|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Nov 20, 2017 17:55:44 GMT
How do people interpret "uphill" for determining combat modifiers?
I think in practice I use a heuristic along the lines of "an element is uphill if its center point is on the hill, and is closer to the center of the hill than every part of the opposing element." - this treats many cases of elements contacting obliquely across the elevation gradient as "not uphill".
But the language of the rules here is surprisingly vague in my view.
I also find it interesting that the rules refer to a "ridge line" for blocking line-of-sight, but I don't usually see such lines in pictures of terrain from other players.
(I play DBA mostly solo, or with non-experienced players. Mostly out of shame for not having a painted army :-) Working on it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 20, 2017 18:52:23 GMT
Michael:
Welcome to DBX. No shame in working with the "non-experienced" we are always trying to draw people into DBX.
The sentence you are looking for is on Page 6: "All hills slope up to a centre line crest and give a close combat advantage if part of an element's front edge is upslope of all of its opponent." Now what it all means is another question. Where this center line crest is (esp on a round hill is anyone's guess). You could draw one on with a sharpy or use "ridge like" hills that seem to have clear center line (but what about fighting sideways on the hill? does anyone get the bonus?) Next we get to "part of an element's front edge is upslope of all of its opponent". Do "flankers" count as opponents? So if I have a side to side overlap (presumably on the same "level" as the defender) does that count as an "opponent" not upslope? Hard Flankers? Do corner Overlapers count? Since "opponent" is singular I'm guessing it means only the element in front edge contact. So I insert "opponent in front edge contact".
"Part of an element's front edge" seems to suggest that if you part on part off the Hill you still get the bonus. Likewise if your fighting at an angle and part of your base is "uphill" but part angles down you still get the bonus since your upper corner (+1mm of front edge) is higher than any part of the "opponent" even though part of the opponent's front edge is higher than most of your front edge as it angles down the hill.
At home just work something out with your opponent(s). For tournaments check with an opponent who sets out a Hill where they think the crest is and how to do "angled" combats and combats where the contacting edges are perpendicular to the ridge line. If they seem clueless (for very good reasons) then check with the game master. They, if like me, will also be clueless but will cleverly disguise this state with firm rule asserations.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 21, 2017 16:20:49 GMT
One approach I have adopted is to adapt the definition from Sam Mustafa's Aurelian rules. This is that to be uphill you need to be entirely on the hill and your enemy must be only partly on it. No crests or centre points or anything. keeps it simple.
Regards
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Nov 21, 2017 16:59:48 GMT
For us we solved the uphill problem in the following ways :
If one is partially outside the hill, you need to get more than half of the front edge on the hill to get the bonus.
If both on the hill, we give the bonus to the one which is nearer the central point of the hill.
these ways solve crest issue and hill with no crest.
It is working without anyone shouting :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Nov 21, 2017 17:37:32 GMT
One approach I have adopted is to adapt the definition from Sam Mustafa's Aurelian rules. This is that to be uphill you need to be entirely on the hill and your enemy must be only partly on it. No crests or centre points or anything. keeps it simple. Regards Simon Hmm, that's a nice mechanic. Simple to express and works cleanly for small hills. How do you handle line-of-sight for shooting? |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 21, 2017 18:42:08 GMT
Good question! Usual 1/2 BW limits for difficult hills. For gentle hills, no restriction if you are shooting/being shot at and are on the hill but you can't shoot across the hill if you and the target are both off the hill and you have to trace a LOS over it.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 28, 2017 17:36:21 GMT
All great suggestions but for tournament play the rule is any higher point makes you "up hill".
When setting out a Hill you should indicate its highest point if a conical hill or ridge line if rectanglar. Marking them in some way helps.
TomT
|
|
|
|
"uphill"
Nov 28, 2017 19:40:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Nov 28, 2017 19:40:16 GMT
I always thought the clearest way to show the hight of a hill was to mark a thin line or dotted line to mark the crest and placing a small dot or cross to mark the center point.😊
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 29, 2017 0:06:54 GMT
Be careful of using the centrepoint definition of uphill, as opposed to centre line. With the centre point definition, gentle hills become Stalingrad-style bunkers... With the crest definition, as written in the rules, the hill orientation becomes a key factor in its use. The game already allows for hill fortifications. The rules as written allow for outmaneuvering a hill defence.
Besides, crestline is the official rule...
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 29, 2017 21:51:35 GMT
It may be wise to drop conical hills and just require a defined crest line on all hills.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 29, 2017 22:33:31 GMT
So if you approach a hill perpendicular to the crest line there is no slope - so does that make it a cliff (impassable)? or level with the clear ground? If the latter then how does the crest get above the level of the clear ground.
As I drive to work each day I pass a number of hills that do not conform to the DBA Terrain rules - they do not have an 80 pace gap between them and they seem to slope upwards all around. I suppose that very few ancient battles were fought in the vicinity of Greenway, Australian Capital Territory. I am hoping that when I get to travel more broadly I will see that terrain in Europe, Asia, Northern Africa and the Americas will conform to the rules.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 29, 2017 23:04:39 GMT
So if you approach a hill perpendicular to the crest line there is no slope - so does that make it a cliff (impassable)? or level with the clear ground? If the latter then how does the crest get above the level of the clear ground. As I drive to work each day I pass a number of hills that do not conform to the DBA Terrain rules - they do not have an 80 pace gap between them and they seem to slope upwards all around. I suppose that very few ancient battles were fought in the vicinity of Greenway, Australian Capital Territory. I am hoping that when I get to travel more broadly I will see that terrain in Europe, Asia, Northern Africa and the Americas will conform to the rules. Cheers Absolutely agree, Macbeth...... M |
|
|
|
"uphill"
Nov 30, 2017 0:35:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by primuspilus on Nov 30, 2017 0:35:41 GMT
What the hill looks like in real life is irrelevant, I reckon. You will find a ton of ancient battle sites that had hills that didn't fit into 400 pace x 320 pace rectangles either. Heck I'd even be willing to bet ancient armies didn't consist of exactly 12 precisely defined rectangular field units either.
The crestline hill is designed to provide attack avenues otherwise unavailable due to the geometric limitations of trying to reflect the chaos, terror and confusion of ancient battle, using little toy men attached to small rectangles moving around on a piece of felt in specific, frequently artificial ways.
And if hills have a conical centrepoint, a couple blades or a doubled Pk phalanx becomes virtually unassailable in certain match ups. Why would I leave my hilltop?
Hills work WAY better if holding them is only feasible from certain orientations. Want a hillfort? Select one as a BUA...
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Nov 30, 2017 9:59:06 GMT
Just like Ruffles, DBA has ridges...
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Nov 30, 2017 15:45:16 GMT
Hills work WAY better if holding them is only feasible from certain orientations. Very interesting, this is a subtlety that I had missed. |
|
