|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 17, 2021 3:47:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 17, 2021 3:44:15 GMT
It'll be Mitch's waterway. It looks just like the rivers at Deep Cut Studios, which are also on neoprene.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2021 15:24:14 GMT
Hi Tony.
Is your Waterway a Deep Cut Studio river with one bank removed? I love their work Just used the cobblestone roads for Zombicide Black Plague. I'd love more neoprene as underlays for DBA terrain.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2021 13:53:36 GMT
@ stevie Thanks stevie. I thought p9,point d) was specific about corner to corner overlap. But it just says overlap and refers to p10 to define overlap. So I'm definitely with the "not requiring frontal contact" view of the rules @ ronisan It seems a stretch to say you can move through but just can't stop, particularly as the rules state "straight back" indicting no change in formation. Does the enemy just wave as you pass? This interpretation, which is just as criticized, also doesn't lead to complicated or unsolvable problems. It is also easy and makes all moves, tactical and outcome, follow the same pattern. This makes the game even simpler. But if the author did specifically address this issue then we would be best to hear from the playtesters and then be in a better position to decide which interpretation we wish to play. Cheers Jim Hello Jim, But it just says overlap and refers to p10 to define overlap. So I'm definitely with the "not requiring frontal contact" view of the rulesYou know that the chapter on page 10, defining overlap, is titled "Close Combat"? ;-) Ronald. Yes. And Phil Barker directly refers us to this section from P9, "Moving into Contact with the Enemy". Given Phil's history of limiting his explanations, it would be prudent to think he believes that overlap is well defined on p10. Otherwise, why refer to it? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2021 13:49:59 GMT
@ stevie Thanks stevie. I thought p9,point d) was specific about corner to corner overlap. But it just says overlap and refers to p10 to define overlap. So I'm definitely with the "not requiring frontal contact" view of the rules @ ronisan It seems a stretch to say you can move through but just can't stop, particularly as the rules state "straight back" indicting no change in formation. Does the enemy just wave as you pass? This interpretation, which is just as criticized, also doesn't lead to complicated or unsolvable problems. It is also easy and makes all moves, tactical and outcome, follow the same pattern. This makes the game even simpler. But if the author did specifically address this issue then we would be best to hear from the playtesters and then be in a better position to decide which interpretation we wish to play. Cheers Jim Hello Jim, But it just says overlap and refers to p10 to define overlap. So I'm definitely with the "not requiring frontal contact" view of the rulesYou know that the chapter on page 10, defining overlap, is titled "Close Combat"? ;-) "When an element is in close combat both to front and to flank or rear or in close combat to its front and overlapped, only it and the enemy element in front fight each other. Others only provide tactical factors." ... like -1 for being overlapped by the element in frontal contact? ;-) Does the enemy just wave as you pass?Hmmm ... Told by somebody who thinks side edge to side edge contact is allowed to move into contact with enemy? ... and doing what? ... shaking hands? ;-) Cheers Ronald. But I am consistent. I don't think the elements are interacting in terms of combat when in overlap because only front edge contact allows combat. So whether they touch in overlap, side-to-side or corner-to-corner, outcome or tactical move, it's one and the same. Your position has a tactical move rule if you end in contact, tactical move rule of you brush edges but don't end in contact, and an outcome move rule that are different. Explain to me why troops shrug their shoulders if the element pursues after combat but not a tactical move even though neither is in a Threat Zone. I would say if they are not threatened then maybe they are OK to move. But each to their own. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2021 11:28:33 GMT
@ stevie
Thanks stevie. I thought p9,point d) was specific about corner to corner overlap. But it just says overlap and refers to p10 to define overlap. So I'm definitely with the "not requiring frontal contact" view of the rules
@ ronisan
It seems a stretch to say you can move through but just can't stop, particularly as the rules state "straight back" indicting no change in formation. Does the enemy just wave as you pass?
This interpretation, which is just as criticized, also doesn't lead to complicated or unsolvable problems. It is also easy and makes all moves, tactical and outcome, follow the same pattern. This makes the game even simpler.
But if the author did specifically address this issue then we would be best to hear from the playtesters and then be in a better position to decide which interpretation we wish to play.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2021 6:41:09 GMT
Quite by chance I have just come across the following in a Facebook post by Bob Beattie (one of the v3 play testers). "I for one, asked that overlap be allowed without frontal contact. This was changed from 2.2." I'm happy to take that as conclusive as to what (d) was intended to mean. That is interesting! If we could get Bob, Joe or medievalthomas to confirm this decision then we are almost there. I am in this camp too! I can see the other side but watching Tony's video, where and element couldn't move away because its side would rub against the side of an enemy really bothered me. Made me think that an element that destroyed the element to its front couldn't breakthrough unless the enemy on either side was engaged. But we are told by the ancient writer's that this happened. One thing though is the idea of reversing backside to backside to block retreat ("buttocks of death") that a more liberal approach would allow. Particulalry as you must move directly backwards if in a TZ. This is a tactic I don't like. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2021 6:31:52 GMT
Fabulous video from an excellent presenter. I would go for the Cigar Box DBA mat, which would give grassland and desert. But the postage to Oz is frightening.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 16, 2021 6:27:58 GMT
Just got the newsletter a couple of days ago. I'm sure it'll happen at some point. No doubt if Tony A updates DBA-RRR it'll happen sooner rather than later.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 15, 2021 11:09:58 GMT
Hi stevie!
If you go 20mm and 40mm depths, what happens when cavalry close the door in the middle of a line? Will they be eliminated as they have no recoil?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 12, 2021 4:08:01 GMT
There is a great example on Tony's video today about corner/side contact (Book 1 battles). Watch the video of the combat from the 35th minute. This will clearly explain their view and they are consistent throughout their games. I don't interpret the rules that way. I think side-to-side and corner-to-corner contact are allowed whenever, via tactical moves. They are not contact to front as they do not lead to combat and we see that throughout the game via combat outcomes. This video will allow people to see the interaction in real time and decide for themselves which interpretation they like. Cheers Jim PS Keep watching until the end of the first battle as there are some great other examples of moving into contact. link |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 8, 2021 12:23:53 GMT
I don't like rear support in DBA. It's not that I don't believe that troops didn't alter the depth historically. I just think that can be absorbed by the range of troop numbers that a DBA element represents. I read on the internet criticisms of DBA being a "12 element" game but I actually think that is a strength. Most historical battle reports I read indicate that the generals manage to match the width of the enemy, more or less, or use terrain (e.g. defeat of Boudicca). Points based systems, IMHO, just end up repeating the "outnumbered Romans against the horde of barbarians" scenario. In DBA, this is a disaster as the flanking penalty is so great. This doesn't match the reports. Not the numbers per se, but the extended line outflanking the "Romans". It seems strange that the Gauls need to halve their width and risk their flanks in order to nearly match the Romans. It also seems to me to be the reason that Pike armies struggle. Recreating the obscure Battle of Cleonai, between Corinth and Argos, is more interesting by decreasing the CF of the Corinthian hoplites to account for their lack of numbers, rather than the number of elements.
But that's just my thoughts.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 7, 2021 12:17:07 GMT
Post by jim1973 on Jun 7, 2021 12:17:07 GMT
It's hard when we don't know the prototype for the troop element. Was it the Welsh, the Hittites or the Japanese? If they're Spear then they are base 4 CF against foot and mounted. Maybe that's enough? No side-support (as per page 11). No rear support. Superior mobility. Fight at CV 2 in bad going. It just may do the trick.
Jim
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 7, 2021 10:53:26 GMT
Post by jim1973 on Jun 7, 2021 10:53:26 GMT
And let them have +1 for rear support in good going against foot (but not against Ps). Wouldn't giving them side-support be less confusing if they are called 3Sp? Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 5, 2021 8:16:06 GMT
This is my giant radioactive ant army from the 1954 film “ Them!”:-  This army consists of one Telepathic Controller Ant (magician), nine Giant Ants (beasts), and one Giant Flying Ant (flyer). I loved that movie! Haven't seen it for a long time Jim |
|
