Post by Brian Ború on Apr 17, 2024 8:41:36 GMT
I’ve just had the thought that if allowing the attacker to pick board size is a good idea (https://fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1431/defender-attacker-24-board-sizes), that’s an argument in favor of an asymmetrical board, since the attacker gets to choose whether he wants a narrow or wide board.
Hi pteros!
Sounds o.k. at first, but yet there is a kind of flaw here.
Sure, the defender places terrain, but in order to avoid disadvantages (especially when the attacker chooses the bigger battlefield against the defender's will), then the defender should be allowed to place much more terrain than usual.
Why? The battlefield is 50% bigger (12×24 plus), and the terrain pieces are not!
So if the defender normally places 3 to 5 terrain pieces, I think he now should be allowed to place ca. 4 to 7 terrain pieces...
Because in DBA terrain (GG!) can kill like an axe. This is also true when deciding between 24x24 or 32×32 sized battlefields (+44%).
[I'm sure that nearly all the battles I won were those when I could choose my terrain.]
Remember: DBA is in core an unbalanced, sometimes even unfair game. (But hey, that's life.)
Just take a look at my worthy Norse Irish (mostly 3Ax) and their aggressive enemy, the Vikings (all 4Bd, both armies littoral).
So if these bloody b...s want to fight and butcher my minions on wide & open plains, well, they at least should have a hard time getting there...
No, I think the best way for both players is to agree on the size of the battlefield and a corresponding amount of terrain.
Brian Ború