|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 1, 2022 1:09:55 GMT
Can ask for a clarification based on the example I posted on Jan 25 on this thread? Would the green element have to pivot (expending movement) outside of the TZ until it reached a position where its front edge would enter the TZ first before measuring furthest corner to furthest corner? I think that would be a major change to how people play currently. (Now if an "about-face" was free...).
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 26, 2022 11:02:55 GMT
No problem with that analysis stevie if you want to turn around on the spot. After all, real troop depth would only be pencil thin in comparison to our bases. But if you want to approach the enemy (or simply move forward) you would now need to expend your base depth. It uses less movement to take the diagonal.
As Roland (and likely most of the rest of us, including myself) explained, we measure the corner to corner distance. To do this, we have to allow the concept that we enter TZ with something other than our front edge. So I'm not sure this cheesy play can be stopped with the RAW. I think it would take a few more sentences to sort it out in the rules.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2022 22:25:26 GMT
It is unfortunate that an about face costs more than 1 BW of movement, being the diagonal distance across the element base. This makes movement more fiddly as compared to simply using the longest corner to corner distance for a single element move. It would be better if it cost 1 base depth of movement. That's how I imagined the contact would occur. It's ironic that a discussion about a situation to avoid combat will end up making contact more difficult, particularly for heavy infantry.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2022 10:46:31 GMT
I certainly like the idea that part your front edge must enter TZ. But will that cause problems with elements having to rotate 3/4 of a circle to reach an enemy element in order to enter with its front corner/edge? Jim Hello Jim, no - I don't get the point (elements having to rotate 3/4 of a circle to reach an enemy element in order to enter with its front corner/edge)? Cheers Ronald I'll try and explain. The arrows indicate the front edge. If Green wants to attack black but can only enter TZ with its front edge then it will need to do some type of rotation/pivot to bring a front corner around to enter TZ, possibly expending a lot of movement (e.g. Spears). Currently, I think players would just sweep green across rotating into position as it moved. I hope that explains it. Like I said, I like the idea that TZ must be entered by front edge. Jim  ![]()  |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2022 2:15:13 GMT
I certainly like the idea that part your front edge must enter TZ. But will that cause problems with elements having to rotate 3/4 of a circle to reach an enemy element in order to enter with its front corner/edge?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2022 2:09:14 GMT
I should add for clarity that the flock is first glued down as normal. Then glued a second time with the IPA and watered down glue to fix it in place.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 24, 2022 1:19:06 GMT
Hi all,
Tried a little technique that I picked up watching youTube (Geek Gaming, etc) videos that may help some with their basing. I use the tried and tested method of put down some PVA glue, sprinkle/dunk some flock, push it down and dry then add some extra decoration. But flock always falls off. So I decided to try something to stop this from happening whenI was making some 28mm terrain and thought I'd base some DBA 15s at the same time.
After you've finished your base get some isopropyl alcohol and watered down (50/50) PVA. Spray the base with the IPA then using a dropper, drip the PVA. The IPA breaks the surface tension and the PVA flows through and around everything! When dry it is translucent and rock hard. Holds flock, tiny stones, tiny twigs, lichen, static grass, etc. The IPA didn't seem to damage the paint at all.
So if you're like me and sick of bits of green dust everywhere you can give this a try. IPA is expensive but it doesn't take much so one spray bottle will last a long time.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 24, 2022 0:57:49 GMT
Jim If you're threatened (and this is a threat zone, so troops are moving towards you, close enough to threaten but not yet close enough to contact) by troops from front and flank, I think it's perfectly sensible to 'get the heck out of there' before you get hit from both sides. The rules allow you to do this and as a consequence you can legitimately back through, or out of, a flanking elements TZ. I don't think anyone would have problem with this as you are retreating from a threatening position. Indeed you are correct. Rules as written (RAW), you can fallback from a combined front and flank threat zone. In fact, you could enter a new TZ, up to the point where your far corner reaches its closest point to the new enemies near corner ("to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy"). That way you are falling back directly to your rear and moving closer to corner to corner alignment. Next turn, you could withdraw directly to your rear across this new TZ. Now I may be missing something but this type of movement ploy seems possible to me, RAW. Happy to be shown otherwise as, like stevie, I think it's ludicrous. I just don't see this era having this sort of command and control to pull off these movements in proximity to the enemy. Falling back to open space is one thing but hop-scotching between TZ seems extreme. I'd like to see "fallback moves must end outside any TZ otherwise not permitted" but potentially allow the element to pivot and perfectly face one enemy element if this causes unseen issues. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 23, 2022 10:11:37 GMT
Well, if you end up in a position with an enemy threatening your front and another threatening your flank then you are in a bit of a pickle! You probably shouldn't be able to escape in an orderly manner. Either freeze, fight or break. So I agree that you cannot enter TZ backwards, unless you're pivoting to line up to the enemy. Certainly can't back across it.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 15, 2022 6:05:41 GMT
For those interested and in/near Australia, War and Peace Games has the starter set available for pre-order.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 12, 2022 10:47:07 GMT
Looking forward to these. Thanks Tony and Mitch. Still amazes me after so many games you still find rules that you are unfamiliar with like the hamlet rules in the Amorite games. Makes those of us that play less feel a little better that we don't know 7 pages of rules backwards!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 4, 2022 13:39:44 GMT
I can't wait to see King stevie carried around on a litter in 15mm scale!
Cheers
Jim
PS You know I agree with you on rivers. Totally broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 4, 2022 7:58:38 GMT
“Cp, Lit, CWg, Art or WWg cannot move into ANY contact with (the) enemy.” Now stevie, you quoted the rule above but you accept that WWg(mob) can contact enemy from recoil from Camp/BUA/Fort? I don't see the words "compulsory involuntary" or "accidental". Either the word " ANY" is inaccurate or the definition of "move" is ambiguous. But "move" on its own it isn't defined in the rules. So certainly your strict definition (excluding compulsory involuntary) is as valid as others. But I don't think this will break the game. Art and WWg are by far more common and they are unlikely to choose to conform as they can shoot. In the current example, the general would be unwise to conform to contact and would be better off sacrificing the first Art and taking a shot with the second. CP/Lit/CWg may be happy to conform but they're not that common and only one element. Again, I don't think it will lead to long term success to have a static angled deployment to benefit one element that is only useful if the enemy chooses to attack in a certain way. So perhaps not a common issue for us to adjudicate. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 3, 2022 21:28:44 GMT
So which is it?…to claim to be in close combat they must have ‘moved’ there…but they cannot ‘move’ into contact… You can’t have it both ways. Hi stevie. You didn't answer my question previously about WWmob recoiling from Camp/BUA/Fort and contacting an enemy element. Either you can have it both ways or recoiling is not movement.  Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 2, 2022 15:41:46 GMT
Hi stevie! As you stated "... a WWg mobile tower can contact an enemy-held city, fort or camp." If it loses the combat but not doubled it will, according to page 11", "(R)ecoil if in close combat against defenders of a city." But what if it bumps into an enemy element during its recoil? I would imagine it stops just like all other elements. So it can contact enemy during an outcome move. Doesn't this demonstrate that the absolute ban on contact isn't absolute? In terms of gimmicky play, well in the original situation described, your interpretation favours the artillery, encouraging this sort of formation for artillery and there is quite a bit of artillery around. Finally, conforming at all is not realistic. I mean 1000 spearmen won't slide off to the right to accommodate the enemy? And there is still trickery. Two LH form a column and contact the tiniest projecting corner of a Ps otherwise in woods, dragging it into the open and away from its protection. It's why we love DBA so much! Cheers Jim |
|
