Camels vs Ps in Dunes or Oasis

Same as above - dune/oasis = good going to Cm or LCm.

Wording almost certainly a ‘leftover’ from v2.2.

My thanks to the above - for such well thought out reasoning.

Truth be told as a longtime user of Cm - I have done well in the past with the Christian Nubians, I wanted to see Dunes and Oasis as Good Going, but I was troubled by the semantics of that p6 passage "Dunes and Oasis are BAD GOING except tov elements of any type with camels." My own experience with the playtest group back in the day means that I am less inclined to believe that the argument "Phil must have meant xxxx otherwise he would have stated it differently". I was concerned about this argument however, it crops up all the time and when I scanned it the only thing I thought this would affect was the quick kill of Ps in the specified terrain. What I should have looked at more carefully was the movement rules and built my logic train from there.

Tactical Moves P9
3BW Knights, Cavalry, Camelry or any Mounted Infantry and only in good going, or if "Fast" foot in any going

Let us be clear - there is no dispute that the accepted ruling on Camels is that they move a full speed in Dunes and Oasis. That is the way it has been played for the life of the rules AND if it was set to change for DBA3 then that change would have been writ large during the playtest period and (hopefully) been equally noted in the final published rules.

If instead we go down the path of neither good nor bad for Camels in Dunes and Oasis we find the following
Camels CAN form linear groups in this terrain (p8 Tactical moves "A group move by road or across bad (not rough) going must be in a column unless entirely of Ps.)
Camels DO NOT take the -2 in close combat (p11 Tactical Factors -2 if any but Ax/Bow/Wb/Ps in close combat in Bad (not Rough) Going)
Camels CANNOT move in Dunes or Oasis - because there is NO movement factor for a neither bad nor good going type of terrain in the tactical move rules (the 1BW for rivers - the other not good or bad terrain - specifically states rivers).

So given we have all accepted that Camels can move their full move in Dunes and Oasis from wording that Martin has suggested is leftover from 2.2 (I would suggest that it may even date back to 1.0). To go back and follow the logic trail to its final conclusion creates more problems.

Therefore I am reversing my original inclination and stating that I consider Dunes and Oasis to be GOOD GOING for elements of any type with camels. That will be my ruling in any tournament that I run here in Canberra.

Once again my thanks to Stevie, Martin and Haardrada for their help.

Cheers

People shouldn’t get the hump about this. 🐪
                         

Oooo…be careful Menacussecundus…or some people will apply exactly the same logic to Rivers.

Page 6, Rivers, second paragraph from the bottom, says:-
    “For movement, a river is neither good nor other going…”
For movement only it says, not combat.

And if the default going is good unless stated otherwise, shouldn’t rivers be good going for combat?

And NOWHERE, absolutely NOWHERE, in the DBA 3.0 rules or diagrams does it say:-
   “Rivers are also neither good nor other going for combat.”
All it says in Tactical Factors is: “+1 if defending a non-paltry river’s bank off-road.”
So why do people keep on insisting on adding words that are not there?

Shouldn’t we be playing by Phil Barker’s rules, and not someone else’s version
based on their own prejudices and their private interpretation of history?

Just a thought…