when are you in terrain

That is a bit of a controversial subject I’m afraid Baldie.
All I can tell you is how I interpret things (although I should warn you, just about everything I post nowadays seems to cause arguments!).

Yes, what you say is generally true. However, there are a lot of exceptions.
(The numbers below in square brackets refers to the page and paragraph where the original rule can be found)

Rivers: these only affect movement [6.10], and only if the front-edge is in or enters water [9.2].
They do not affect close combat except for bank bonus [6.10 & 11.3], and BUA’s can also claim bank bonus [7.1].
They do not affect support, pursuit, or recoiling [FAQ], but fleeing troops entering any river are destroyed [12.8].
However, they do affect shooting [10.4].

Camels: these treat Dunes and Oasis as good going for all purposes, including fleeing [6.7].
Therefore, camels must also have a command range of 8 BW even when in such terrain [8.7].

Groups in Bad Going: you can form groups in bad going, but group moves are not possible unless in column or all psiloi [8.12].
Note you can also form groups with mixed allies and non-allies, but again movement will be limited [8.11].

Flank Support: if the troops receiving the support are entirely in good going, and not assaulting, sacking or defending a City, Fort or Camp, add +1 when in frontal close combat against enemy foot [11.2]. Note that the rule does not say that both elements must be in good going, like rear support does, but only those in frontal close combat.

Marshes and Gullies: troops partly in a marsh cannot shoot [10.4]. Troops entirely in a gully cannot shoot or be shot at [10.4].
Pursuers will pursue into marshes and gullies [12.9], and fleeing troops will flee into marshes [12.7].

----and now the controversial bits----

Fleeing: troops flee at the speed of the going they start in [12.6], but stop if they meet bad going they are not already in [12.7].
However, fleeing troops that meet a marsh, and fleeing Ps and LH that meet new bad going, do not halt [12.7].
Therefore, any troops that start in good going flee at full speed though rough or marsh without slowing, and Ps and LH that also start in good going flee at full speed through any kind of rough or bad going without slowing.
(Yes, I know what you’re all going to say, but read what’s written in the rules)

Command Distance: 20 BW if entirely Light Horse. Otherwise, it is 8 BW, but is reduced to 4 BW for troops entirely
beyond the crest of any Hill, beyond a BUA or Camp, on a Difficult Hill, or in or beyond a Wood, Oasis or Dunes [8.7].

Now some people don’t apply the word ‘entirely’ to all the items that follow it. And some people like me do.
If you do, then the wording is very similar to that used to describe the PIP cost immediately above it.
If you don’t, then just having a corner inside a wood or difficult hill will reduce your command range to 4 BW.
It will also do the same if the troops were in good going, but one corner were out of sight behind a terrain piece.

Everywhere else in the rules, every other situation is clearly noted as being either ‘partly’ or ‘entirely’ in or out.
But the command distance rule on page 8 only mentions ‘entirely’ once in the whole sentence.
Make of it what you will.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

Also, while the FAQs can provide interpretations, they are not the rules per se. That is to say, it is quite possible that they, too, could evolve.

Ha!…well done macbeth and primuspilus. You both out-manoeuvred me. 
I was expecting an argument about LH fleeing through rough and bad going at full speed.
Or the use of the word ‘entirely’ in the Command Range rule.
I didn’t expect a debate about camels and rivers.

So let’s start with macbeth.

Yes, personally I agree with you about camels having a command range of 4 BW in oasis and dunes.
Indeed, that is how I phrased it in those “Detailed Crib Sheets for DBA 3.0” that I put in the Fanaticus Wikipedia.
I even added the words “4 BW if sight blocked by…” as I thought that would make things easier to understand.
But when I gave a copy of those crib sheets to a colleague earlier this year, he objected and accused me of adding stuff that wasn’t in the rule book.

As I remember it, the accusation went something along the lines of rule 6.7 saying oasis and dunes are not bad going for camels, so camels ignore the effects of oasis and dunes, and that means ignoring their command range limitations as well. And if Phil Barker wanted camels to have their command range reduced in these types of terrain, he would have said so in rule 6.7, or in rule 8.7 by saying “…or in or beyond a Wood, Oasis or Dunes, even for camels.”
But he didn’t, so I must be adding stuff that isn’t there. And I found this argument very hard to refute.

I still think he is wrong…but it has sown the seeds of doubt in my mind that I might have misinterpreted things.
Until the FAQ team comes up with a definite ruling, there will be players that interpret this rule differently.


Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

Hey Stevie, I'll celebrate just a wee bit. I don't get to beat you too often!

My only comment is: you should have seen how bad rivers used to be under 2.2! It is entirely possible Phil meant exactly what he wrote in DBA 3. Not saying it is great, and you DO raise good arguments. But I would not be shocked by Phil meaning exactly this.

The flip side is, I do not recall Kn or SCh being particularly effective in rivers either - horses didn't typically seem to relish charging into rivers, so "hiding" in a river seems an interesting tactic for vulnerable foot to adopt. If I were a Ps or Ax I would definitely prefer to be in a river facing Kn or Cv, than in an open plain. And the issues with moving into/out of rivers would likely encourage any such "hiding" to be limited in number. Again, DBA abstraction at work... Perhaps the "in" vs "on the bank" of the river are not so clearly delineated. By the way, are you saying it was possible for a shield wall or pike phalanx to maintain formation while crossing a river in the face of enemy attack?

Parking Pike "in" the river seems like a viable challenge to me. I recall reading that at Issus, Alexander was highly worried about the bowfire of the Persian Takabara or Kardakes. This is an elegant way to simulate the challenges faced by his Phalanx crossing the river. They did eventually succeed, possibly by luck, but it was a tough and costly fight.

Of course, when you park your Pk in a river, you better pray my Classical Indians aren't within easy bowshot, as you may be hard pressed to remain in place under a hail of arrow fire. Also, I could use Ps to keep you pinned, and if you try to leave, I can have my Kn ready to ride you down. Mind you, if you leave the river, you are +5 vs Kn defending the bank, so it isn't exactly a slam dunk for me.

It is a great tactical issue for you: hide IN the river, and lose bonuses, or defend the river BANK, and enjoy the +1, and have me struggle with maintaining attack trajectory, paying for column moves, etc... Sounds like a fun gaming decision to me.

By the way, I honestly am not convinced that forcing a river against opposition was ever very easy. You needed to have a way to pin his key forces in a blockading position, while your scouts try to break across the river ups or downstream, and screw up his defences.

Hey Stevie, no need for apologies. It all adds to the brilliance and fun of the Stevie and Primuspilus show!

I seem to recall a more general reference regarding rivers being neither good nor bad going in the terrain and deployment section, but I'd have to confirm this.

Bob, if they were rough or bad going, Fast foot would cross at full speed, no? Or was Phil intending to create two categories of bad/rough going? I am pretty sure that Phil did NOT intend Ps to jaunt across rivers at the same speed as they run across rocky ground? That said, it wouldn't shock me to get corrected on this...