|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 5:23:33 GMT
Now I am confused. The element, which has no other enemy in contact, hit on flank by a pursuer, turns as as soon as contacted after the pursuer contacts it. The rules do not say "conform immediately after the movement phase, as cited by nangwaya above. The rule says "... as if contact was by a tactical move, ." Note the "as if" meaning not during the movement phase but following the pursuit as if this move was during movement phase, when tactical moves are made. Sorry for confusing you bob. I think we are saying the same thing. I was trying to illustrate that the pursuit move should be treated like a tactical move. So when all the "moves" are finished (in the case of pursuit there is only one move) you turn to face. As a mechanism, it's like rolling 1 PIP, which I do regularly enough. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 1:19:38 GMT
Common sense says the unengaged S2 would turn when the pursuing Knights contact them... ....but the rules say you only turn to face “immediately after the movement phase”, not after the combat and pursuing phase. Definitely agree with Bob and I don't think there needs to be any conflict with your rules lawyer instinct stevie! The rules are clear: If a pursuing element's front edge contacts enemy or its front corner contacts an enemy front edge, they line up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound. This movement is now considered a tactical move rather than an outcome move as per "rules as written" Tactical moves occur as the second phase on the sequence of play. After the movement, are there any more tactical moves? No. Therefore this phase has ended. Turn to face "immediately after the movement phase" Rules as written. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 0:32:46 GMT
Jim is suggesting the three different rivers have three different types of going as well. I’m suggesting all rivers should have the same going as the terrain they pass through, which was first thought of by Paddy, as well as the riverbank bonus. Actually, your first post made me change my original suggestion. I'm suggesting Rivers are Rough going most of the time, except Paltry rivers in Good Going or any rivers in Bad Going (for simplicity). We worry a lot about the Spears and Pikes. What about the armies that are mostly Ps/Ax? Surely if they are being invaded they would like a River to try and protect them? They don't want to be speed humps all the time do they? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 0:28:54 GMT
Oh, troops in a river should be penalized in some way Simon...and in DBA they are. Those in a non-Paltry river give their opponents a +1 for the riverbank bonus. Jim is suggesting the three different rivers have three different types of going as well. I’m suggesting all rivers should have the same going as the terrain they pass through, which was first thought of by Paddy, as well as the riverbank bonus. And really, Really, REALLY hindering rivers shouldn’t be on the table at all, because generals in reality would just march on to find an easier crossing point. (Ok...Hannibal did fight his way over the very deep, wide, and fast flowing Rhone River
in 218 BC. But he used hastily constructed rafts, and a wide off-table outflanking move.
So if you want him to cross a DBA Waterway, then give him the right tools to do the job.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rhone_Crossing )But Arrian says this regarding the Battle of the Hydaspes: " Besides at this season all the Indian rivers were flowing with swollen and turbid waters and with rapid currents; for it was the time of year when the sun is wont to turn towards the summer solstice.[3] At this season incessant and heavy rain falls in India; and the snows on the Caucasus, whence most of the rivers have their sources, melt and swell their streams to a great degree. But in the winter they again subside, become small and clear, and are fordable in certain places, with the exception of the Indus, Ganges, and perhaps one or two others. At any rate the Hydaspes becomes fordable." I mean Alexander did camp in Good Going. So why march 20km downstream and cross? He left Craterus back in the camp and he crossed with his forces against opposition as did other officers left along the bank after they perceived that Alexander had "won a brilliant victory". The Hydaspes River is thought to be the Jhelum River. You can Google image the River. It will show its various natures. Alexander fought this battle in monsoon season. I just can't imagine the following scenario: " Right boys. This river is fast, deep and tricky. So into column of march to cross it so we can stay together." " But sir. What if we are attacked?" " No problem. Stay in the water. Form up in line of battle. We can fight normally in the current and chest high water with armour." " What if we have to take the steep, slippery, rocky bank?" " It's a bit like fighting uphill and we've done that before" It just doesn't seem right to me. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 13:20:33 GMT
To put your suggestion into a simpler easier to remember form Jim:- 1-2 = a Paltry River (good going for combat, except where it enters rough/bad going). 3-4 = a Shallow River (rough going for combat, except where it enters bad going). 5-6 = a Deep River (bad going for combat, no matter what terrain it passes through). Anything deeper is a Waterway, and is impassable. This will make Paltry Rivers fairly easy to fight over (no riverbank bonus remember), but it will make Deep Rivers even worse than they are at the moment (-2 penalty to most troops for being in bad going AND the riverbank bonus). Brilliant stevie! Saw the huge hole in this solution. 33% chance of an unplayable river. So back to the drawing board... A River is considered Rough Going for combat unless: - it is a Paltry River (dice roll 1-2) and in Good Going, in which case it is Good Going - it is a Deep River (dice roll 5-6) and in Bad Going, in which case it is Bad Going This makes Rivers in Bad Going a little unusual, in that the Going around the river is more likely to be Rough than Bad. I don't mind this as it may simulate the clearing of terrain at the site of the River. An alternative would be to have all Rivers in Bad Going as Bad Going. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:57:29 GMT
Crossing a river (P9 Para 3) "Troops crossing a river must continue crossing at the same angle to its course as they enter, or divert by the minimum necessary to line up in combat with an enemy element"
Does this mean that the troops must a) complete the crossing ? or b) can they back out at any time before reaching the far bank?
If the answer is b) then an element can scout the river - putting one toe into the water, and upon discovering that the river is defensible, back out and let the army form a line on the bank. I certainly hope the answer is (b) as it would seem right for scouts to be able to do this in real time. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:55:08 GMT
So many of us have followed the debate surrounding the rules on rivers and their "Going" for combat. At least everybody agrees about their "Going" for movement!
So I am considering using this chart to determine the river "Going" for combat:
Nature of the River (dice roll) Going surrounding the River Combat Going of elements within the River
Paltry (dice 1-2) Good Good
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Good Rough
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Good Bad
Paltry (dice 1-2) Rough Rough
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Rough Rough
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Rough Bad
Paltry (dice 1-2) Bad Bad
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Bad Bad
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Bad Bad
This uses concepts already in the rules:
- the dice roll for the nature of the river
- the going rules for the only other linear feature, "Roads"
It seems to use common sense, which we are told PB expects us to use with his rules. (paddy wrote about the actual width of rivers on the other post so really, they should be much thinner than the areas covered by our bases.)
It removes the "limbo" going regarding Rivers in Combat.
And finally, there should be no issues to simulate Issus. PB writes in his book on Alexander's campaigns that he considered the Issus river a minor obstacle only (in this table a Paltry River in Good Going).
Love to hear people's thoughts.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:29:41 GMT
But I'm not optimistic the FAQ team will reach any consensus on this topic. So is it time to move this discussion to the House Rules? Cheers Jim I disagree Jim.  The “Rants and Raves” section of Fanaticus is for, and I quote:- “...your place to sound off on DBA, the rules, gaming, etc” And that is exactly what I have done. I am asking the FAQ Team to go and discuss the river rules to see which gives the better game, the ‘rivers are neither good nor other going for combat’ interpretation, or ‘rivers are the going they pass through for combat’ interpretation. Moving this thread to the “House Rule” section is just trying to hide the issue ( censorship!). Only if they decide that it is best to have rivers unplayable for Pikes and Spears as well as all the other absurd river effects, or if they cannot come to a unanimous decision (which is what I too expect will happen), will it be necessary to make our own “House Rule” in order to finally get sensible, historical, and playable rivers in DBA. has stated that this will be raised at the next meeting so that's a start. I am going to start a new thread in the House Rules section as primuspilus and macbeth have raised some more issues today. If nothing else, it may give the FAQ team an alternative to discuss. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:27:11 GMT
Personally, I preferred the idea of dicing for the going of a river instead. Then they are good going, rough or bad, depending on a combination of depth, speed of water flow, and obstacles in the river (logs, boulders, etc) as well as height and steepness of banks? I do like this idea. So I'm going to start a thread in the House Rules section on how people would envisage changes to the river rules. It may give the FAQ team something to think about in November. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 8, 2019 14:55:51 GMT
Please remember that I am not the villain here. You're no villain stevie. You are one of the strongest (and in terms of T-shirts, loudest) supporters of DBA 3. It is a shame that your posts sometimes attract a less than pleasant response. I agree with you that Rivers have to be some type of going for combat. I find it hard to accept that because it is not specifically listed as anything it lives in some kind of limbo, not good, not rough and not bad. Imagine explaining that to a newcomer. But I'm not optimistic the FAQ team will reach any consensus on this topic. So is it time to move this discussion to the House Rules? Cheers Jim PS Now back to The Ashes! |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 6, 2019 14:05:50 GMT
Beautiful piece. Terrain Tutor and Black Magic Craft vids are awesome!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 4, 2019 13:26:11 GMT
Alternatively, some rule to get rid of the "postage stamp + 2 roads = a battlefield" equation. “Randomly Generated Terrain” perhaps?  fanaticus.boards.net/post/11499/That works for you and me. I even like to randomly select the make-up of my armies. That's why I try to build all-options armies. But not everybody has a box full of all terrain options. I just want a line or two in the rules that provides interesting battlefields. The "postage stamp + 2 roads" even works in Tropical! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 4, 2019 12:20:01 GMT
Yes that is a good compromise stevie. I would like all the terrain zones to have two compulsory choices. Hilly should be hilly! Just need to add something for littoral as 2 Waterways is too much. Alternatively, some rule to get rid of the "postage stamp + 2 roads = a battlefield" equation. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 4, 2019 10:10:19 GMT
So true! So we have a “Skinny Martini” which is a 28.4mm square hamlet and 2 x 60 cm lengths of brown string. That’ll hardly break the terrain budget! Plonk the BUA in a corner with the roads leading out from the BUA to the opposite board edges. This gives a board that is 99.76% good going and I note with amusement more open than can be achieved in Steppe. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If you made the hamlet as a 41mm cross with each arm the same width as the brown string on a 30 inch board then you may get to 99.96%! On a more serious note, does this indicate that the Arable terrain rules are broken? Or maybe other terrain rules are also easily "cheesed". I hope I'm not alone in wanting attractive boards to play on. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 3, 2019 13:22:03 GMT
I lost track of the substance of this thread. The rule for Arable terrain is either a BUA or 2 Plough but not both. This was never written by Phil. "Or" means one thing and _not_ the other. I wrote to Sue about this a while back. I accept her stance on this =================== Compulsory is either 1 BUA or 2 Plough, not both. However more plough is allowed under the optional terrain so he can have a BUA as the compulsory and the 2 plough as optional if he wants this. Sue From: Robert Beattie Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 7:13 PM To: Sue Laflin Subject: Arable topography Hi, I know Phil is not answering hard questions for DBA, but perhaps he can review a very simple one. ARABLE 1 BUA or 2 Plough. River, Difficult Hills, Gentle Hills, Woods, extra Plough, Enclosures, Road, Waterway, Scrub, Boggy. One player insists that 1 BUA or 2 Plough really means you can take 1 BUA and 2 Plough. This is such a small issue but it is developing into a serious debate. Does Phil mean "EITHER 1 BUA or 2 Plough” or does he mean “1 BUA and/or 2 Plough" Thanks much, keep in touch. Bob Robert Beattie Hi Bob. I do believe you! But looking at Sue's reply it reads as though I can take a BUA as the compulsory choice and Plough as an optional choice. Does that mean we can forget the word "extra" in front of Plough? Cheers Jim |
|
