|
Post by stevie on Jan 9, 2020 10:00:31 GMT
Oh, I would just like to follow on from my previous post...what going is a river for combat? Answer: We don’t know, as the rules don’t say.
But although the rules don’t say what they are, they do say what they are not. And they cannot be ‘neither good nor other going’ for combat, as that condition only applies to movement, not combat...so they must be something else. And treating them as the other Linear Terrain (i.e. they are the going of the terrain they pass through, like roads) ticks all the right boxes.
But if this interpretation is so good, why don’t people accept it? I’ll tell you why...it’s because they want to desperately cling to their modern day preconceived notion that ALL rivers, no matter how shallow they are, must ALWAYS strip away any kind of support, even though this:- * is in direct opposition to the rules (“For movement” only it says)... * is contradicted by the historical accounts (Alexander’s pikemen at Issus)... * knackers pikes in rivers (who need a CF of 6 just to survive)... * treats ancient generals as idiots (as they can NEVER find an easier crossing point)... * and if rivers are ‘neither good nor other going’ for combat, you get all sorts of weird daft river effects (such as hiding IN a river to avoid being quick-killed by knights, and being IN a river in bad going is better than trying to defend the riverbank).
So I’m afraid my gang totally reject the FAQ Team’s rule change concerning rivers...because we are not restricted by any preconceived notions, and are prepared to look at the evidence and playtest rivers to find the best solution for both DBA as a game and as an historical simulation of ancient warfare.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 9, 2020 10:08:46 GMT
Do you sometimes wear a tin-foil hat?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 9, 2020 10:23:43 GMT
No...but I do read history books, and have actually playtested rivers.
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jan 9, 2020 11:49:36 GMT
what going is a river for combat? (Proper) Answer: This is an irrelevant question (why? because the rules as written do not require a going for river) (Bob's) Answer: Rivers are "River Going" (Fine that's a bit of paraphrase, but if that helps why not) (Another) Answer: Rivers do not have the going property. That's fine, and doesn't create any internal inconsistencies within the rules
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 9, 2020 12:21:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 9, 2020 12:24:06 GMT
So Arnopov me old matey, you and Bob don’t mind if:- ALL rivers, no matter how shallow they are, must ALWAYS strip away any kind of support, even though this:- * is in direct opposition to the rules (“For movement” only it says, not combat)... * is contradicted by the historical accounts (Alexander’s pikemen at Issus)... * knackers pikes in rivers (who need a CF of 6 just to survive)... * treats ancient generals as idiots (as they can NEVER find an easier crossing point)... * and if rivers are ‘neither good nor other going’ for combat, you get all sorts of weird daft river effects (such as hiding IN a river to avoid being quick-killed by knights, and being IN a river in bad going is better than trying to defend the riverbank). ...well, some of us do. Still, each to their own as they say.
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jan 9, 2020 12:32:39 GMT
Oh, I do mind: the rivers rules could certainly do with some fine tuning (or even a complete rethink).
But it's irrelevant for the FAQ, as the rules are internally consistent at the moment.
As Paulisper and Joe already wrote, it's a concern for another iteration of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 9, 2020 22:39:49 GMT
Stevie:
You have many friends on this board.
I almost vetoed the Pike screw in Rivers because they are so bad already that another arrow seemed mean. Esp since in the battle cited it seems clearly a tough slog near equal stalemate rather than a Pike meat grinder. Fluke victories in muscle power battles are hard to pull off (too many guys fighting so too large a statistical sample for a widely odd result), so actual historical results should have some impact on game mechanics (see Agincourt for instance). But since I already veto too much stuff and I thought we needed a ruling (sometimes even a bad ruling is better than no ruling at all), I let it go (and how often is this going to happen in a tournament game? For historical scenarios your going to need house rules in any case so just do one for this river battle).
Pikes need work far beyond what the FAQ committee can do. As to Aux we clearly need a +4 v. Foot, +3 v. Mounted version and a +3 v. Foot, +4 v. Mounted versions (well what we need is a way to model all historical performance with our DBX troops but that's a larger issue). But 3.0 must remain as Phil left it - its his game we had his attention for months and this is the end result.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Jan 10, 2020 1:30:50 GMT
Aside from your LH vs BW solution, stevie I believe I am in accord with the rest of your proposals and I second TomT's comment on AX.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jan 12, 2020 11:11:53 GMT
Hi all just like to say have learnt a lot from these " discussions" but to muddy the Water a little more you are all saying as do the rules rivers are neither good nor other going. but under crossing a river page 9 a paltry river may be passed through as if good going. sorry for the lack of punctuation hated English loved history at school.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 12, 2020 16:17:00 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus Robert (plus your English is very good). And well spotted sir. Yes, page 9 paragraph 4 says a paltry river “can be passed through as if good going”. “Oh” they’ll all say, “it says passed through, so that only applies to movement, not combat”. While page 6 says “For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”. “Oh” they all say, “it might say only for movement, but we want to apply it to combat as well”. Come on people...make up your minds! (Me and my friends have already made up ours...)And Robert, you might find some other interesting stuff in the links below:- Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2020 FAQ: ancientwargaming.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/dba_faq_q1_2020_final.pdf There is a slight problem on the Wiki with the "Helpful Downloads"...you have to click on "see full sized image" to view the files. (To be fixed shortly I hope)
|
|
|
Post by bodok on Jan 12, 2020 18:55:49 GMT
Thank's for this lively discussion on the River topic!
I had played rivers according to the actual faq - simply by deducting the wording in the rules. This had as a severe consequence: no rivers were played!
So, Stevie, your agumentation made me think! At least for scenarios I will definitely change my handling of rivers.
PS: Perhaps the definition of good going under "area terrain features" defines only area terrain features and linear terrain features should get each their own definition (like roads). I assume this was an omission by PB and in this way not intentional (or is there a similar definition in other later rulesets?).
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 12, 2020 19:39:41 GMT
page 6 “For movement, a river is neither good nor other going” It is treated as a special case (not being good going for reasons already clearly stated), then handled on p.9, where DIFFERENT KINDS/STRENGTHS OF RIVER are defined by the result of a D6. page 9 paragraph 4 says a paltry river “can be passed through as if good going”. On a result of 1 or 2 on D6 = a paltry river = this kind of river can be passed through * as if* good going. So this INSIGNIFICANT/WEAK KIND of river can be passed through without penalty in the same manner as moving though good going.
SO... A paltry river can be passed through AS IF good going, i.e. without penalty. But because by definition, rivers are not good going (because they're linear terrain features) there can be no rear support for troops crossing them.
This is the crux of the issue. When is "AS IF good going" not entirely the same as "good going"? If troops can move through terrain AS IF it were good going, why does that not automatically also permit rear support?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 12, 2020 20:26:26 GMT
I agree Snowcat, why does a paltry “INSIGNIFICANT/WEAK KIND of river” (sic) have the same effect on pikes that a very deep river would have, and that:- ALL rivers, no matter how shallow they are, must ALWAYS strip away any kind of support, even though this:- * is in direct opposition to the rules (“For movement” only it says, not combat)... * is contradicted by the historical accounts (Alexander’s pikemen at Issus)... * knackers pikes in rivers (who need a CF of 6 just to survive)... * treats ancient generals as idiots (as they can NEVER find an easier crossing point)... * and if rivers are ‘neither good nor other going’ for combat, you get all sorts of weird daft river effects (such as hiding IN a river to avoid being quick-killed by knights, and being IN a river in bad going is better than trying to defend the riverbank). Which is better...broken rivers because some people chose to interpret the rules that way, or playable rivers that match the ancient historical battle accounts?
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 12, 2020 20:33:58 GMT
I concede that my last point:
-- When is "AS IF good going" not entirely the same as "good going"? If troops can move through terrain AS IF it were good going, why does that not automatically also permit rear support? --
is highlighting a problem in the RAW.
|
|