|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 11, 2019 22:59:08 GMT
Is there a reason why an edifice (BUA) cannot be placed on and combined with a larger hill feature in the same way that a city or fort can?
I'm picturing a temple on a hill. Common enough.
By the letter of the rules, this doesn't appear permissible.
?
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Oct 11, 2019 23:05:13 GMT
You can model a temple on a hill, but the hill would be part of the edifice
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 11, 2019 23:14:58 GMT
So the whole feature (not 2 combined) would just count as EDIFICE = BAD GOING. In which case, is there anything stopping me putting the temple on a steep hill - just for appearance - even if steep hills are (for some reason) not part of the army's terrain in the rules? e.g. Jurchen-Chin = FOREST. No steep hills allowed. (But there are LOTS of steep hills in Northeast China.)
So it's a temple modelled on a steep hill that counts as an EDIFICE. All good?
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Oct 12, 2019 8:37:15 GMT
I think you are fine modelling the edifice any way you want, because it will still be an edifice and count as succh and the steep hill is part of the window dressing.
If you poke around searching for images of edifices on the 'net, you can find some quite interesting pieces that people have come up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 12, 2019 11:30:32 GMT
Thanks. Yes, now that I think about it, I recall seeing a few camps over the years derived from edifices placed on the defender's table edge to good effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Oct 12, 2019 13:26:58 GMT
So the whole feature (not 2 combined) would just count as EDIFICE = BAD GOING. In which case, is there anything stopping me putting the temple on a steep hill - just for appearance - even if steep hills are (for some reason) not part of the army's terrain in the rules? e.g. Jurchen-Chin = FOREST. No steep hills allowed. (But there are LOTS of steep hills in Northeast China.)
So it's a temple modelled on a steep hill that counts as an EDIFICE. All good?
All good.
But, of course, as it counts as EDIFICE, not STEEP HILL, there would be no uphill combat bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 12, 2019 21:44:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 12, 2019 23:54:36 GMT
That's the business!
I'm thinking Chinese temples, but that Western example is stunning. Where is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 13, 2019 0:45:33 GMT
That's the business!
I'm thinking Chinese temples, but that Western example is stunning. Where is it?
In Michigan... Bob's guest house! You gotta see his main digs... Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 13, 2019 2:37:51 GMT
That's the business!
I'm thinking Chinese temples, but that Western example is stunning. Where is it?
In Michigan... Bob's guest house! You gotta see his main digs... Joe Collins I bet his shed is similarly stunning!  |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Oct 13, 2019 3:22:14 GMT
Snowcat - The chapel of Saint-Michel d'Aiguilhe (St. Michael of the Needle), Le Puy-en-Velay, Auvergne region, France.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Michel_d'Aiguilhe"
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 13, 2019 3:26:48 GMT
Thanks. I think I want to visit there!
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 13, 2019 7:31:39 GMT
I must admit I'm liking the option to use an EDIFICE as a CAMP. There's up to 36cm (edifice as camp) vs up to 16cm (normal camp) to play with (maximum L+W) in 15mm.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 13, 2019 14:08:38 GMT
I must admit I'm liking the option to use an EDIFICE as a CAMP. There's up to 36cm (edifice as camp) vs up to 16cm (normal camp) to play with (maximum L+W) in 15mm. Edifice as Camp- ruling was it has to be ‘camp sized’ to do so (in the FAQs??), as there were clever ways to abuse the idea otherwise...(eg long camp with artillery in, reaching right into the board) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 13, 2019 17:31:27 GMT
You are correct Martin...yes, the FAQ says that for an edifice to be a camp, it must meet the camp size restrictions. This makes the use of Edifice Camps a bit awkward, to say the least. Here is something that I posted some months ago:- I suppose that technically the sequence should be as follows:- First, pick a camp sized bad going Edifice BUA during terrain selection... Secondly, place it so that it touches a table edge or a waterway edge... Then, if it happens to be the back edge of your deployment area, you can convert it to a camp. (Think of it as placing your camp on top of the camp sized Edifice BUA)However, personally I find all this a bit convoluted. If my opponent wants to use an Edifice Camp, I have no objections. Place it like an ordinary camp. To me an Edifice Camp is just a fancy looking camp (albeit one that becomes bad going if sacked). But there shouldn't be two Edifices...either an Edifice BUA or an Edifice Camp, not both. I like to keep things simple, and a camp is just a camp, no matter how pretty it looks... (and I’ve always thought that even ordinary camps should become rough going when destroyed...
...after all, those ditches, palisades, tents, and other impediments are not going to just disappear.
The slowed movement merely represents the victors digging around for booty as they sack the place,
or the victors using what's left of the defences for their own purposes)
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
