|
|
Post by Cromwell on Oct 1, 2016 7:46:41 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that in 3.0 you cannot "Shut the Door". As you could in 2.2? 3.0 rules state you cannot contact an enemy flank edge unless starting from completely from behind an imaginary line running out from the enemy front edge. This to me would rule out shutting the door.  |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Oct 1, 2016 8:05:34 GMT
You should be able to, I had this over Art closing the door.
If an overlap you are in corner to corner contact, so not being able to contact would not count from an overlap as you are already in contact.
I will do a look at it latter today as out in circa 15 mins.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Oct 1, 2016 10:16:52 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that in 3.0 you cannot "Shut the Door". As you could in 2.2? 3.0 rules state you cannot contact an enemy flank edge unless starting from completely from behind an imaginary line running out from the enemy front edge. This to me would rule out shutting the door. You can 'shut the door' in DBA 3. Check Light Horse B's options in Figure 8 on page 19 to see how. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 1, 2016 13:26:09 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that in 3.0 you cannot "Shut the Door". As you could in 2.2? 3.0 rules state you cannot contact an enemy flank edge unless starting from completely from behind an imaginary line running out from the enemy front edge. This to me would rule out shutting the door. [br Yes, you can contact in most cases. The imaginary line is that of the flank edge. .... An element can move into edge contact with an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge.... Please note that some situations do exist where an element may not have enough movement to contact the flank. Elements moving 1BW such as 4Pk in bad going for example. Hope this helps. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 1, 2016 19:39:23 GMT
Actually the inability to close the door for Solid foot (other than Ax/Wb) in BGo/RGo is a pretty fundamental change, and has the effect of slowing down the pace of decision for infantry combat in terrain. One more subtlety to ponder in the new game.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Oct 1, 2016 22:14:05 GMT
Actually the inability to close the door for Solid foot (other than Ax/Wb) in BGo/RGo is a pretty fundamental change, and has the effect of slowing down the pace of decision for infantry combat in terrain. One more subtlety to ponder in the new game. Very true. As way of a general observation I seem to see more rough going used in games under 3.0 than I did under 2.2. Which highlights to me how slow my solid foot move through rough going? |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Oct 2, 2016 8:05:34 GMT
 Thank s Guys. I was taking the imaginary line from the front edge. Makes senses if its the flank edge! |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Oct 2, 2016 20:28:22 GMT
As way of a general observation I seem to see more rough going used in games under 3.0 than I did under 2.2. That might be because rough going didn't exist in 2.2? |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 2, 2016 23:17:18 GMT
Rough going may not. Rough terrain sure does (as bad going). They are the same for movement in v3 with respect to the "closing the door" thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 3, 2016 6:29:43 GMT
Actually the inability to close the door for Solid foot (other than Ax/Wb) in BGo/RGo is a pretty fundamental change, and has the effect of slowing down the pace of decision for infantry combat in terrain. One more subtlety to ponder in the new game. Moving Solid foot(other than Ax/Wb) through BGo/RGo is a pip drain anyway unless in column as can only be done by individual elements or by relying on follow ups/push backs in combat.Having supporting Ax/Wb or Ps that can close the door could possibly quicken the decision. A good reason not to drop Ps when opting for Allied contingents.😆 |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Oct 8, 2016 3:49:50 GMT
As a general very personal observation on DBA3.0, I am an infantry man and slow movement is fine, however, I would much prefer a 24" board to a 30" board.
I feel that if you had a Greek 4Sp army I would be inclined to go for little terrain that slowed my line down, and place it where it restricted the battlefield width.
A balanced army to me seems to be more critical, or at least one that can handle different terrain types. Terrain and board size seem more critical in DBA3.0 than DBA2.2.
Just thoughts.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 8, 2016 16:41:54 GMT
Of course as a Persian General, I would infinitely prefer a 32" board against your Greek 4Sp army ...
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Oct 9, 2016 9:59:03 GMT
Of course as a Persian General, I would infinitely prefer a 32" board against your Greek 4Sp army ... Yes, but not a 24".
And of course we have the table size problem in the U.K., 24" is a fairly standard table width in most pubs, clubs and halls. On a Monday we have to put two tables together to put a 30" mat on.
David Constable
|
|
