|
|
Post by kaybee on May 30, 2018 13:20:56 GMT
In a recent game my opponent deployed a maximum sized waterway. 4BW deep for half the table and 3BW deep for the remainder.
As the attacker I chose the side with the waterway as my base edge.
(I know I cant have the side opposite the waterway but can choose any of the other 3)
It was only when I tried to deploy my army that I found there was insufficient room. The army was Mongols, with 11 mounted (40mmx30mm) and 1 artillery unit(40mmx40mm).
The 2 rectangles available for deployment were 20mmx220mm and 60mmx220mm. The first is too shallow for mounted troops, the 2nd only big enough for 10 elements!
Is this a deliberate consequence of the rules or an oversight?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 30, 2018 13:43:12 GMT
In a recent game my opponent deployed a maximum sized waterway. 4BW deep for half the table and 3BW deep for the remainder. As the attacker I chose the side with the waterway as my base edge. (I know I cant have the side opposite the waterway but can choose any of the other 3) It was only when I tried to deploy my army that I found there was insufficient room. The army was Mongols, with 11 mounted (40mmx30mm) and 1 artillery unit(40mmx40mm). The 2 rectangles available for deployment were 20mmx220mm and 60mmx220mm. The first is too shallow for mounted troops, the 2nd only big enough for 10 elements! Is this a deliberate consequence of the rules or an oversight? I can't comment on whether this is deliberate or oversight (I suspect the former as careful thought went into the rules I believe). This is one reason why it is generally not a good idea to deploy with your back to a waterway. Another is that you are destroyed if you recoil when already backed up against it. Regards Simon |
|
|
|
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 kaybee on May 30, 2018 13:50:35 GMT
I chose to deploy on that side because I could then limit where my 'Littoral' opponent could put his 2to3 elements.
The risk of a pushback into the waterway is small as the whole army can move forward in their first turn.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaybee on May 30, 2018 13:52:22 GMT
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. This seems like a reasonable compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by kaybee on May 30, 2018 14:31:41 GMT
Since originally asking this question I have found this in the Wiki rules variants: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Waterway_Deployment"In the event that a player elects to deploy his army with its back to a waterway, only to realize the waterway's depth and configuration make a legal deployment of all elements impossible under the DBA 3.0 deployment rules, then the player may adjust the position of the waterway by the minimum amount needed to affect a legal deployment of the full 12 element army." This seems reasonable. Is it usually accepted in tournament games? |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 30, 2018 14:43:39 GMT
Since originally asking this question I have found this in the Wiki rules variants: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Waterway_Deployment"In the event that a player elects to deploy his army with its back to a waterway, only to realize the waterway's depth and configuration make a legal deployment of all elements impossible under the DBA 3.0 deployment rules, then the player may adjust the position of the waterway by the minimum amount needed to affect a legal deployment of the full 12 element army." This seems reasonable. Is it usually accepted in tournament games? It would certainly be accepted at the Bakewell and Britcon Tournaments that I run. Regards Simon |
|
|
|
Post by kaybee on May 30, 2018 16:36:38 GMT
It would certainly be accepted at the Bakewell and Britcon Tournaments that I run. Thats good to know as I'm going to Bakewell! I'll see you there |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 30, 2018 16:46:48 GMT
It would certainly be accepted at the Bakewell and Britcon Tournaments that I run. Thats good to know as I'm going to Bakewell! I'll see you there Great - what is your real name so that I can check I have you down. PM me if you want to keep this secret! Simon |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 30, 2018 19:51:54 GMT
Amazebobs again, we have been playing water ways like roads and if one is placed it becomes the side of the table and you can only attack or defend along the side not the deploying edges. Not sure I make sense as I type this but hopefully it is close enough to reality for most to work it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 31, 2018 19:27:04 GMT
I personally think waterways are allowed to be too wide anyway. 3 Base widths and 2 widths should replace the 4 and 3. What is the sense of taking so much battlefield space with impassable terrain? Their main purpose is to be a launching space for littoral landings.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 31, 2018 23:22:01 GMT
I suspect that the width of waterways was on oversight when terrain was redefined in DBA3 in BW terms.
My own take on the Waterway issue when using one that would make deployment for my opponent is to openly declare that
1) My opponent cannot put the WW behind me
2) If placed on his rear edge he will not be able to legally deploy
I use this as a ploy when using my Scots armies as this gives me a narrower front for an army with lots of Pk and so therefore a shorter frontage.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 1, 2018 6:56:19 GMT
I personally think waterways are allowed to be too wide anyway. 3 Base widths and 2 widths should replace the 4 and 3. What is the sense of taking so much battlefield space with impassable terrain? Their main purpose is to be a launching space for littoral landings. Some players may want a narrow field to anchor a flank. You can negate the effect of the width by increasing the board size. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the effect on the deployment area. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jun 1, 2018 7:13:22 GMT
Could not the General commanding the army with its back to the waterway issue wellingtons, rubber rings and snorkels to his troops?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 1, 2018 7:15:52 GMT
We use the 80 x 80cm (20BW x 20BW). A waterway placed at the rear of an army still leaves a deployment zone of 12BW x 3BW; more if you have light troops and cavalry in that army. |
|
