support the 3Pk Spearmen in this army.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 20, 2018 9:05:59 GMT
There is the Central London Club which meets near Mornington Crescent tube station, but their main Ancients game is L'Art de la Guerre. There is also a wargames group in Ilford, but DBA doesn't get mentioned on their website.
There are a handful of DBA players at my local club, but we meet in Catford, which is in south-east London, so not exactly handy for Seven Sisters. However, we also have our Open Day at Crystal Palace on Sunday, 21st October, if you are free then. No DBA, but lots of other games and around 40 traders.
|
|