|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 13, 2016 12:52:53 GMT
Thanks guys, really interesting and honest feedback.
I was thinking along the lines of maybe any uncovered TZ still exerted influence, but it appears this is your 'Flashlight' version which was already considered.
Cheers Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 1, 2016 14:57:01 GMT
Mark: I'm lost somewhat with your remark/example... ZOCs became xray to prevent intervening elements from blocking threat zones... and some of the moves that allowed. Elements in a threat zone are not allowed to move to one corner contact because it allows an element to "leave" a threat zone (and this is very easy to abuse). It also helps align the game with DBMM... though that was a minor consideration. Joe Collins Hi Joe Not sure what some of the moves were that this rule change wanted to stop? However I'll, take your word for it that people were abusing it. Come to think about it, I vaguely remember someone once nudging a corner in front of an enemy element and claiming that broke the TZ, was that the sort of thing? It just seems weird looking at it on the table top, don't you think? I agree that in the middle of a battle line you probably have back ranks holding firm/shoving to provide support to the troops in front. But with an open flank surely the temptation would be to flow around, (provided you'd got troops that were occupying the enemy in front) and attack that unprotected flank? I doubt they'd back off first. One of the other effects of this rule is that if you have two elements behind each other and they are attacked by two elements in line, the second element in the column can't come out and stop the enemy hard flanking them, again which seems a bit strange given the often dire consequences of being hard flanked! However I really like DBA as it got me back into Ancient wargaming when I just couldn't get on with 6th Edition and I must admit I've benefitted from this rule, as well as being caught by it on occasions. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 30, 2016 12:45:56 GMT
Tony has quoted the exact rule, and highlighted the phrase, "has also lost more such elements than the enemy." How can anyone possibly think that it's over at a 4 - 4 tie. At that point neither side has lost more! After that it's not quite sudden death in that the first player to lose an element beyond four loses the game. Complete bounds are still played, not stopped at the first loss, during the bound. At the end of a bound the losses are counted, and a player who has lost four and more than his opponent, loses. It's possible during a bound after both have lost four, that one player loses another element, and then the other player loses another element, so at the end of the bound neither player has lost more. Then play another bound.. I suppose if you wanted to be picky you could say that the rules don't actually say you should continue after you get to 4-4! Maybe the thinking is.... when you've got to 4 elements you've lost. If the other person has also got to four, then they've lost as well! As you've both lost, that's a draw!!! Though must admit I've never heard of this before and the only games I've fought in which were draws were due to competition games timing out.
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 30, 2016 12:33:32 GMT
Can I ask what options the top most Sp has? Presumably it is in the TZ of the Bd so does anyone play that option b) of TZ moves allows it to move out to the side and then come forward to form an overlap by providing corner to corner contact with the Bd? (Option b says "to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy"). When I asked about this in a game I was told, that's not allowed as it's moving it out of the TZ. If true it doesn't seem to work well in this situation as it would take two bounds to do that, one to move back out of the TZ and two to move back in, which looking at the situation seems a bit of a nonsense? I understand that it is as you were told (and yes, it does seem like a bit of nonsense.) That is just how the rules are written in this case. At least in DBA 3.0 that Sp can fight someone to its front if they contact them as they are in that configuration. Surely they can only fight someone to their front if they are in that element's TZ? So if the flanking Sp was an enemy blade they couldn't contact it because that isn't one of the allowable options for an element in a threat zone? I never understood why this rule was changed from 2.2 as I would have thought that an intervening friendly element took away any potential threat from an enemy?
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:58:46 GMT
If there is no Fast or Solid, why do the lists specify Mtd-3 or 4Bw for different armies? (Scots Common Mtd-3Bw, Bugundian Mtd-4Lb)
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:44:28 GMT
Sometimes the dice just aren't with you!
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:42:23 GMT
Can I ask what options the top most Sp has?
Presumably it is in the TZ of the Bd so does anyone play that option b) of TZ moves allows it to move out to the side and then come forward to form an overlap by providing corner to corner contact with the Bd? (Option b says "to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy").
When I asked about this in a game I was told, that's not allowed as it's moving it out of the TZ.
If true it doesn't seem to work well in this situation as it would take two bounds to do that, one to move back out of the TZ and two to move back in, which looking at the situation seems a bit of a nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:26:06 GMT
Strange position but looks right from what the rules say, (I think).
Though those Ax look like Bw to me, which if true means the LH were facing a 1-4 if they stayed? Also the Ax/Bw presumably weren't bothered about stopping the other Ax recoil as they've be destroyed by Kn anyway?
What actually happenend?
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:22:21 GMT
I think the LH now has to conform OR fight as if overlapped. If it chooses latter it would still remain in Flank Lock position. You would want to resolve the LH fight first to try and push off. TomT Thanks, Tom. That is "what made sense" but as you know that is not always "correct."
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 23, 2016 7:59:00 GMT
Tom borrowed the army from me and I did give him a number of other options, but he chose the Mongol Conquest.
He may have thought we were playing on the wider boards, but even so he did very well with it.
In terms of killer elements, of course his LH can double up and with a bit of luck can take out both Kn and El and aren't worried about any solid foot apart from bows.
In our game it was the lack of elements that could contest the bad going that caused him problems, two of mine being bows that he was wary of getting his LH too close to.
However overall I think it's a credit to his generalship and nice to see that even unfancied armies can do well if handled well.
|
|