|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 9, 2019 23:20:18 GMT
So while the debate rages in the Rants and Raves section about the type of going a river is for combat I require one other River Issue to be resolved by the Fanticiverse - and ideally for them to go into the FAQ afterwards
Crossing a river (P9 Para 3) "Troops crossing a river must continue crossing at the same angle to its course as they enter, or divert by the minimum necessary to line up in combat with an enemy element"
Does this mean that the troops must a) complete the crossing ? or b) can they back out at any time before reaching the far bank?
If the answer is b) then an element can scout the river - putting one toe into the water, and upon discovering that the river is defensible, back out and let the army form a line on the bank.
I did have a follow up question about angled thread zones on elements attempting to cross but have since on more detailed reading (ie the second half of the quoted sentence) has fixed that for me.
For the record - I had always played that rivers were neither good nor bad going for the purposes of combat up until Stevie's debate kicked off. I do find it hard to believe that being waist deep in water does not effect the ability to fight, so side or rear support and being quick killed in good going shouldn't happen. BUT - the phrase "For the purposes of movement" is hard to ignore and I offer my thanks to Stevie for pointing it out.
Certainly I will be ruling so in the future.
Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 10, 2019 0:23:10 GMT
I believe that possibly the idea is that the troops are NOT actually in waist deep water. The only reference to depth is in the description of paltry. This suggest to me water is "not militarily deep". However it is not mentioned in the other two states.
Is it possible that the other two states represent knee-deep water, but with unsteady footing? In other words, chest deep rivers are waterways, and militarily "destroy" elements that enter them?
Personally, I preferred the idea of dicing for the going of a river instead. Then they are good going, rough or bad, depending on a combination of depth, speed of water flow, and obstacles in the river (logs, boulders, etc) as well as height and steepness of banks?
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:27:11 GMT
Personally, I preferred the idea of dicing for the going of a river instead. Then they are good going, rough or bad, depending on a combination of depth, speed of water flow, and obstacles in the river (logs, boulders, etc) as well as height and steepness of banks? I do like this idea. So I'm going to start a thread in the House Rules section on how people would envisage changes to the river rules. It may give the FAQ team something to think about in November. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:57:29 GMT
Crossing a river (P9 Para 3) "Troops crossing a river must continue crossing at the same angle to its course as they enter, or divert by the minimum necessary to line up in combat with an enemy element"
Does this mean that the troops must a) complete the crossing ? or b) can they back out at any time before reaching the far bank?
If the answer is b) then an element can scout the river - putting one toe into the water, and upon discovering that the river is defensible, back out and let the army form a line on the bank. I certainly hope the answer is (b) as it would seem right for scouts to be able to do this in real time. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 10, 2019 5:57:49 GMT
I have always read the rules to mean, if written out in full text rather than Barker succinctness, “If an element continues to cross a river after entering it,
"Troops must continue crossing at the same angle to its course as they enter, or divert by the minimum necessary to line up in combat with an enemy element”
I see no rule that requires an element to continue crossing, once it enters. It can stay, continue or back up following the instructions of the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2019 7:52:08 GMT
I think the FAQ does a pretty good job of answering all of Macbeth’s questions:- Rivers:
Q: When crossing a river for the first time, do I have to test at its near bank?
A: Yes, you test when you first touch the river.
Q: If I don’t have the movement to finish crossing a non-paltry river or I had to stop because
I had moved more than 1BW when I contacted it , do I have to finish the crossing next turn?
A: No.
Q: If an element flees into a river, it is destroyed. Is an element that recoils into a river destroyed?
A: No.
Q: May I deploy in a river?
A: No.
Q: The river in our battle was rolled to be “paltry”. I have an element that needs to move down
it in order to get on the flank of an enemy element. Can I move laterally down the river?
A: No. The river counts as good going for tactical move distance purposes. Group moves are allowed.
The limitations concerning troops crossing at the same angle to its course as they enter and troops
not being able to shoot while in a river still apply. Please note that a fleeing element that enters a
paltry river is still destroyed as well. And although it is very naughty of me, I do have a tendency to convert Phil Barker’s rules into plain English (after all, I want to play a wargame, not solve a cryptic crossword puzzle). So to me:- “Troops in a river can only move straight forwards, straight backwards, or to conform in close combat.” 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 macbeth on Sept 11, 2019 1:00:21 GMT
Thanks Stevie - happy with that
Although I can see rivers starting to crop up in my tournaments again now as a piece of delaying terrain (although the culprits only get a 1 in 3 chance of it being so)
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 11, 2019 1:01:13 GMT
Thanks Stevie - happy with that
Although I can see rivers starting to crop up in my tournaments again now as a piece of delaying terrain (although the culprits only get a 1 in 3 chance of it being so)
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Sept 11, 2019 12:09:06 GMT
For the record - I had always played that rivers were neither good nor bad going for the purposes of combat up until Stevie's debate kicked off. I do find it hard to believe that being waist deep in water does not effect the ability to fight, so side or rear support and being quick killed in good going shouldn't happen. BUT - the phrase "For the purposes of movement" is hard to ignore and I offer my thanks to Stevie for pointing it out. Certainly I will be ruling so in the future. Can we look at this sentence again?
"For movement, a river is neither good nor other going; instead the elements crossing it are restricted by conditions that are constant along its whole length and for the whole game". The first phrase (before the semicolon) is not really a rule, it introduces the actual rule in the second phrase. That first phrase is not strictly necessary, as we already know from the definitions of the various goings that "a river is neither good nor other going", but it makes for anice sentence.
Even if we take that phrase out of its context, as a bona fide rule, we simply get "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going.". That sentence is purely about movement in river. It doesn't say anything about "distant shooting", nor "command distance", nor any other aspects of the rule (like "close combat").
Consider a similar sentence: "The colour of the stem of this plant is green". Does this sentence means that the colour of the leaves of this plant cannot be green? Patently not.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 11, 2019 23:28:17 GMT
But it doesn't say they ARE green simply by virtue of ommission. And more to the point, if rivers are not a type of going (they are a magical twilight zone - not good, not bad, not rough) then they become unplayable. As noted. And as seen in their ongoing absence in tournament games for instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Sept 12, 2019 3:26:51 GMT
And as seen in their ongoing absence in tournament games for instance. This is a rather adventurous assumption. Tournaments require an outcome within a strict time-frame. Since rivers have the potential to seriously extend games before a decision can be reached, I'd say its at least equally likely that rivers are not often used in tournaments due to the likelihood of games ending in an unsatisfying draw. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 12, 2019 3:52:49 GMT
And as seen in their ongoing absence in tournament games for instance. This is a rather adventurous assumption. Tournaments require an outcome within a strict time-frame. Since rivers have the potential to seriously extend games before a decision can be reached, I'd say its at least equally likely that rivers are not often used in tournaments due to the likelihood of games ending in an unsatisfying draw. Aren't you exactly making my point for me, though? DBA seems aimed at giving a quick, complete battle in a reasonable time frame. If not in tournaments, and certainly not in campaigns amd pick-up games for busy gamers with families, exactly when would rivers be worth putting into the game? Never seen Tony film a battle with a river. That , and what you have so correctly pointed out, seems to me to indicate a problem with rivers in the game. And I believe newbies know it too. Ancient armies frequently followed rivers, and frequently fought across them (Trebia). I'd be suspect of an ancient game system in which rivers are likely to give a crappy game. |
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Sept 12, 2019 8:29:33 GMT
This is a rather adventurous assumption. Tournaments require an outcome within a strict time-frame. Since rivers have the potential to seriously extend games before a decision can be reached, I'd say its at least equally likely that rivers are not often used in tournaments due to the likelihood of games ending in an unsatisfying draw. Aren't you exactly making my point for me, though? DBA seems aimed at giving a quick, complete battle in a reasonable time frame. If not in tournaments, and certainly not in campaigns amd pick-up games for busy gamers with families, exactly when would rivers be worth putting into the game? Never seen Tony film a battle with a river. That , and what you have so correctly pointed out, seems to me to indicate a problem with rivers in the game. And I believe newbies know it too. Ancient armies frequently followed rivers, and frequently fought across them (Trebia). I'd be suspect of an ancient game system in which rivers are likely to give a crappy game. No. And I think you are mistaken about the frequency of battles actually taking place across a river, i.e. with opponents on opposite river banks. Rivers, even shallow, easily crossable streams, complicated and delayed manoeuvre and degraded the fighting ability of troops that crossed them. Ancient armies followed them for many reasons - ease of navigation, access to water, flank protection, etc. They were not considered a good place to attack across unless the alternative was disaster. It is interesting that you cite Trebia as an example. Livy says Hannibal deliberately lured the rash Sempronius into attacking across the Trebia, not because he wanted to defend its banks, which were high and overgrown, but because he could deploy his army on favourable higher ground above the river and conceal Mago in ambush on the Roman flank. 54. Between the two armies was a stream, high-banked on both sides and overgrown with marsh reeds and the shrubs and prickles usually found covering wastelands. Hannibal rode around the area and, after seeing for himself that it provided sufficient cover for concealing even cavalry ... But then, chasing the retreating Numidians, they [the Romans] plunged into the water, which had been swollen by overnight rain and came up to their chests. At that point, and especially as they emerged from the river, they all felt their limbs so numb with cold that they could scarcely hold their weapons, and at the same time exhaustion and, as the day progressed, hunger also sapped their strength. [Livy, Book 21, 54.]One final point, again described by Livy: 56. ... Those [Romans] who made for the river were either swept away by the waters, or were caught by the enemy as they hesitated to jump in. ... The Trebia marked the limit of the Carthaginian pursuit of the enemy [Livy, Book 21, 56.]If you do cross a river to fight, the consequences of failure were severe. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 12, 2019 9:27:06 GMT
Alexander’s Phalangites fought in a river at Issus... ...oh they had a hard time of it, but they weren’t totally destroyed. (See en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anabasis_of_Alexander/Book_II/Chapter_X ) If Alexander did it, then why can’t I do the same on the wargames table? It’s bad enough that Cannae can’t be re-fought (because Ax are too weak in DBA)... And Agincourt can’t be re-fought (because Bows are too weak in close combat in DBA)... Now we have Issus can’t be re-fought (because some people want to prevent rear-support in rivers). What other famous and well documented historical battles must I rip out of my history books, just because some people’s interpretation of the DBA rules say they could never have happened? Have we reached the point where the DBA rules have come to replace history? Shouldn’t we be bending the rules to fit history, and not trying to bend history to fit the rules? Anyway, DBA is just a game...so I’m told. So what makes the better game...unplayable rivers, or playable ones? 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 chaotic on Sept 12, 2019 12:48:49 GMT
What other famous and well documented historical battles must I rip out of my history books,
So far, in terms of historical justification, we have seen the following examples: Issus: where Alexander's phalanx was disorganised, almost exhausted, and saved from envelopment by Parmenion's stubborn defence until Alexander's Companions could save the day; and, Trebia, where Hannibal provoked Sempronius into a rash attack across a swollen stream with disastrous consequences for the Romans. These battles just don't provide much support for your arguments. I await further examples with interest. In terms of the DBA rules for rivers, from my perspective I don't consider them unplayable, nor do I agree with the rather exaggerated criticism they have attracted, however I'm happy to play them in any manner my local groups or tournament organisers determine, within the historical context or otherwise.  As you say, its only a game after all. |
|
As you say, its only a game after all.