|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 24, 2021 4:17:26 GMT
Hi
I've never really used rivers in DBA 3.0 but a friend has been making some recently so I have been brushing up on the rules and have the following question;
An element crosses a non-paltry river (so only has a 1Bw move) and ends its move with its front edge at the rivers far bank. Next go does it only still move 1BW (as it exits the river)?
My thoughts are that it should (as the front edge is still 'in the river' at start of its movement phase) but I would just like to confirm that is correct.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2021 7:43:35 GMT
You are correct Barritus…at least, that’s what the rules say.
Page 9, Tactical Move Distances, second paragraph:-
“1 BW if the front-edge of any single element or group is in a non-paltry river for part of the move.”
Note however that is says “if the front-edge of any single element or group”.
Well, a column is a group, and if a single element is not slowed when its
front-edge starts clear of the water, then neither is a column-group slowed
if the leading element is clear of the water…no matter if the tail of the column
is still in the water or how many elements are in that column.
In other words, if the leader’s front-edge starts clear of the water,
both it and the whole column behind it are not slowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 24, 2021 8:05:43 GMT
You are correct Barritus…at least, that’s what the rules say. Page 9, Tactical Move Distances, second paragraph:- “1 BW if the front-edge of any single element or group is in a non-paltry river for part of the move.”
Note however that is says “if the front-edge of any single element or group”. Well, a column is a group, and if a single element is not slowed when its front-edge starts clear of the water, then neither is a column-group slowed if the leading element is clear of the water…no matter if the tail of the column is still in the water or how many elements are in that column. In other words, if the leader’s front-edge starts clear of the water, both it and the whole column behind it are not slowed. Thanks stevie. Yes I know the group move bugbear. But isn't it obvious,,,the first element scouts the route, the second in a column lays the pontoon bridge and the last element crossing pulls it up  . |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2021 8:31:51 GMT
Yeah…the leading element of the column tramples the water flat (!), so those behind are not hindered. (Either that or every element leading a column comes with their own Moses,
to part the water for those following them…)
 |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jul 24, 2021 9:07:30 GMT
And here is this weekend's history quiz - What ancient or medieval battles were actually fought opposed across a river as opposed to armies deploying across them before the battle (eg Hydaspes)?
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2021 9:25:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jul 24, 2021 9:51:26 GMT
Sorry - I meant to add "non-paltry" to the question in case that changes your answer. Anther definition of a non-paltry river is one deep and wide enough to wash all of Stevie's T-shirt collection at once!
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jul 24, 2021 9:52:36 GMT
Or for more fun, you could name the battles and define what type of river it would be in DBA3.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2021 10:55:14 GMT
Good point Simon. In the real world (as opposed to the crazy fantasy world of DBA), the mere fact that our general’s have deployed facing a river shows that it must be possible to fight their way over it, or they wouldn’t have deployed there in the first place! They would have just marched up or down stream to find an easier crossing point instead. As for that utterly stupid FAQ ruling that says even Paltry Rivers (!) prevent side or rear support… …well, not all rivers are armpit deep, and Alexander’s pikemen fought their way over rivers, not once but twice, plus the rules specifically say “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”. For Movement only it says, not combat. (It used to say something different in the old DBA 2.2 rules, but this has been changed in DBA 3.0.
I fully support the FAQ Team when they clarify rules, but not when they try to change them into THEIR
version of what the rules in their opinion OUGHT to say, and try to turn DBA 3.0 back into version 2.2)So if an opponent tells me that my troops cannot have side/rear support when in ANY kind of river, I just simply refuse to enter the water. “Are you going to cross that river?”. “Nope, are you?”. “Naaa, me neither”. “Well we might as well go down the pub then!”Am I being stubborn and awkward? No…I’m just being a good general. Nowhere in the rules does it say my pikes have to commit suicide if the defender places a river…  |
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Jul 24, 2021 11:13:53 GMT
Or for more fun, you could name the battles and define what type of river it would be in DBA3. Granicus and Issus have already been mentioned. Here are a few more: The successful Spartan sneak attack across the strategically important bridge across the Styrmon River at Amphipolis in 422 BC at night, probably due in part to treason among the defenders. The successful Greek crossing of the Centrites River in 401 BC, described by Xenophon - "more than breast-deep, and the river bed was rough with great slippery stones" requiring both deception and divine intervention. Alexander's successful crossing of the Jaxartes River in 329 BC - the crossing was protected by artillery fire that outranged the defenders' bows. Alexander's crossing of the Hydaspes River in 326 BC - a large, deep river with a central island - Alexander realised he could not assault across the river, so used deception to outmaneuver the enemy to get across unopposed. A smarter or better informed enemy general could easily have prevented the crossing and the Battle of the Hydaspes might not have occurred. The Battle of Trebia in 218 BC - where Hannibal lured Sempronius to disaster across a fast flowing river with steep banks, into an ambush. Attacking across a river in antiquity was a desperate gamble. There are very few successful examples, but an excellent one is Xenophon's description of the Centrites crossing during their retreat from Persia, contained in the Anabasis. In particular, in light of more recent scholarship, I would take with a grain of salt the classical descriptions of Alexander's opposed river crossings. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2021 11:32:29 GMT
In particular, in light of more recent scholarship, I would take with a grain of salt the classical descriptions of Alexander's opposed river crossings. Yeah…we today in the 21st century know faaaar more about ancient warfare than Alexander ever did… He’s pikemen couldn’t possibly have fought their way over not one but two rivers, because a certain misinterpretation of the river rules in one particular set of modern wargame rules says so…  |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 24, 2021 12:23:50 GMT
In the real world (as opposed to the crazy fantasy world of DBA), the mere fact that our general’s have deployed facing a river shows that it must be possible to fight their way over it, or they wouldn’t have deployed there in the first place! They would have just marched up or down stream to find an easier crossing point instead. This is probably the best summary of rivers for wargame designers. The trouble with rivers in DBA is that they don't make the game more interesting for the trouble they cause. That's why you don't see them much. Shame, because well modelled rivers really add to the board. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 24, 2021 12:30:30 GMT
You could also start a list of historical battles where rivers were on the flank. I'll start. Battle of Chaeronea. The river Kephisos anchored one flank and the foothills of Mt Thurion the other. You can't get a flank river in DBA. I think you'd see them more often if you could. And before anyone jumps in, I don't accept "just use a Waterway". The Kephisos river is not the Danube. No river in Greece would count as a Waterway, particularly during the summer campaigning season. Besides, a flank river would allow the possible option to risk a flank attack.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 24, 2021 12:54:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jul 24, 2021 13:19:31 GMT
I would have written it as the ‘rear’ of an element or group is still in the water- would make far more sense… 😉
P
|
|
.
)
