Rule problems

I’m the same Sonic.
It doesn’t help that the recoiling passing through rules are on page 9.
These would be much better on page 12, after (not before) combat.

I don’t know if it helps, but I made a set of “Detailed Crib Sheets” here:-
static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/c/cf/DETAILED_CRIB_SHEETS_for_DBA_3.0.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20170104004718

These try where possible to present the rules in the order where they are needed.
So instead of having Elephants recoiling from a gate mentioned on page 12,
the fact that CP/Lit/CWg fight as Blades is mentioned under the Combat Factors instead of being hidden on page 4,
Garrison Artillery (with a CF of 2) is in the Combat Factors instead of being hidden on page 7 under the BUA-City rules,
and Mounted-Infantry are treated as Bowmen is shown on the page 11 Combat Outcomes Chart.

maybe around river theme? (opening Pandore Box i know... )
as i like the possibility to have river on game board, but it seem "unplayable" or at last not interesting to play with...

we often discussed about what are the advantages or disavantages of different type of rivers...
but no way for me to remember the rules subtilities about that (maybe it's because nobody want to play with river!)

 

Actually Jim, I disagree with you.
It’s not that the current rules makes rivers becoming avoided like the plague.
It’s the deliberate misinterpretation of the current rules that makes them disliked.

As I keep saying, page 6, second paragraph from the bottom, says:-
     “For movement, a river is neither good nor other going…”
For movement only it says…not combat.
Absolutely nowhere in the rules does it say “rivers are not good going for combat.”

Yes, troops in a river should be punished, and they are…
…they give the enemy guarding the riverbank a +1.

Someone years ago misinterpreted rivers in DBA 2.2, and they are still trying to push
this misinterpretation on the rest of us, even though Phil Barker has tried to clarify
things in DBA 3.0 by saying “For movement, a river is neither good nor other going…”
Well I want to play by Phil Barker’s rules, not someone else’s misconception.

Page 6, second paragraph from the bottom, fourth sentence:-
         “(Rivers) cannot start or go within 4 BW of any battlefield edge
           except the 2 edges it flows into.”

Having a 1 BW wide river running parallel and 4 BW from a table side-edge
sounds like a good way of anchoring the flank of one wing of your army.

Of course, it all depends on where the defender decides to place it…
…but the invader does get to choose whether to have the river running in between the
two armies or to have it running parallel to a table-side edge (unless a road crosses it).

Oh I don’t know…you can’t deploy your heavy troops in that 4 BW anyway.
And it does leave room for LH/Cv/Cm/Ps/Ax and Mtd-Inf to perform wide
outflanking moves.

Plus you know my philosophy: “Let invaders choose the table size, up to 800mm square”.
(Allowed for on page 2 of the rules…although Phil Barker bless him neglects to tell us
just who it is that gets to choose)

Ha! I’ll try to be as neutral as I can Ainkatsiss.

In the old DBA 2.2 rules, it said “A river is neither good nor other going…”.
So players took this to mean it applies to both movement AND combat.

However, in DBA 3.0 Phil Barker has clarified the situation by now saying
“For movement, a river is neither good nor other going…”.

For movement only it says, not combat.
Nowhere in the rules does it say “rivers are not good going for combat”.
But some of the older DBA 2.2 players, and the FAQ Team, who have been
playing for years with their own interpretation, refuse to acknowledge the
words ”For movement…”.

The Disadvantages Of Rivers Not Being ‘Good Going’
      * it’s not what the rules say.
      * It prevents rear and side-support, making it near impossible for Pikes to cross rivers.
      * It means that rivers rarely get used, and players like me simply refuse to enter them.
      * Not being good going, it’s often better to stand IN a river to prevent many ‘quick kills’.
      * It ignores actual historical accounts, such as Alexander the Great’s Pikemen fighting
         their way over the Granicus and Issus rivers in 334 & 333 BC (try CF 3 against a Spear
         CF of 4 with +1 for side-support and another +1 for defending a riverbank…slaughter).

So What Should Rivers Be For Combat?
It was Paddy that came up with best solution.
Rivers are Linear Terrain, like Roads, and like Roads they are the going they pass through.
      * It’s what the rules say (at least it doesn’t say otherwise).
      * If a river passes through good going, side and rear-support it still possible.
      * Standing IN the river will not protect you from ‘quick kills’.
      * It allows Alexander’s Pikemen to win Granicus and Issus without being massacred.
      * Rivers will get used more often, instead of rarely being placed.

Still, it’s entirely up to the players themselves as to which they choose.

Correct on all counts.  Rear support factors "apply when elements have another element of the same type lined-up directly behind..."  [emphasis added].