|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 26, 2019 21:20:00 GMT
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. Is that a RULE? I don't see it! That's pretty awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 26, 2019 23:26:08 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. Bob, As I said from the outset I can see both sides of this and so I understand where you are coming from. However, your assessment is based purely on the words on the purple book (which is OK and understandable) rather than offering any context to justify the assessment......and that is what gets me. Had you said......I don’t know, something like “This ruling simulates the fact that Camels are very smelly when crossing sand dunes and do Skirmishers can not possibly move in co-ordination with them without additional command input.” Then we could have a more meaningful debate. Without this justification your ruling is rather hollow and lacks any justification. Now as a Tournament organiser you DO have the ability to resort saying “My tournament, my interpretation!” Which again is OK but takes us into the realms of making up the rules of a mere game rather than creating a historical simulation of war (even if at a high level of abstraction) in a wargame. I this case it would probably lead me to move the Camels and Psloi as a single group and then burn a PIP in competition and to ensure harmony. I just return to the earlier observation that this probably never came up during play testing and so got left hanging and now we are scrabbling to justify concepts that were initially missed. If so what us the mechanism for clarifying FAQ or making amendments? We probably need one. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 27, 2019 0:24:24 GMT
I disagree, Paddy. First off, this is DBA 3.0. Not DBL, or DBK, or some other version. There is a LONG and consistent history of how DBA was played. The DBA rules have NEVER, in their history been comprehensive. Otherwise they'd be 50-60+ pages of rules, and I for one would NEVER play it. Advanced Third Reich had fewer pages!
Everyone who has played DBA consistently since 1.0 understood this is the way groups moved. This arose out of Phil's own insistence that the "the players need to use common sense". That was code-speak for "you guys go sort it out, and come to a consensus, I am too focused on DBM and DBMM to care nowadays". The designer himself has described DBA's success as "embarrassing".
The DBA 3.0 was never intended to be a fully comprehensive set of rules. Although PB claims it is, he still expects players to "work it out" in a way that is practical. Allowing Cm and Ps to group move together across sand dunes would be a radical departure from DBA. His intent was to "upgun" Ps a tad, and one way of doing that, given that they had had their multiple, unlimited first bound move (from 2.2) taken away, was to compensate them with the overlap rule, and the group move in bad going in line abreast. Given that skirmishers tended to operate independently, I am inclined to not even allow them group moves with other troop types, let alone allow them to be coordinated perfectly with line troops, in tough visibility and terrain conditions!
Coordinating skirmishers on bad going hilltops to maintain formation with troops in an adjacent good going valley would, I submit, be challenging. Not impossible. Just 2 PIPs in stead of 1...
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 27, 2019 0:26:06 GMT
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. Is that a RULE? I don't see it! That's pretty awesome.
I use it for campaign games whenever I invade Thrace. It allows a modicum of "ambush"... It is fun, and scares the crap out of a HI army...
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 27, 2019 2:56:27 GMT
Is that a RULE? I don't see it! That's pretty awesome.
I use it for campaign games whenever I invade Thrace. It allows a modicum of "ambush"... It is fun, and scares the crap out of a HI army...
I love the idea of a faction specific “super move” that no other faction can do. Impossible to do for all the armies, but still neat  |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 5:58:59 GMT
I disagree, Paddy. First off, this is DBA 3.0. Not DBL, or DBK, or some other version. There is a LONG and consistent history of how DBA was played. The DBA rules have NEVER, in their history been comprehensive. Otherwise they'd be 50-60+ pages of rules, and I for one would NEVER play it. Advanced Third Reich had fewer pages! Everyone who has played DBA consistently since 1.0 understood this is the way groups moved. This arose out of Phil's own insistence that the "the players need to use common sense". That was code-speak for "you guys go sort it out, and come to a consensus, I am too focused on DBM and DBMM to care nowadays". The designer himself has described DBA's success as "embarrassing". The DBA 3.0 was never intended to be a fully comprehensive set of rules. Although PB claims it is, he still expects players to "work it out" in a way that is practical. Allowing Cm and Ps to group move together across sand dunes would be a radical departure from DBA. His intent was to "upgun" Ps a tad, and one way of doing that, given that they had had their multiple, unlimited first bound move (from 2.2) taken away, was to compensate them with the overlap rule, and the group move in bad going in line abreast. Given that skirmishers tended to operate independently, I am inclined to not even allow them group moves with other troop types, let alone allow them to be coordinated perfectly with line troops, in tough visibility and terrain conditions! Coordinating skirmishers on bad going hilltops to maintain formation with troops in an adjacent good going valley would, I submit, be challenging. Not impossible. Just 2 PIPs in stead of 1... But would not the "common sence" application here be that you have two troop types who by different parts of the rules have the ability to funtion the same independantly and without hinderance?I dont agree that the command issue would be any different specifically for either Ps or Cm in dunes or oasis as it does not apply to either elswhere. The Ps being allowed to move in line is specifically a rule that that troop type does not find that terrain a obsticle and can function normally,same for the camels who do not find it an obsticle at all...maybe a few words could be added to the line which states that if the group is entirely of Ps...or other troops that count the going as good? It seems that the moving of Cm and Ps together has not been forseen and is one of those events that did not surface in play testing.Instead of trying to impose a penelty to do so why not treat it on its merit and allow it?To pay the extra pip is like saying that because a group of Ps and Line move into and through a piece of terrain they suddenly become more difficult to command and move...which is not the case...its as if they become like Elephants and Horde etc. and need the extra pip...which in "common sence" which is also not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 27, 2019 7:13:16 GMT
That was code-speak for "you guys go sort it out, and come to a consensus......he still expects players to "work it out" in a way that is practical. Allowing Cm and Ps to group move together across sand dunes would be a radical departure from DBA. His intent was to "upgun" Ps. Coordinating skirmishers on bad going hilltops to maintain formation with troops in an adjacent good going valley would, I submit, be challenging. Not impossible. Just 2 PIPs in stead of 1... Primuspilus - I can’t really add much more to Haardrada’s coments on the Common Sense solution. But to address 4 of your comments above: If we are to come to a consensus and work it out - what is the mechanism for doing this apart from slavish adherence to a scene of words that never addressed the issue being discussed in the first place. If the intent is to upgun Ps then allowing them to properly support Camels in Dunes (a rare terrain type and a rare element) would help (albeit very marginally) not hinder this intent. “A radical departure.” Radical - really. As Haardrada points out how can Common Sense ever be regarded as being radical? Co-ordinating Skirmishers on Bad Going hilltops with adjacent troops in a valley WOULD be difficult because it is 2 different terrains and there would be visibility issues. This should cost 2 PIPs. But we are not talking about that situation. We are talking about co-ordinating Skirmishers and Camels moving next to each other through the same terrain type that both find it easy to move through. A very different scenario. Logic alone indicates that if a line of 6 Ps can co-ordinate their move through Dunes then a couple of Ps and a Camel will also do this with the same ease. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 11:00:18 GMT
I would add that the nature of the rule allowing only Ps to move as a group (or other than column) in such terrain is to reflect the difficulty they (other troop types) would have remaining in cohesion in such terrain...since Cm nor Ps do not have such difficulty why impose restrictions?
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2019 11:38:11 GMT
I think that it is important to remember that the Psiloi are still in BAD GOING whilst the Camels are in GOOD GOING. It's not quite true that both elements are in the same terrain. Psiloi are penalised by being only able to form a Group with other Psiloi.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 27, 2019 15:43:46 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. Bob, As I said from the outset I can see both sides of this and so I understand where you are coming from. However, your assessment is based purely on the words on the purple book (which is OK and understandable) rather than offering any context to justify the assessment......and that is what gets me. Had you said......I don’t know, something like “This ruling simulates the fact that Camels are very smelly when crossing sand dunes and do Skirmishers can not possibly move in co-ordination with them without additional command input.” Then we could have a more meaningful debate. Without this justification your ruling is rather hollow and lacks any justification. Now as a Tournament organiser you DO have the ability to resort saying “My tournament, my interpretation!” Which again is OK but takes us into the realms of making up the rules of a mere game rather than creating a historical simulation of war (even if at a high level of abstraction) in a wargame. I this case it would probably lead me to move the Camels and Psloi as a single group and then burn a PIP in competition and to ensure harmony. I just return to the earlier observation that this probably never came up during play testing and so got left hanging and now we are scrabbling to justify concepts that were initially missed. If so what us the mechanism for clarifying FAQ or making amendments? We probably need one. "Your assessment is base purely on the words on (sic) the purple book..." !? Of course my assessment is based on the rules. I have no idea how those troops called Psiloi actually acted or what camels smell like I just play by the rules as I read them (and taking into account how others interpret them). I put my faith in Phil Barker's model of ancient warfare as he expresses it in the rules he writes. Do I really need any justification beyond the rules? If you want to discuss what the rules say, let's do so. Sorry that "gets you." If you want to discuss what actually happened on battlefields 2000 years ago, count me out, in this forum. I'll just take Phil's view on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 15:49:33 GMT
I think that it is important to remember that the Psiloi are still in BAD GOING whilst the Camels are in GOOD GOING. It's not quite true that both elements are in the same terrain. Psiloi are penalised by being only able to form a Group with other Psiloi. Cheers Jim With respect Jim,I find it hard to beleive a unit of the nature of Ps being that they are in open order and forming a "cloud" rather than a rigid formation..be penalised by not being able to form a group with a troop type? If they were formed up like on the Potsdam parade ground or a more looser formation then fair enough...but the very nature of their mass allows them to move freely in all terrain...unhindered.So why is there a need to impose any restriction on them at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 16:01:09 GMT
Bob, As I said from the outset I can see both sides of this and so I understand where you are coming from. However, your assessment is based purely on the words on the purple book (which is OK and understandable) rather than offering any context to justify the assessment......and that is what gets me. Had you said......I don’t know, something like “This ruling simulates the fact that Camels are very smelly when crossing sand dunes and do Skirmishers can not possibly move in co-ordination with them without additional command input.” Then we could have a more meaningful debate. Without this justification your ruling is rather hollow and lacks any justification. Now as a Tournament organiser you DO have the ability to resort saying “My tournament, my interpretation!” Which again is OK but takes us into the realms of making up the rules of a mere game rather than creating a historical simulation of war (even if at a high level of abstraction) in a wargame. I this case it would probably lead me to move the Camels and Psloi as a single group and then burn a PIP in competition and to ensure harmony. I just return to the earlier observation that this probably never came up during play testing and so got left hanging and now we are scrabbling to justify concepts that were initially missed. If so what us the mechanism for clarifying FAQ or making amendments? We probably need one. "Your assessment is base purely on the words on (sic) the purple book..." !? Of course my assessment is based on the rules. I have no idea how those troops called Psiloi actually acted or what camels smell like I just play by the rules as I read them (and taking into account how others interpret them). I put my faith in Phil Barker's model of ancient warfare as he expresses it in the rules he writes. Do I really need any justification beyond the rules? If you want to discuss what the rules say, let's do so. Sorry that "gets you." If you want to discuss what actually happened on battlefields 2000 years ago, count me out, in this forum. I'll just take Phil's view on that. Bob there are two rules here that really overlap each other, that Ps only group move with othe Ps in BG and that Cm count that type of BG as GG so both troop types are unrestricted in that type of terrain.,its common sence that needs applying. It is an oversight in the rules that was not picked up in playtesting and should be submitted to FAQ. Are there any rules for guidence on this in DBMM?How would this sittuation be covered by those rules? |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 27, 2019 17:09:24 GMT
There is plenty of guidance ... in DBA v1 through 2.2.
And what part of "unless entirely by Ps" is confusing? A group is either entirely Ps or it is not.
In my games, you can't group move across bad going unless you are entirely of Ps. Cm and Ps is not entirely "of Ps". Ps do NOT treat dunes as good going. Cm do. But dunes are NOT good going just because Cm enjoy frollicking in them. Bad going is Bad going is Bad going.
Otherwise, by the logic being argued, if you put out an army with a Cm, I can force you to NOT deploy an oasis and a dune. Why? Because there HAS to be at least one patch of bad or rough going.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 27, 2019 17:36:51 GMT
If you want to discuss what actually happened on battlefields 2000 years ago, count me out, in this forum. I'll just take Phil's view on that. Bob, For me historical representation is exactly what differentiates a wargame from a mere game......otherwise we may just as well play chess - which is an excellent game but has almost nothing to do with warfare. If, as you recommend, we are to adhere completely to Phil’s understanding of Ancient warfare, which greatly exceeds my own - where do I go to find it? How do we assure ourselves that the rules as interpreted are what he intended rather that hiding any omissions or oversight? How do we offer reasonable challenge? Given I mentioned chess - I note that the rules of chess are not static but have a procedure and body to govern them with the latest rule change being introduced in 2001 (the 50-move rule). So it would apprear that chess is more open to challenge and embracing of change than DBA. Is this where we want to be as a community? If so - fine! DBA remains a cracking game regardless of how Ps and Cam move in BG. Just don’t bother with a forum that discusses rules if there is no discussion to be had. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 27, 2019 18:19:28 GMT
There is no oversight here. The rules are clear. In this case, there is a piece of terrain, bad going dunes. A line entirely of Ps in it can move for a single PIP. Camels in this terrain are not restricted by bad going rules, so a line of them can move for a PIP. The piece of terrain does not turn into good going. So for the Ps it is bad going and they must act accordingly. Camels and Ps cannot form a single line for moving. The Ps form one line and move in bad going, and the camels form another and act as if they were in good going. Attaching an element to Camels in a Dunes terrain does not make the attached element take on camel characteristics. So a couple of camels in a line with a Cv attached on one end does not allow the whole line to move for a PIP. The Cv is in bad going and cannot move as group in a line with other elements. Seems like that "change" in the rules of chess has to do with tournament play. Not the mechanics of the game. When did they change last? Anyway, I do not understand the question, "Phil’s understanding of Ancient warfare ... where to I go to find it?" You find it in the rules. You do not worry about how camels smell or other aspects of history, you accept Phil's view as expressed in the rules. I do not try to understand why a line of Ps moves for a PIP in bad going, I accept it as part of Phil's model of ancient warfare. If I do not understand how a rule is supposed to work, I ask others for opinions, but not based on what they think happened in history, but how the rule reads in conjunction with other rules in the game. I do enjoy learning about history, but I do not let it interfere with how I read the game. Other authors have theories about how ancient warfare worked maybe better theories than Phil's (how to know), they have rules too. Most are too complicated for me to follow, so I stick with DBA. For me, the best rules are those I know (mostly) |
|
