|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 16, 2019 14:19:35 GMT
After all, what happens if you are recoiled into a river? Can you not back-out as well as go forward? And what about pursuing into a river? Could not the pursuers back-out to resume their riverbank defensive status?
In my opinion, exactly the same: you can only move forward until you're out.
I'm not convinced for now that the phrase "must continue crossing at the same angle to its course as they enter" can be interpreted in a way that includes doing an about-turn and returning to the same bank you came from, or voluntarily move backwards into the river, but I'd be interested in reading an argument for it.
Ah...you are assuming that the word ‘crossing’ means “ must-try-to-reach-the-opposite-bank”. Alternatively I assume that the word ‘crossing’ means “ moving-while-wading-through-the-water”. So the rule has two interpretations: (a) “must continue trying-to-reach-the-opposite-bank by moving straight forwards only." (b) “must continue moving-while-wading-through-the-water either straight forwards or straight backwards." (i.e. at the same angle as it entered the water, no matter the direction)DBA is a positional set of rules, where the location and orientation of an element conveys important information. But our elements have no memory...they don’t remember how they got to that location, just that they are there. In my defence the FAQ does say “ Q: Do I have to finish the crossing next turn? A: No.” And having recoiling or pursuing troops unable to move backwards out of a river, when they can do so out of a Threat Zone (unless engaged) is frankly ridiculous.
(But I have been known to allow common sense to override the rules when necessary...)  |
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Jul 21, 2019 16:18:23 GMT
I don't want to create a new thread, but I have one question regarding the combat in a river.
Is a "partly" river considered as Good Going in close combat? For example, will the Cavalry element destroy Psiloi if they lose combat in the partly river? The same question for the slow crossing river.
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jul 21, 2019 16:42:31 GMT
I don't want to create a new thread, but I have one question regarding the combat in a river. Is a "partly" river considered as Good Going in close combat? For example, will the Cavalry element destroy Psiloi if they lose combat in the partly river? The same question for the slow crossing river. Hi zendor;
I think this thread might answer your questions:
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Jul 21, 2019 18:12:54 GMT
I don't want to create a new thread, but I have one question regarding the combat in a river. Is a "partly" river considered as Good Going in close combat? For example, will the Cavalry element destroy Psiloi if they lose combat in the partly river? The same question for the slow crossing river. Hi zendor;
I think this thread might answer your questions:
Thanks nangwaya! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 21, 2019 20:22:08 GMT
Now I know this is going to cause an argument, well I’m sorry but I totally disagree. A river should have NO effect on combat (apart from the riverbank bonus), and here’s why:- (By the way, I like to call them ‘streams’, ‘shallow rivers’, and ‘deep rivers’)Firstly, it’s in the rules.Page 6 paragraph 9 specifically says “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going” For movement...not combat. So what going is a river? Well, it’s not listed under Bad Going, nor under Rough Going. And if it’s not Bad, and not Rough, then it must be Good (except for movement). Secondly, for play balance purposes.Why should side and rear support be denied to Spears, Pikes, Warbands and Light Horse, when no other troop type suffers any penalty? (apart from Bows not being able to shoot). Either penalise ALL troops for being up to their crotch in water, or none of them. Don’t pick and choose, and make some elements invincible defending a riverbank, and make others utter crap when in the water. Thirdly, for historical reasons.We in the 21st century, sitting in our comfy armchairs, think we know all about ancient warfare, and it might seem logical to us that Pikes and Spears would be ‘discomforted’ when in a river... ...yet for some unknown reason not Blades, nor Auxiliaries, nor Psiloi, nor Hordes, nor mounted. Well tell that to Alexander as he fought his way across the Granicus and Issus rivers! He did it, and with Pikes. So why can’t we do the same? DBA is a set of wargames rules trying to simulate real life behaviour. So try sending Pikes with a combat factor of 3 against combat factor 5 troops, with a +1 as well for defending a riverbank, and see how far you get! CF 3 v CF 6...half of them will be dead after just one round of combat! Does that sound like the battles of Granicus or Issus? Ah, but allow them to use their side and rear support, then these battles play out as the ancient historians said they did. No doubt an ancient warrior would laugh at the notion that troops in a river fight at full strength... ...but he would also laugh at the notion that ‘fast’ troops move at the same speed as heavy mounted. DBA is a simulation of ancient warfare...so which simulates it best? Having side and rear support when in a river, or making it impossible to fight your way across? I’ll let you decide. 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 j on Jul 21, 2019 21:50:50 GMT
Not to muddy the waters (sorry...) but tonight's game threw up some new stuff.
1. The Invader chose to deploy his troops with an element of Ax & Ps already beyond a Rv. Can he do this?
If he can, does he immediately dice for Rv type (Paltry or otherwise) before the Defender takes the 1st bound?
2. When crossing Rv at an angle in an enemy TZ can the element change direction to just line up with that enemy
if they cannot make contact & therefore combat?
Regards,
j
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Jul 22, 2019 10:33:57 GMT
Now I know this is going to cause an argument, well I’m sorry but I totally disagree. A river should have NO effect on combat (apart from the riverbank bonus), and here’s why:- (By the way, I like to call them ‘streams’, ‘shallow rivers’, and ‘deep rivers’)Firstly, it’s in the rules.Page 6 paragraph 9 specifically says “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going” For movement...not combat. So what going is a river? Well, it’s not listed under Bad Going, nor under Rough Going. And if it’s not Bad, and not Rough, then it must be Good (except for movement). Secondly, for play balance purposes.Why should side and rear support be denied to Spears, Pikes, Warbands and Light Horse, when no other troop type suffers any penalty? (apart from Bows not being able to shoot). Either penalise ALL troops for being up to their crotch in water, or none of them. Don’t pick and choose, and make some elements invincible defending a riverbank, and make others utter crap when in the water. Thirdly, for historical reasons.We in the 21st century, sitting in our comfy armchairs, think we know all about ancient warfare, and it might seem logical to us that Pikes and Spears would be ‘discomforted’ when in a river... ...yet for some unknown reason not Blades, nor Auxiliaries, nor Psiloi, nor Hordes, nor mounted. Well tell that to Alexander as he fought his way across the Granicus and Issus rivers! He did it, and with Pikes. So why can’t we do the same? DBA is a set of wargames rules trying to simulate real life behaviour. So try sending Pikes with a combat factor of 3 against combat factor 5 troops, with a +1 as well for defending a riverbank, and see how far you get! CF 3 v CF 6...half of them will be dead after just one round of combat! Does that sound like the battles of Granicus or Issus? Ah, but allow them to use their side and rear support, then these battles play out as the ancient historians said they did. No doubt an ancient warrior would laugh at the notion that troops in a river fight at full strength... ...but he would also laugh at the notion that ‘fast’ troops move at the same speed as heavy mounted. DBA is a simulation of ancient warfare...so which simulates it best? Having side and rear support when in a river, or making it impossible to fight your way across? I’ll let you decide. 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
There are some rules, which applies only in good going (e.g. rear/flank support). But can we say with confidence that the paltry river is good going? Of course, movement and combat are very interdependent, troops fight worse in a case they move worse and visa versa. So, we can logically continue: if a paltry river is good going for movement it will be also counts as good going in combat, why not? But on the other hand, If we won't treat paltry rivers as good going, of course we will lose all rear/flank support factors etc, but we will get some troops which cannot be destroyed easily. E.g we will get long lines of Pikes standing in a ankle-deep stream without rear support which will be more resistant vs. Knights. Both variants are worthy and have their own logic. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 22, 2019 12:10:38 GMT
Yes, it is true that some players still insist that side and rear support is lost in rivers,
even though:-
* it’s not what the rules say (“For movement, a river is neither good nor other going” )...
* it unbalances the game (Sp and Pk have to swim, but Bd can miraculously walk on water)...
* it goes against history (Alexander’s Pk couldn’t possibly have fought their way across a river,
and those ancient historians who said he did must all be lying)...
And why do they insist on this?...
...because they deliberately choose to misinterpret the intent of the river rules.
Well I myself prefer to use rivers...not make them unplayable.
Can we please have this sorted, one way or the other, in the next FAQ,
and finally slay this old chestnut once and for all?
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 22, 2019 15:42:02 GMT
Firstly, it’s in the rules.Page 6 paragraph 9 specifically says “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going” For movement...not combat. So what going is a river? Well, it’s not listed under Bad Going, nor under Rough Going. And if it’s not Bad, and not Rough, then it must be Good (except for movement).
I think your argument breaks down in that last sentence. A river is not any going, it's ... a river. Not everything in DBA has a "going" characteristic (WW, BUA, Rivers ...). Now, because the TACTICAL MOVE DISTANCES top of page 9 requires a "going", it is necessary to explicitely describe the river exception, hence that “For movement, a river is neither good nor other going” phrase. The various combat chart do not require a "going", and therefore no explicit description of the river exception is necessary. It really is quite simple (and has been like that since at least 2.0, I assume earlier, as it also worked like that in DBM)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 22, 2019 16:40:21 GMT
The various combat chart do not require a "going", and therefore no explicit description of the river exception is necessary. It really is quite simple (and has been like that since at least 2.0, I assume earlier, as it also worked like that in DBM) Hmmm...I’m not so sure about that Arnopov. Page 11, “Rear Support Factors”:- “These apply when elements have another friendly element of the same type lined-up directly behind them and facing the same direction, and both are in good going.” Also on page 11, “Flank Support Factors”:- “Some “Solid” elements add +1 when in frontal close combat in good going against enemy foot...” This then raises the important question (and it is a legitimate question)...what going is a river for combat? It all boils down to one of two choices:- 1) allow Sp and Pk to use side and rear support, and let them fight their way over a river, or, 2) cripple Sp and Pk, and rivers become uncrossable (unless you happen to have Blades or mounted). |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 22, 2019 17:32:17 GMT
My point exactly! The rules you quote work perfectly well for river, that are not of any going. As the river is not good going, the bonus do not apply. (This is not the case for the move distances rules, which depend on the "going" characteristic, hence the clarification for movement in river). Sure, it's not great for Sp or Pk, but neither is RGo. DBX rules have been like this for ages. Having had a cursory look at DBMM, it looks like Rv are given a going there, but it seems to be at least RGo (the only exception for narrow rivers being GGo near the sea -40cm in DBMM terms, ~20/14 cm in DBA terms I reckon, although this scaling is debatable-). All pretty consistent. PS: And I have learned a new word in the process, "in spate". Cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 22, 2019 22:02:25 GMT
Ha! It’s my turn to say “My point exactly!”.  The rules you quote work perfectly well for river, that are not of any going. For Movement only...As the river is not good going For movement only, the bonus do not apply. Oh yes it does..You are using the rule on page 6 paragraph 9 that says:- “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”, and trying to apply it to combat. Yet it specifically and quite clearly says for movement...NOT for combat.I am sure that Phil Barker in his own mind is fully aware of his river ruling, and that he wants rivers to be ‘Good Going’ for combat purposes. That is why he deliberately said “For movement” only. And if rivers are just good going for combat, there would be no benefit in trying to defend one, which is is why he added the +1 riverbank defensive bonus. But he never intended to cripple certain troops (but not others) by stripping them of their side and rear support, and then in addition add a +1 river bonus as well, in order to make rivers unplayable! Mr Barker has a great knowledge of ancient history, and is a very clever creator of rules... ...and he knows full well that Alexander the Great fought his way over rivers with Pikes... ...but he never realized that some of the players using his rules would misinterpret his words. This river thing has been argued over, and resolved, many times already in the past. Here are the “Rules Clarifications for the Alton DBA Matched Pair Tournament”, dated April 2016:- RIVERS
• Tactical movement in a river must be directly forwards or backwards, except that an element may divert by the minimum necessary to line up in close combat with an enemy element. • Elements may recoil into or out of a river. A fleeing element which enters a river is destroyed. • Flank or rear support IS permitted whilst in rivers, unless part of the element is in rough or bad going.
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 22, 2019 22:36:11 GMT
You are using the rule on page 6 paragraph 9 that says:- “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”, and trying to apply it to combat. Yet it specifically and quite clearly says for movement...NOT for combat.Absolutely not, there is no need to use that rule to make combat work in river.
Rivers are not of any "going" because they are not defined as being of a "going", that's all (early paragraphs on p6).
For combat, the base variable depends simply on the nature of the opponent (foot/mounted). The "going" act as modifier (or enabler of certain bonus, side support, rear support). No "going", no modifier. Not so for movement, where the base variable depends on the "going", which is why that sentence "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going" is necessary, if only to introduce the way movement works in rivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jul 22, 2019 22:57:40 GMT
Sure I read somewhere about a gamer saying a spell or something affecting the entire table as it said all units in terrain.
The rules said something about what each type of terrain was and that the rest of the table was classed as open terrain so gamer argued the table top was all terrain.
I am just a simple man but is everything classed as good going unless there is a rule that says otherwise?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 22, 2019 23:01:18 GMT
So Arnopov, you want to make it impossible for Alexander to win the battles of Granicus and Issus...even though he did. Shouldn’t we be bending the rules to fit reality...and not bending reality to fit the rules?  (Not that any bending is necessary in this case.
Rivers are not listed under Bad Going, nor are they listed under Rough Going.
And if they’re not Bad, and they’re not Rough, then they must be Good...except where it says for movement.
Either that or rivers are unplayable!). Whatever interpretation you prefer, THIS NEEDS TO BE IN THE NEXT FAQ! Let's get it resolved, one way or the other. |
|
