Here is a question I was asked the other day that I couldn’t answer. Can a camp have curved edges, i.e. be semicircular, and shaped like the letter ‘D’?
Roman camps were certainty squarish or rectangular, with straight edges... ...but what about Greek camps, Barbarian camps, Medieval camps, and wagon laagers?
The obvious advantage would be that an enemy group would have to spend multiple PIPs in order to get two or more elements into contact because of the curves.
BUAs and Plough can have straight edges, while all other terrain pieces must have curved edges. But a Camp is not a BUA or a terrain piece.
All I can find on page 7 is that:- “A camp must be 1 BW x ½ BW and fit into a rectangle who's length + width totals no more than 4 BW.” The fact that it says “and fit into a rectangle” implies that it can have non-linear edges.
(I suppose the safest approach is to have a suitably flocked and decorated straight edged piece of card of the right size to slip underneath a curved camp in case your opponent objects...)
I agree. Nothing in Purple precludes Camps' having a semi-circular shape. Not only for the reason you cited (i.e. a lack of any rubric that requires straight edges), but also because Close Combat against a Camp requires only front edge contact, not front edge and corner-to-corner contact.
So, this delightful Celtic Camp that Eric Donaldson uses with his Ancient British army...perfectly legal.
Guess I never really considered the legality or any advantages game wise of square or curved camp bases. I just go for the best look. As for another player complaining? I don't play tournaments so not really an issue. Otherwise I'd likely just pick up my toys and go home. Life is too short.
As previously noted - no restrictions on camp shapes, as long as they fit the min/max dimensions. I have square, rectangular, ‘D’ shaped, semi-circular....you name it....
The geometric intricacies of groups contacting curved camps and curved BUAs have been around in DBA for a while....an oval BUA is harder for a group to move against than a straight edged one, for example. Two elements can usually hit at a tangent line to the curve, but the third is left hanging in space, and therefore needs another PIP to get to contact. Doesn’t bother me, personally. Just a feature of the geometry.
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I myself am completely ambivalent on the subject.
I certainly wouldn’t object if my opponent fielded a curved camp (although it does give them a very slight advantage over my straight-edged squarish Roman camp...the opposite of reality). On the other hand, how often can a player afford the luxury of sending a whole group of three elements against a mere camp? They usually have far more important things to worry about.
Nonetheless, I shall keep a couple of curved and straight pieces of card ready, for both players to slip underneath their camp should they feel the need to be entirely equal with each other.
Interesting discussion as always stevie. Firstly, I am a big fan of allowing the players to model imaginatively. So the simple size restriction works well. I ignore the temporary/permanent camp followers restriction as unnecessary complication. But should you get a tactical advantage because of the shape of your camp/fort/BUA? One of the objectives of DBA3 was to negate geometrical ploys. I wonder if this was discussed by the development team? I wouldn't mind a work around for this in any future amendments. But as it stands, curves are better! 😉
There was on-going discussion on Camp size and shape when I first joined the development team. I only have part of the conversation... but it looks as if folks didn't want to hinder creative ideas for camps... So, no shape limitations were directly imposed. The wording about camps being square or rectangular was abandoned.
A curved edge really only inconveniences a third element. A very small camp can do the same. I don't think this is an issue.