|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 22, 2018 9:49:12 GMT
Tom, I don’t know what you mean when you say Phil never mentioned that he planned to create a third type of terrain. He certainly did create rough terrain when in the past, There was only good in bad going, Plus of course river going. He was just careless when he did not re-write the text for camels in oasis and dunes. In the past it was not bad going and the only other choice was good as they were obviously not a river. When he created rough going he had to make a lot of changes, but I guess he just forget this one and nobody noticed it. Which means the players have to decide, I guess. I'm okay with that, but once they have decided, then I think they have to be consistent and not flip-flop between the two. So if it's Good Going, it's Good Going for move distance, second moves and combat, and if it's Rough Going, it's RG for move distance, second moves and combat. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2018 12:53:37 GMT
Except of course for paltry rivers, for example? Or a sacked camp? Can you sebsequent move through a sacked camp?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 22, 2018 14:29:18 GMT
Except of course for paltry rivers, for example? Or a sacked camp? Can you sebsequent move through a sacked camp? No, because those cases are covered by the rules and the players are not deciding for themselves how they should be treated. Paltry rivers can be passed through as if good going (p9) whether this is the first move or a second or subsequent move and count as neither good nor other going (p6) for the purposes of combat or combat outcome. A sacked camp "ceases to have any defensive or other value" (p7), so movement through it - whether an initial move or a subsequent one - is in the Good going in which the camp was placed at the start of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 22, 2018 18:47:34 GMT
Except of course for paltry rivers, for example? Or a sacked camp? Can you sebsequent move through a sacked camp? No, because those cases are covered by the rules and the players are not deciding for themselves how they should be treated. Paltry rivers can be passed through as if good going (p9) whether this is the first move or a second or subsequent move and count as neither good nor other going (p6) for the purposes of combat or combat outcome. A sacked camp "ceases to have any defensive or other value" (p7), so movement through it - whether an initial move or a subsequent one - is in the Good going in which the camp was placed at the start of the game. This is actually covered by the FAQ... Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2018 19:54:30 GMT
So....bad or rough going has a "value" Joe?
Sorry, I never fully interpreted "ceasing to have defensive or other value" as meaning it is now good going. "Going" and "value" I would have thought were different concepts. Not saying it is bad to treat camps as good going, and as you point out, the FAQ has now ruled on it, but I first read the status of a sacked camp to mean (a) you cannot reenter it and claim the defensive bonus, and (b) the opponent can't keep re-sacking it for additional element count. What else could "value" mean? This is, as I understand it, the only place in the rules where "value" is used to imply "terrain effects"... It could have been just as consistent to treat a sacked camp as rough going, for instance. I am not opposed to it being made into good going, but it is an example where the language seems to have been dropped a bit.
And paltry rivers are passed through as if good going. But as pointed out, they are not good going for combat. And they cause death to fleeing elements... I fail to follow your point about consistency, menacussecundus.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 22, 2018 22:27:15 GMT
So....bad or rough going has a "value" Joe? Sorry, I never fully interpreted "ceasing to have defensive or other value" as meaning it is now good going. "Going" and "value" I would have thought were different concepts. Not saying it is bad to treat camps as good going, and as you point out, the FAQ has now ruled on it, but I first read the status of a sacked camp to mean (a) you cannot reenter it and claim the defensive bonus, and (b) the opponent can't keep re-sacking it for additional element count. What else could "value" mean? This is, as I understand it, the only place in the rules where "value" is used to imply "terrain effects"... It could have been just as consistent to treat a sacked camp as rough going, for instance. I am not opposed to it being made into good going, but it is an example where the language seems to have been dropped a bit. And paltry rivers are passed through as if good going. But as pointed out, they are not good going for combat. And they cause death to fleeing elements... I fail to follow your point about consistency, menacussecundus. It's quite simple, primuspilus - or at least I think it is. Where the rules specify, one follows the rules. Paltry rivers are dealt with in the rules, as are sacked camps. However, as Bob has pointed out, the rules do not make it clear whether Camelry should treat dunes and oases as Good Going or Rough Going, only that they do not treat it as Bad Going. This means the players have to decide which it should be. I said that I didn't have a problem with this, provided that the choice was applied consistently throughout the game and didn't flip-flop between the two. This is a purely personal preference on my part. Those who wish to flip-flop are free to do so - at least until there is a FAQ that settles the point. |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 23, 2018 11:48:53 GMT
Now I realize that we are discussing how DBA treats (or should be treating) camelry based on interpretation of the wording of the rules and that the real world is of minor value in reaching conclusion on rule interpretations (aside from reassessing the classifications of hypaspists or Spartans or how modify the combat results for horse archers).
However the fact that when adding dunes and oasis to the BAD GOING category Mr. Barker exempted camelry from suffering the negative movement and combat effects of BAD GOING would seem to indicate that he was aware that in any discussion of camels it is noted that their feet are so constructed that sand dunes have little impact on their mobility - in essence for camelry dunes and oasis are in fact GOOD GOING. And that the reason that they suffered no impact on their combat was due to that fact (rather the opposite of stevie's argument).
Therefore I don't see it as an oversight by Mr. Barker when he made no change in making the revisions that led to DBA 3 - it was already adequately covered.
As an aside, I have visited the Great Sand Dunes National Monument and based on experience can state that for a human walking in that sand is a major effort. With a ground pressure over four time that of a man a horse must also find in difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 24, 2018 3:20:25 GMT
So....bad or rough going has a "value" Joe? Sorry, I never fully interpreted "ceasing to have defensive or other value" as meaning it is now good going. "Going" and "value" I would have thought were different concepts. Not saying it is bad to treat camps as good going, and as you point out, the FAQ has now ruled on it, but I first read the status of a sacked camp to mean (a) you cannot reenter it and claim the defensive bonus, and (b) the opponent can't keep re-sacking it for additional element count. What else could "value" mean? This is, as I understand it, the only place in the rules where "value" is used to imply "terrain effects"... It could have been just as consistent to treat a sacked camp as rough going, for instance. I am not opposed to it being made into good going, but it is an example where the language seems to have been dropped a bit. And paltry rivers are passed through as if good going. But as pointed out, they are not good going for combat. And they cause death to fleeing elements... I fail to follow your point about consistency, menacussecundus. Phil's sometimes "sparse" style makes us hunt for meaning. Sometimes we interpret his editorial additions or flavor text as rules. Sometimes, they are rules. Sometimes they are not. Maybe the interpretation is part of the fun of it... or not. Yes, a sacked camp reverts to good going unless it is an edifice being used as a camp. The FAQ cleared this up quite early. Sue's book quite nicely verified our ruling. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 26, 2018 22:30:19 GMT
My point was that Phil did not intend (or didn't mention it) that he intended to create a third type of terrian other than Good (ie the NULL type not good, bad or rough). I agree with Joe re Phil's style and with goragard that when Phil says "not Bad Going" he means Good Going.
It would have been better to say Dunes & Oasis are Bad Going except that Camel's treat them as Good Going for all purposes. That's why we are taught to draft rules in a positive rather than a "Not" format.
TomT
|
|
