|
Post by stevie on Dec 30, 2016 10:56:21 GMT
I have just completed a very detailed and extensive rule index for DBA 3.0, as the one in the book is not very useful. But this has exposed some half a dozen murky and confusing rules. Could someone please clarify these for me? Here is the first:-
Paragraph 1 on page 7 says “At the start of the game a city can, and a fort must, be garrisoned by 1 (non allied) foot element...”. This is quite clear: foot only. It then goes on to say “Thereafter, any single foot element (except War Wagons) can move to be completely within an undefended city or fort and then garrison it.” Again, quite clear: foot only, but note the word “undefended”. “If a garrison vacates the city, the denizens continue to defend it”, so it is NOT undefended, therefore no friendly foot troops can move into a city and garrison it while the denizens are still defending their city. Is this correct?
Paragraph 3 on page 7 goes on to say “When a garrison or denizens are destroyed in close combat, any one assaulting enemy element (except elephants or a mobile tower) occupies the city and sacks it...”. This appears to be the only way a mounted element can occupy a city. It then goes on to say that after a PIP score of 5 or 6, “The sacking element can then either garrison the city if eligible to do so, or vacate it.” But what does the “if eligible to do so” mean? Does it mean only foot troops can garrison a city? What if the sacking troops are a mounted element? Can a mounted element that has ceased sacking become a garrison and get the +4 garrison bonus?
|
|
Fab
Munifex
Posts: 12
|
Post by Fab on Dec 30, 2016 15:07:02 GMT
A city is chosen by a defender and belongs to him. So at the beginning of a battle the denizens are loyal to the defender who can place a garrison inside the city to help defend it.
If the garrison vacates the city, the denizens continue to defend the city against the enemy as they are still loyal to the initial owner. So a friendly unit (or the same garrison who sallied out) can go (or go back) into the city through a gate without any problem (the denizens do not defend the city against friendly troops!).
"If eligible to do so" means that if they are Foot they can garrison the city (i.e. fight with a +4 bonus in close combat), if Mounted they cannot. If a Mounted unit is attacked while inside the city it does not get the +4 bonus.
My two cents Fab
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 30, 2016 22:12:55 GMT
Stevie has found a very interesting anomaly perhaps. The defending player can put a garrison into a city during deployment. However, there after, meaning in the first bound and beyond, neither player can enter the city without assaulting it, if it is defended by denizens.
"Thereafter, any single foot element (except War Wagons) can move completely within an undefended city or fort and then garrison it. "
I read this to mean in its opposite, that not any single foot element can move completely within a city if it is defended. No differentiation between friend or enemy.
While fabs comment that denizens do not defend against friendly elements seems reasonable, this is not borne out by the rules. Note that an element cannot recoil into its own city, whether defended or not.
Stevie, I look forward to seeing your index.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2016 0:56:28 GMT
I do find myself agreeing with a lot of what Feb says.
If the rule said:- “Thereafter, any single foot element (except War Wagons) can move to be completely within a non-garrisoned city or fort and then garrison it.” ...then there wouldn’t be a problem (denizens are not a garrison remember) .
Likewise, if page 11 paragraph 3 Tactical Factors said:- “+4 If foot garrisoning a city or fort; and either in close combat or being shot at. +2 If camp followers or other foot occupying their camp, or denizens their city and either in close combat or being shot at.” ...then again, everything would be clear.
But neither of these rules say that.
Therefore I have to go along with Bob. We have to use the rules as written, and not add or remove words just because we don’t like them.
So perhaps mounted, once they have successfully assaulted a city and ceased sacking, CAN garrison a city (or the Tactical Factors would have said “+4 If foot garrisoning a city...”).
Besides, it would be a bit odd if foot elements garrisoning a city/fort/camp pay 2 PIPs to leave them, while mounted only pay 1 PIP to leave because they are not a garrison.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 31, 2016 3:51:40 GMT
I don't question the tactical factors list comment that says a Garrison is +4 because we've already been told that only foot can be a Garrison. Mounted cannot Garrison a city or Fort.
|
|
|
Post by weddier on Dec 31, 2016 3:55:40 GMT
Hello all!
I agree with Fab, denizens don't defend against friends.
The rule about any foot element entering an undefended city is expanded in the sections on CITY and DENIZENS farther down the page. Friendly elements may pass through a City despite a garrison or denizens for a PIP each, in a group or not. They do not have to assault to enter. Denizens do not defend if their garrison is destroyed or if they themselves are. A sacking element may enter and if allowed, become a garrison when done sacking. A city unoccupied by denizens or occupied by denizens whose garrison was defeated is not defended and may be entered or moved through by any element, friendly or not, without combat. Friends don't have to assault a friendly city, and enemies don't have to assault an undefended one. Enemy elements may garrison an undefended city even if denizens are present; it seems specious to disallow this for friendly elements, just because the friendly denizens are present.
A few more points might need to be made. Elements cannot recoil into a city because of the walls, not the defenders. Gates are too small for disordered troops in contact with the enemy to move through successfully, and cities must entered through the gates. They may recoil into a Hamlet or Edifice; nothing prevents entry. They are destroyed recoiling in contact with a city, even if undefended, i.e., without Denizens.
Mounted cannot garrison the city because horses and elephants can't climb to the walls. Mounted move out of the city for less pips because they are mounted and don't have to come down from the walls and form up first.
Any foot are allowed to become a garrison. Mounted Infantry may garrison a city or fort, as they are foot by definition. Mounted who may dismount during the game may enter an undefended city or fort and then dismount, becoming foot, and then garrison the city or fort.
The tactical factors don't refer to 'foot garrisoning' because the author has previously elsewhere defined garrisons as only foot, making the addition redundant. It does refer to foot in a camp because other elements may occupy a camp, but don't get the tactical factor in defense. Also, defending Denizens don't get +4, just +2.
Respectfully yours, etc.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2016 10:54:21 GMT
Excellent post Weddier. You, Fab and Bod have finally convinced me. However, I’d like to make a few points about your post when you mention horses can’t climb walls. You are of course correct, they can’t. So how does a mounted element assault a city in the first place? Do the horses climb up the siege ladders? Er, no, the mounted soldiers are assumed to have temporarily dismounted to do so...even though this is not shown on our wargames table. So why can’t a mounted element occupying a city be assumed to have also temporarily dismounted so that the soldiers, but not the horses, have manned the walls, even though this is not shown on our wargames table? (As for elephants, they can only assault a city via a gate, and even if successful are not allowed to enter the city and sack it). Nonetheless, the consensus of opinion is clear. The answer to my original question, can mounted troops become a garrison, is NO, they cannot. I’m not really bothered either way...I just want to understand the rules. Thanks for your input everybody, and I’ll be posting my detailed Rules Index (which may help to find obscure rules, but not how to interpret them) just as soon as I clear up a few other questions and find out how to attach them to the Fanaticus wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 31, 2016 19:03:34 GMT
I believe that allowing friends to pass through a city occupied only by denizens, is just allowing the right of free passage through the city. I cannot find the phrase "they do not have to assault to enter. " in the text. Weddier, where is this rule? This leads me to believe that if a friendly element wants to enter a city occupied by denizens in order to become a Garrison, it must assault the city. No occupying garrisoning army, even one element there of, is welcome by a city. Thus, unless A city is Garrisoned at the beginning of the game, imposed as it were, if there are denizens in the city, elements of the defender must assault The city in order to occupy it.
Regarding mounted elements assaulting a city: note that all elements use their combat factor versus foot when assaulting or defending city. Indeed this might be considered as mounted troops dismounting for the purpose. However, unless they are troops allowed to dismount, they must return to their mounted format after the assault, win or lose. If they win they may enter the city, and occupy it. Therein they fight as dismounted, of course. They cannot become a Garrison.
So, only foot troops (those that started mounted but allowed to dismount included)can end up in the city to Garrison.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 27, 2017 5:15:04 GMT
Since a BUA "belongs to the defender "I guess that elements of the defender can enter a city occupied only by denizens without combat.
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 1, 2017 14:59:22 GMT
A new index and an FAQ? Why don't we put them together and call it the 3.0+ guide. I'm sure everyone will be on board with that idea. For what little its worth, I thought the label "denizens" was chosen specifically to denote neutrals that require assaulting. Otherwise they'd be called friendlies. Just because a city was chosen by the defender, doesn't mean its "friendly." Defending relates to initiative, and you could imagine a situation where you were defending somebody else's territory? Again, for what little its worth.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 1, 2017 22:47:12 GMT
Phil picks the names of the troop types to be clever not user friendly.
As the Defender can order the Denizens to take the field, they are clearly "friendly".
Spent a long time trying to convince Phil to just make the inhabitants a Horde element rather than inventing a new type of almost never used type "Denizens" - obviously in vain.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 2, 2017 2:10:30 GMT
Spent a long time trying to convince Phil to just make the inhabitants a Horde element rather than inventing a new type of almost never used type "Denizens" - obviously in vain. TomT I like this idea. Concise. In a similar vein, I had always thought it would be simpler to make camps, elements that can't move, and avoid a special kind of terrain - the camp - and a special kid of element (camp followers).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 2, 2017 11:57:23 GMT
A new index and an FAQ? Why don't we put them together and call it the 3.0+ guide. I'm sure everyone will be on board with that idea. Oh, that ‘Detailed Rules Index’ that I posted in the Fanaticus Wiki is hardly a ‘3.0+ guide’, as it doesn’t attempt to explain or change any of the existing rules. It is merely a very detailed collection of words, and where to find them. And it can be found here:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:DETAILED_RULES_INDEX_for_DBA_3.0.pdfOf course, players with phenomenal memories won’t need it, as they will already know where each and every obscure rule can be found. But it may help those players who, like myself, have less than perfect memories. And as I said before, although this Detailed Rule Index will tell you where every obscure rule is, it won’t tell you how to interpret that rule....
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Feb 2, 2017 16:47:40 GMT
Stevie: Thanks so much for compiling that index. I can't begin to imagine how much work that took for you and your research staff. One simple question, though. What to the numbers in the parentheses refer to? Paragraph numbers, perhaps? Again, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 2, 2017 21:38:52 GMT
Spent a long time trying to convince Phil to just make the inhabitants a Horde element rather than inventing a new type of almost never used type "Denizens" - obviously in vain. TomT I like this idea. Concise. In a similar vein, I had always thought it would be simpler to make camps, elements that can't move, and avoid a special kind of terrain - the camp - and a special kid of element (camp followers). Dangun: I agree completely. Also tried to get Phil to create "Man Made Element" (MME) to represent Camps, Strongholds and Cities. They have a TZ and a CF so are better handled as Elements to avoid lots of neither Fish nor Foul rules. He rejected (even after I wrote the whole rule for him). Good news is that the concept got partially used in D3H2 and wholly used in A Game of Fire and Ice. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games
|
|