|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 18:31:31 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. The point is Primuspilus is that although there is rule stating that Ps can only group move with Ps in Bg,in this case dunes or Oasis, yet there is another rule that Cm find Dunes and Oasis GG.Therfore the Ps and Cm BOTH can Group move through Dunes or Oasis and that it is "Common sense" that both should be allowed to do so without penalty as both despite their BG or GG status are free to do so.It does not alter or effect their command,cohesion nor slow their movement so there really isn't any real reason apart from the wording of a rule which did not consider such a situation arising. Ok it may not be acceptable under the stoic adherance to rule as written at present...but clearly arguable that this should be considered by FAQ and maybe tested for future consideration of inclusion? |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 27, 2019 19:02:33 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. The point is Primuspilus is that although there is rule stating that Ps can only group move with Ps in Bg,in this case dunes or Oasis, yet there is another rule that Cm find Dunes and Oasis GG.Therfore the Ps and Cm BOTH can Group move through Dunes or Oasis and that it is "Common sense" that both should be allowed to do so without penalty as both despite their BG or GG status are free to do so.It does not alter or effect their command,cohesion nor slow their movement so there really isn't any real reason apart from the wording of a rule which did not consider such a situation arising. Ok it may not be acceptable under the stoic adherance to rule as written at present...but clearly arguable that this should be considered by FAQ and maybe tested for future consideration of inclusion? Well what if we ignore the Cm? Suppose they were Cv in good going in line with the Ps in bad going? Would that be 1 or 2 pips? I would say 2. Even though the ps are picking their way through the bad, they will likely not be able to maintain much cohesion with the cv.. I’m in the 2 camp, and would go with the ref’s interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 19:56:51 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)  Sorry Bob the rules are not clear as by previous admissions in this thread it IS an oversight and there are two rules which overlap here. Ps are dispersed skirmishers who fight in no real formation but in clusters and even though in any going are not effected in any way by the terrain and can choose to fight in lines if there are two or more elements...correct so far? Cm are effected by BG other than Dunes and Oasis that they by their nature can move through as normal with no effect and can form lines if in two or more elements....again correct so far? However,the rule on the first line of the last paragraph on page 8 of the rules states "A group move by road,or across bad(not rough) going must be in or into a column unless entirely by Psiloi".Which I must admit is clear in these circumstances that only a group of Ps are allowed to move in line through bad going unless in column...again correct?...but we know it's not...Cm can move in line through certain BG can't they...so the rule is flawed as it is disputed by another rule....isn't it?So sticking to the rule clearly says is not supported here...there is a contradiction. On your other point you admit Ps can move through Bg in line and that Cm can move through dunes in line...but not together. why...the rule on page 8 says they cant...but have we not just pointed out that rule is contradictory? Do Ps or Cm come under any cases in the movement that state they need an extra pip to move in any circumstances?....no. So where is the logic or common sence in preventing two troop types from moving together?It is GG to the Camels even though they are still in BG and even though the Ps are in BG there is no impediment to them moving as normal in line...apart from the wording of a rule that was devised without considering such a situation could arise. Lastly, Historically there could be evidence supporting such behaviour...what if the Midianite Camelry with 2 riders were not due to attrition by the Assyrians but were in fact Camel archers with supporting light archers that piggy-backed into battle to fight on foot?...simular to the practice by Early German Skirmishers with German Cavalry.😊 |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 27, 2019 20:38:54 GMT
Greedy - you ask “Well what if we ignore the Cm? Suppose they were Cv in good going in line with the Ps in bad going? Would that be 1 or 2 pips?” As I said in earlier posts this is a totally different scenario as this crosses two different terrain types. I can understand that co-ordinating movement across the interface WOULD be difficult with problems of visibility, sending orders etc. Agree this is 2 PIPs in this situation is appropriate and nobody is arguing otherwise.
The case with Cam and Ps is different because the terrain is common to both and the ability to group move is established foreavh component individually but the ability to group move together is questioned because one set of elements can group move the the single terrain type because of reason A and the other because of reason B and this issue was never identified or discussed in play testing.
Logic dictates that is X=Y and Y=Z then X=Z. So if any number of Ps can group move through Oasis and Dunes and any number of Camels can do likewise then why can’t they do this together? Nobody has yet come up with an explanation why not apart from “because that is the way I choose to read PB’s infallible words.” Which appears to me to be an act of blind faith rather than reason, logic and historical evidence.
If there is a good reason then for the rule then point to it and discuss the evidence. If I am guilty of “flat earth” thinking then prove my thinking wrong through reasoned argument. I’m up for the challenge. But please don’t stick to dogma and received wisdom - even if the period we wargame is pre- Reformation our thinking shouldn’t be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 20:45:14 GMT
I totally agree Paddy.
My short explanation is that the rule that everyone is sticking to is misguiding at the very least..Ps are not the only troops that can Group move in BG as Cm can Group move in Dunes which are BG...the rule contradicts itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2019 21:09:33 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? A lot of troop types can move their entire movement allowance in Bad going. But they cannot form groups either with themselves or Psiloi. I'm assuming that PB is considering more than just movement with his restrictions. In this situation, maybe at the height of a man, the Dunes block LOS at the tactical level so co-ordination is not possible? After all, Dunes do limit command distance. I think the difference between Good and Bad going is important. Take the deployment situation, where there is a large Dunes piece on your flank. If you deploy your army in a line and two Camel elements extend into the Dunes. Then with 1 PIP the entire army can move forward. Completely within the rules. But if it were two Psiloi then it would take 2 PIPS. Again, completely within the rules. Now what happens in a similar situation but there are now 2 Psiloi on the flank of the two Camels but still within the Dunes? Can the army move forward for 1 PIP? What if the 2 Psiloi were the hinge joining the rest of the army to the troops in Dunes and the Camels extended the line into the Dunes? In my opinion, to solve this problem, it would take a major change, i.e. Psiloi consider all terrain Good going. This would be radical but would be clear for all situations with all troop types. However, I think this is too big a change. But I can certainly see the logic behind the points raised by you and paddy649. Like all things with this game, small fixes may have unintended consequences. So I'm with the literal interpreters of this rule currently. I hope medievalthomas gets his tournament data to help analyse these situations further. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 27, 2019 22:18:20 GMT
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? A lot of troop types can move their entire movement allowance in Bad going. But they cannot form groups either with themselves or Psiloi. I'm assuming that PB is considering more than just movement with his restrictions. In this situation, maybe at the height of a man, the Dunes block LOS at the tactical level so co-ordination is not possible? After all, Dunes do limit command distance. I think the difference between Good and Bad going is important. Take the deployment situation, where there is a large Dunes piece on your flank. If you deploy your army in a line and two Camel elements extend into the Dunes. Then with 1 PIP the entire army can move forward. Completely within the rules. But if it were two Psiloi then it would take 2 PIPS. Again, completely within the rules. Now what happens in a similar situation but there are now 2 Psiloi on the flank of the two Camels but still within the Dunes? Can the army move forward for 1 PIP? What if the 2 Psiloi were the hinge joining the rest of the army to the troops in Dunes and the Camels extended the line into the Dunes? In my opinion, to solve this problem, it would take a major change, i.e. Psiloi consider all terrain Good going. This would be radical but would be clear for all situations with all troop types. However, I think this is too big a change. But I can certainly see the logic behind the points raised by you and paddy649. Like all things with this game, small fixes may have unintended consequences. So I'm with the literal interpreters of this rule currently. I hope medievalthomas gets his tournament data to help analyse these situations further. Cheers Jim Would there be any difference if Ps counted all terrain as Good Going? I hope I've shown the litteral interpretation of the rules is flawed...the rule that is being quoted again and again is that only Ps can Group move with only other Ps through Bad Going.This in most cases is true but not in Dunes and Oasis as Cm,although in Bad Going count it as Good Going which is a direct contradiction to the rule as written. This leaves us with two rules that essentially overlap and two troop types that can essentially move the same way in any formation through the terrain yet thay cannot because the adherance to the flawed rule. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 28, 2019 0:24:58 GMT
Fine. Go for it. You are feee to play that Cm and Ps can group move across dunes, desoite not being entirely of Ps, because to Cm, they are good going.
Then you put down 2 dunes and an oasis for your Cm-heavy army. I say you still need a diffiult hill or rocky. Because Dunes and Oasis are GOOD going to Cm, and you are required to put down a bad going or rough going piece. So sorry, no purely desert boards if you have any Cm.
That is the logical extension of your argument here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 28, 2019 5:19:44 GMT
Fine. Go for it. You are feee to play that Cm and Ps can group move across dunes, desoite not being entirely of Ps, because to Cm, they are good going. Then you put down 2 dunes and an oasis for your Cm-heavy army. I say you still need a diffiult hill or rocky. Because Dunes and Oasis are GOOD going to Cm, and you are required to put down a bad going or rough going piece. So sorry, no purely desert boards if you have any Cm. That is the logical extension of your argument here. I dont dispute placing terrain with any camel army although tbere are a few camel heavy armies out there.I only questioned the validity of stopping a group move of combined Ps and Cm.If the home terrain for some camel armies is dry then they have to make the compulsory choice of Rocky or Scrub which is Rough going,or they can choose a Hamlet as a BUA which is also Rough...placing a board of only dunes and Oasis is not a valid choice. |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 28, 2019 6:15:38 GMT
As to the height of a man determining intervisibility in maintaining cohesion for the group move with PS and CM, a man on a camel is much easier to see and to be able to see than a man on the ground. It would have to be extremely rough dunes to prevent the units from coordinating.
As medievalthomas has had more experience in dealing with Mr. Barker than many if not most of us, I am inclined to go with his 'guess' as to Mr. Barker's response to the question. I remember other questions where answers were based on 'real world sense' rather than 'rules lawyering.'
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 28, 2019 6:51:00 GMT
I think the difference between Good and Bad going is important. Take the deployment situation, where there is a large Dunes piece on your flank. If you deploy your army in a line and two Camel elements extend into the Dunes. Then with 1 PIP the entire army can move forward. Completely within the rules. But if it were two Psiloi then it would take 2 PIPS. Again, completely within the rules. Now what happens in a similar situation but there are now 2 Psiloi on the flank of the two Camels but still within the Dunes? Can the army move forward for 1 PIP? What if the 2 Psiloi were the hinge joining the rest of the army to the troops in Dunes and the Camels extended the line into the Dunes? Jim Thanks Jim - very good point. I don’t have an answer to that. Which leaves us in a situation where we either: continue to allow Camels to combine with troops on GG and stop them combining with Ps, allow them to combine with Ps but add an extra restriction to stop them combining with troops in GG (ugly), come up with a new either/or type restriction (ugly) or allow the hinge type behaviour you mention (not pretty and would require historical justification which I haven’t got - yet). Does this place us in “least worst” territory? Now my head really hurts! |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 28, 2019 7:02:05 GMT
primuspilus - can’t be done as RG is mandatory in Dry. Besides all Cam or LCam armies won’t worry about group moving with Ps! And if there are Ps in the mix then the terrain wouldn’t be all GG for all units anyway unless....we have the change that Ps treat BG as GG rather than being allowed to move through BG in a group.......which is all hypothetical anyway because point 1 - it can’t be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 28, 2019 9:44:44 GMT
I think the difference between Good and Bad going is important. Take the deployment situation, where there is a large Dunes piece on your flank. If you deploy your army in a line and two Camel elements extend into the Dunes. Then with 1 PIP the entire army can move forward. Completely within the rules. But if it were two Psiloi then it would take 2 PIPS. Again, completely within the rules. Now what happens in a similar situation but there are now 2 Psiloi on the flank of the two Camels but still within the Dunes? Can the army move forward for 1 PIP? What if the 2 Psiloi were the hinge joining the rest of the army to the troops in Dunes and the Camels extended the line into the Dunes? Jim Thanks Jim - very good point. I don’t have an answer to that. Which leaves us in a situation where we either: continue to allow Camels to combine with troops on GG and stop them combining with Ps, allow them to combine with Ps but add an extra restriction to stop them combining with troops in GG (ugly), come up with a new either/or type restriction (ugly) or allow the hinge type behaviour you mention (not pretty and would require historical justification which I haven’t got - yet). Does this place us in “least worst” territory? Now my head really hurts! My head always hurts when I open the "purple". I can live with the situation that Psiloi cannot easily co-ordinate with the Camels because of the height of the dunes and the speed of camels makes this difficult. As Oasis and Dunes are "blocking" terrain, it is a plausible solution. No idea about the historical accuracy. That way I can go and get an aspirin and get back to more terrain projects. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Mar 28, 2019 10:36:50 GMT
I think this would be an excellent question to submit for the next Q&A update.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Mar 28, 2019 15:00:07 GMT
Do camels get the pip penalty when in dunes/oasis?
Simon
|
|
