|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Mar 24, 2019 12:08:30 GMT
One strategy I use to decipher Barkerese is to rewrite the sentence leaving in only the parts that are relevant to the current situation. So in this situation I would read the rule as: A group move across Bad Going must be in or into column unless entirely by Psiloi So I interpret this as the group move between the Psiloi and the Camels is not possible because the Psiloi are in Bad Going and therefore the only way they can move as a group is if the entire group consists of Psiloi. It's one group so if part of it is across Bad Going then the move is "across Bad Going". Is it realistic? Who knows? Maybe somebody can dig out something from the history books. Even WW1 may give some clues. Cheers Jim If you think of the group in Napoleonic terms then if it wheeled for instance you might have: A battery of guns on the inside. A battalion of infantry in column next. With a regiment of cavalry on the outside.
Each moves as an individual unit, but can make a wheel in rough alignment, refining the aligning when completed, this is not difficult.
The same applies to psiloi and camels, at the junction they try to move together, at the ends they roughly align with the junction.
Now this will work if some are in a wood or not, HOWEVER, the controlling speed is that of the slowest.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Mar 25, 2019 11:59:56 GMT
The Cm thing is a bit of a red herring.
Consider a group of say 1Kn and 2xPs. The Kn is in good going, the 2xPs are in BGo (still they form a group). The rules as written preclude this group to move for 1 pip, which is fine by me.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 25, 2019 12:14:41 GMT
Arnopov,
In the example of the Kn and Ps the different elements are in different terrains rather than treating the same terrain differently. It would indeed be difficult to co-ordinate the movements of these elements in your example given that they probably can’t see each other fully because the terrain boundary separates them and the Knights can’t see into the woods or beyond the dunes etc. Hence multiple PIPs is reasonable.
The reason that the Camels are not irrelevant is exactly for the reasons you point out. They are in exactly the same terrain but just treat it differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 25, 2019 14:46:33 GMT
The Cm thing is a bit of a red herring. Consider a group of say 1Kn and 2xPs. The Kn is in good going, the 2xPs are in BGo (still they form a group). The rules as written preclude this group to move for 1 pip, which is fine by me. Actually Arnopov, you’ve got me thinking. Take your example of a group consisting of a Kn (in good going) and two Ps (in bad going). Why can’t the whole group move for just 1 PIP? The Bad Going Movement rule in the last paragraph on page 12 says:- “A group move by road or across bad (not rough) going must be in or into a column unless entirely by Psiloi.” The part of the group moving across the bad going is being performed entirely by Psiloi... ...and they can do so without the requirement of being in a column. The fact that there is another element (in this case a Kn) in good going is irrelevant... ...they are still part of the same group. Could someone show me where in the rules it says that troops in bad going must form a separate group? It doesn’t. So why do players keep on adding words that are not there? Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 25, 2019 15:09:00 GMT
So what if the Kn in Armopov’s exsmple is a Psloi? Is that still 2PIPs because if the logic applies that if 2Ps and a Cam is 2 groups when they are in the same terrain and 2Ps and a Kn is 2 groups when in different terrains then surely 3 Ps in different terrains are also presumably 2 separate groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 25, 2019 15:22:30 GMT
So what if the Kn in Armopov’s exsmple is a Psloi? Is that still 2PIPs because if the logic applies that if 2Ps and a Cam is 2 groups when they are in the same terrain and 2Ps and a Kn is 2 groups when in different terrains then surely 3 Ps in different terrains are also presumably 2 separate groups.
Seems like this has been talked about in a previous thread.
Here is the link if you want to see what people were thinking:
link
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Mar 25, 2019 15:58:20 GMT
Actually Arnopov, you’ve got me thinking. Take your example of a group consisting of a Kn (in good going) and two Ps (in bad going). Why can’t the whole group move for just 1 PIP? The Bad Going Movement rule in the last paragraph on page 12 says:- “A group move by road or across bad (not rough) going must be in or into a column unless entirely by Psiloi.” The part of the group moving across the bad going is being performed entirely by Psiloi... ...and they can do so without the requirement of being in a column. The fact that there is another element (in this case a Kn) in good going is irrelevant... ...they are still part of the same group. Could someone show me where in the rules it says that troops in bad going must form a separate group? It doesn’t. So why do players keep on adding words that are not there?
Err... You are the one adding words: "part of the group"? The rules is not so ambiguous, it says "A group move ... unless entirely by Psiloi". It's a simple test. Too much paraphrasing and overcomplicating really.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 25, 2019 16:30:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 25, 2019 16:46:48 GMT
But Arnopov you haven’t addressed my point. Camels can group move over dunes and so can Psloi - why not together? Because of the phrase ”across bad going“ but the Camels aren’t crossing bad going - only the Psloi are. The Camels can group move and so can the Psloi. The only reason you say that this is 2 groups is the “entirely by Psloi” clause which applies to the Column and the BG. The Kn & Ps example is a distraction as the component elements of the group are crossing two different terrains.
If you are going to create a false distinction for Vam and Ps then why do you not distinguish between a group moving partly in BG and partly in GG. Following your logic this should also be 2 groups as the Ps group only applies to crossing BG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Mar 25, 2019 16:48:30 GMT
Interesting discussion. I have my interpretation, but rather than offering it, I'd like to propose a related situation that came about in a game recently. A 4Ax element and two mounted elements (say, Cv) form a line, so that the Auxilia is on rough going and the mounted elements are in good going. They want to move forward - in which case 4Ax will move through rough going and the two Cv elements will move through good going.
My question is: what is the movement allowance for this group?
- Is it 2 BW (since Cv are moving through good going, the slowest element is 4Ax, which can only move 2 BW through rough going) or - Is it 1 BW (since the group as a whole is moving through rough going, and Cv can only move 1 BW through rough going)
In other words, if a circumstance reduces the movement allowance of one or more elements that are part of a group, is that reduction applied to the individual element(s) affected, or does it apply collectively, even to other elements in the group?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Mar 25, 2019 17:19:53 GMT
There is no answer. It didn't come up in playtesting so no one asked Phil (which would not necessarily have solved the problem anyway). Remember Phil strongly urges "umpires" to make decisions like American baseball "umpires" a call it as you see it attitude. So my guess would be Phil would allow the Group move as this makes the most real world sense (same for the Knight attached to the Ps). But the rules don't cover it and seem to say the Group must be all Ps.
We can toss it up to the FAQ committee and after a similar exhaustive back and forth, trying to figure out what Phil thought about an issue he hasn't actually thought about we will just make up a ruling so that tournament umpires can make a consistent call. Till then just do what feels correct in the situation.
In our defense I tried to get the US tournament circuit to convert to DBA 3.0 after the rules had been mostly finalized and released to public so that we could have a year of tournament play to stress test the rules and hit on these odd combos hat might need some rule elaboration. Instead they used a set of rules which not even the authors of now play - a complete waste of time.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 25, 2019 17:50:19 GMT
Vic,
For me that is an easier question. I would say Yes it is a group as Rough Going not Bad Going. I would say it moves at the speed of the slowest element which is 2BW for the Ax in Rough Going.
Change the RG to BG and the group cannot include the Ax which needs to move as a single element.
Change the RG to BG and change the Ax to Ps then you have got into the territory that Stevie is debating.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 25, 2019 17:52:45 GMT
There is no answer. It didn't come up in playtesting so no one asked Phil (which would not necessarily have solved the problem anyway). Remember Phil strongly urges "umpires" to make decisions like American baseball "umpires" a call it as you see it attitude. So my guess would be Phil would allow the Group move as this makes the most real world sense (same for the Knight attached to the Ps). But the rules don't cover it and seem to say the Group must be all Ps. We can toss it up to the FAQ committee and after a similar exhaustive back and forth, trying to figure out what Phil thought about an issue he hasn't actually thought about we will just make up a ruling so that tournament umpires can make a consistent call. Till then just do what feels correct in the situation. In our defense I tried to get the US tournament circuit to convert to DBA 3.0 after the rules had been mostly finalized and released to public so that we could have a year of tournament play to stress test the rules and hit on these odd combos hat might need some rule elaboration. Instead they used a set of rules which not even the authors of now play - a complete waste of time. TomT Thanks Tom - that’s what I thought. So in these grey areas how is something referred to a FAQ committee or a pool of a Tournament umpires to achieve some degree of coherence? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 26, 2019 18:32:47 GMT
As a tournament organizer my take on this is based on the rule: "A group move by road, or across bad (not rough) going must be in or into a column unless entirely by Psiloi. " I read this refer to a group move entirely by Psiloi. So, if the Camels and Psiloi are in a line together as a group, then it is not a group entirely of Psiloi and they must pay a PIP for each element. Secondly, "Dunes and Oasis are BAD GOING except to elements of any type with camels. " Thus the Camels can move as a line in the terrain because they treat it as good going. So there can be a line of both Camels and Psiloi but to move it will cost 2 PIPs. One for the Psiloi and one for the Camels.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 26, 2019 20:26:30 GMT
I am 100% with Bob on this. Ever has it been so in DBA...
One thing that makes 3Ax (Thracians) scary is to allow them a group move in line in one difficult hill once per game if fighting on home turf.
In fact I was surprised to NOT see that as an ability for fast troops. Hd(F) would be right terrifying if they moved like Ps in bad going.
They Are Spartacus!
|
|
