|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 18, 2018 18:30:58 GMT
This is another case of Phil being frugal with his text. Why go into a lot of detail about side selection beyond "if a road crosses the battlefield. " A road ending in a BUA at a water way edge does not cross the battlefield. I agree. However, what is the position if a road runs from one edge and finishes at a BUA which is touching the opposite edge?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 18, 2018 11:38:53 GMT
Martin, That rings a bell. In fact I think I offered the opinion at the time (as to whether crossing part of the board was enough) that dipping your toe in the sea at Dover does not constitute "crossing the Channel". I would prefer to have a reason to object to the ruse, otherwise it is likely to become mandatory for anybody facing a littoral army. Scott "If a road crosses the battlefield, one of the intersected edges must be chosen [as the attacker's base edge]". (Page 8, first paragraph.) The waterway is on the battlefield. The road doesn't cross the Waterway. Ergo, the road does not "cross" the battlefield. QED
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 15, 2018 16:14:59 GMT
One PIP for the entire group. (Two PIPs if it includes an Elephant or Horde, Artillery etc unless it is that side's first bound.)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 30, 2018 16:03:56 GMT
Trikak,
Your opponent has posted about this in the DBA 3.0 part of the rules board.
Menacus Secundus
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 30, 2018 13:49:01 GMT
I discovered this a couple of years ago the same hard way that you did. My opponent was as surprised as I was.
I still have no idea whether this was intended, but it is certainly a possible consequence of using a maximum size Wwy. Of course, the Wwy doesn't have to be maximum size and the attacker doesn't have to deploy with the Wwy behind him.
If I remember correctly, the consensus view was that if this happened, the attacker should be allowed to choose a different edge as his base edge.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 26, 2018 9:30:33 GMT
If anyone is feeling nostalgic or is missing this particular set from their collection, I have a copy which can be yours for the price of the postage.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 21, 2018 21:19:28 GMT
W&E are also going to produce some Welsh figures following their most recent Kickstarter, but probably not until early next year. I used the Essex figures for my III/19a and am happy with the look of them.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 15, 2018 10:28:13 GMT
No idea where the vertical line of characters has come from, but i think my previous post is still legible.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 15, 2018 10:24:35 GMT
Yes, I'm in the same boat. I would happily buy 3.0 when I get some spare coin, but in the meantime it's down memory lane with 2.2. Only thing is, I sold most of my armies so I need to head to the lead mountain and paint some more. Now the dilemma. Do I base them as 2.2 or wait for 3.0. I've kept my Teutonic Order army, so now is the opportunity to finally to paint up the Lithuanians (IV/18) and Estonians (IV/27) I've been sitting on for years. Good to be back to DBA! <iframe width="22.360000000000127" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 22.360000000000127px; height: 3.8799999999999955px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_4276879" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.360000000000127" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 22.36px; height: 3.88px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1059px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_89045469" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.360000000000127" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 22.36px; height: 3.88px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 134px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_36196989" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.360000000000127" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 22.36px; height: 3.88px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1059px; top: 134px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_95155590" scrolling="no"></iframe> The Estonian list in 3.0 is virtually unchanged from 2.2. They gain an optional 3Bw. The only real decision is whether to base the 4Wb General on a 15mm deep base or opt for the wider deep 20mm base. (Either would be valid under 3.0). The 3.0 Lithuanian list will require a lot more figures as most of the mounted elements have the option of dismounting as 3Bw. However, painting up the 2.2 list would give you a solid start. Just don't bother with the LH General option. In 3.0, the General is Cv only.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 12, 2018 18:53:31 GMT
One week to go. Who is coming? Please Sir! Please Sir! Me, Sir! I'm coming! (At least, that's the plan.)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 10, 2018 15:45:53 GMT
Credit for the data should really go to pawsbill. Denis Grey is simply the middleman.
Menacus Secundus
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 8, 2018 16:33:44 GMT
I hope anyone who is a member of the Society of Ancients will be willing to have the results of their games against other SoA members submitted for inclusion in the 2018 SoA Championship.
Menacus S
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 8, 2018 10:27:13 GMT
No 5 looks a nice figure. Not keen on the two playing hop-scotch.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 2, 2018 10:01:07 GMT
Until now, I have been taking "physically blocked by....terrain" to mean terrain which the element is incapable of entering, of which there is very little (Waterways and perhaps rivers if the element would have to go in sideways on in order to contact the enemy element.)
However, if "physically blocked" includes not having a long enough move, it might make more sense and apply rather more widely. In that case, in the situation which arose in the Northern Cup, the Cv group's movement would have counted as being blocked by the terrain.
Menacus S
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 30, 2018 17:53:49 GMT
Bill am I correct in thinking that any ally used (or elements selected) from the armies available on the Summer DBA PAWS list must fit within the date range 100BC - 1AD? In a similar vein, given that the 3Kn option in the Early Imperial Roman list represents the lancers formed by Trajan, are they allowed?
|
|