Another question for the DBA Community: the meaning of “/”

Hmmn.

Can't find my copy of DBA 2.2. My recollection is that the rule said the twelve elements deployed in the first game had to be used in all subsequent games.

As an aside, Stevie, have you listed anywhere all the rules you think are not played as written? Just curious.

Scott

I must admit I see the section on tournaments on page 13 as suggestions and ideas about how to run tournaments rather than hard and fast rules.

For example:
a) it says all scoring systems should not allow a player to get ahead in a game and then stall. In other words draws should be penalised. (Not all tournaments I've played in do this. If a draw scores you more points than a loss it can be in a players interested to stall or pull back towards the end of the game e.g. if they are 3-0 down, which then denies the opponent the win.)
b) match up between historical armies should be prioritised after taking raw scores into account. (I think tournament organisers have enough on trying to match up players with similar scores but who haven't played each other before, or ensure that the final pairing isn't a repeat, without taking historical match ups into account as well.)
c) in knock out competitions players who draw could both be eliminated. (Has anyone ever played in a tournament where this applied?!)

However having said that, it does seem to further clarify the issue about when you decided whether your / or // elements are deployed mounted or dismounted in that, as Stevie quoted
“(For Tournaments) Army composition and allies must be declared at
　　 the start of the first game and cannot be changed between games;
　　 except that an element listed as /or // can be deployed at the start
　　 of each game as either mounted or dismounted.”

Now was this a deliberate difference to specify "at the start of the game" just for tournaments (if so, then why should it be different to the main rules?) or was it a further clarification of the main rules for all games?

Also as Scott says, under a strict 'playing the [main] Rules As Written' interpretation, apparently this means that as an invader you don't even have to choose your army composition before seeing the defender lay out his troops. So you decide to have an army with lots of options, see what the defender is playing with and then you choose the 12 best elements to combat that!

I don't see how this could be justified either historically or from a fair play point of view.

I take your point Jim about the invader, after seeing the defender’s dispositions,
may well tell his men to dismount, or perhaps leave their horses in camp...

...but on the other hand, why can’t the defender do the same once he has seen
the invader’s deployment, especially as the defender gets to move first.
Why are defenders nailed to their saddles, but invaders get to choose?.

(“What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander” as they say)

Our rules are what they are, with often less than tight writing. Was there even a clear intent by the author concerning the X/Y, who knows?
But the current interpretation in the UK scene (I think), i.e. Kn/Bd or Ch//Bd choose what to be when they are placed on the table (I can't recall what was decided when they littoral land, I think player choice again) works well enough.
It doesn't unduly advantages the attacker. X/Y armies do not dominate open tournaments. (OTOH, there are a few // armies that are VERY good, top-tier, such as Lithuanians+Teutonic Ally and Qaramitas. I don't think they are quite as good as Tamils or Classical Indians, but not far)
In my opinion, the defender has a very large advantage with the current rules, and things that balance that are good thing anyway.

Whether to be the defender or invader is very much a matter of personal preference.
Defender Advantages = gets to choose the amount of terrain, its type, its size and shape,
and where to place it (depending upon placement rolls).
Invader Advantages = gets choose the base edges (which is limited if a Road is present),
and gets to see the defender’s lay-out before placing their own troops.
So it’s all swings and roundabouts really.

Where Arnopov is right and the defender has a tremendous advantage is when facing an
invading Ax or Ps heavy army, and arranging the battlefield to be a flat open billiard table,
leaving their weaker invading opponent completely exposed with no terrain to hide in and
no chance of winning...and there’s not a damn thing the Ax/Ps army can do about it!

Flooding a table with lots of large rough/bad going when facing a mounted army is not so bad.
At least the mounted force can do something about it...they could simply refuse to advance.
And having the invader choose the table size also helps mounted armies (note that this is not
changing any rules...Phil Barker allows for two different table sizes, but neglects to inform us
who it is that gets to make the choice).

As for the issue of when 3Kn/4Bd can choose what to be...some tournament organisers (such
as some in Australia, as Chaotic has already pointed out), do think that deciding after seeing
the defender’s lay-out is unfair and overpowering, so they ban the process.
As for me, I’ll just obey whatever the UK organiser stipulates.

It looks like I’ll just have to add the page 13 “/ or // can be deployed at the start of the game
as either mounted or dismounted” (and a game obviously starts with the aggression roll) as
yet another case of the rules saying one thing but players preferring to play by their own rules.
(Hell...I use House Rules all the time...so I can hardly complain can I. )

I have a a possible random terrain system Arnopov ..see:-
static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/d/d0/Randomly_Generated_Terrain_Chart.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190826143945

An alternative idea my group has used is to make BOTH sides choose the terrain.
Each player secretly chooses 1 compulsory and 1 or 2 optional features for that particular region.
These are placed alternatively, beginning with the defender, rolling for placement as usual.
Normal terrain limits still apply, so only 1 Waterway, 1 River or 1 Gully, 2 Roads, and 3 of the
other types can be placed, the rest being discarded.
(Cities and Forts still belong to the defender...consider this as the invader has decided to
invade and march on one of the defender’s towns)

The beauty of this is that both sides get a little of what they want...so no more billiard tables!

(Can you hijack your own thread?...oh well, I just have)

As a side issue Jim, many HoTT players over the years have complained that Water Lurkers hardly
ever get used, so I have what I call ‘Swamps’.

To get more use I like to have Water Lurkers appearing in Seas, Lakes, Rivers, Marshes, and Oasis,
plus lowland Woods and Jungles that become ‘Swampy’ due to being in contact with a Sea or River.
(Think of the many small water channels passing through the Okefenokee of Florida, and the Amazon,
Congo, and the Mississippi forested wetlands, plus the Mekong Delta of South Vietnam...
...”Never get out of the boat!”)