|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 31, 2019 12:43:15 GMT
LAKES: impassable bodies of water that do not touch the table edges. Rivers may flow into or out of them. Available to all but Dry Regions. Only one is allowed per battlefield. Cannot be crossed by roads (obviously). (Large bodies of water, such as Lake Trasimene, are already represented as waterways.
Lakes represent smaller bodies of water, such as that behind the Polish forces at the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410)
Hi stevie.Are your Lakes as per DBMM? Similr to Waterways but don't cover the entire base edge and not quite as deep? I think between 1/4 and 3/4 would be a good length. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 31, 2019 12:38:09 GMT
So we can't get PB to give us a ruling on this point. But we can look into his thinking regarding rivers in DBMM. A bit like looking for a legal precedence.
Firstly rivers are divided into those that are between 80-200p and those less than 80p. In DBA3, PB only gives rivers less than 80p. Strange, as our elements represent a larger body of troops but there you have it. He specifically states that they are:
- difficult going if in spate (this occurs as part of the weather rules), otherwise
- good going if if within 800p of sea, otherwise
- rough going for foot and difficult going for mounted
So this indicates to me that PB considers:
a) the underlying nature of the river to be important
b) that a river can be different going in different places
c) that mostly it is not good going
For completeness, regarding wider rivers, PB states:
- difficult going in spate (weather rule), otherwise
- rough going if low (weather rule), otherwise
- rough going for mounted (except chariots) and difficult going for foot and chariots
Maybe this will help the FAQ team in their deliberations (or maybe not!)
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 31, 2019 5:02:05 GMT
I think it is plausible to take the RAW as written and interpret them as paddy and stevie would like, namely that a River is considered the going that it is in for combat.
Firstly, we have terrain features as AREA and LINEAR with all other space as GOOD GOING. An area, by definition, has a perimeter and encompasses everything within it, including the River. The rules state that "It (a river) can cross any feature except...". Crossing a terrain feature doesn't change its integrity. Its perimeter would continue beneath the river feature. It doesn't divide the feature into two separate pieces, (otherwise you may have to discard part of a feature!). So elements within the terrain feature are governed by all the rules of the terrain feature, except that "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going..." I think this is important because being "in" a river and defending the "bank" of the river are not absolutes in DBA3. This rule is clear: "An element is defending the bank if it is entirely on land and its close combat opponent is at least partly in the water". So the defender gets the bonus even if the back corner is in river. The defender may well be over 1/2BW from the river. But what going is the combat occurring in? What terrain is the combat occurring in? The rules only give us the following: "An element only partly in GOOD GOING is treated as in the other going. But if a River is passing through a Wood then this rule does not apply. This rule works for Area terrain as it must be 1BW away from other Area features and Roads have specified rules for movement and combat. Rivers?
However, DBA3 adds further complexity by grading rivers into 3 groups. If we just accept the rule as rivers take the going they are in then paltry rivers in Woods are worse terrain for combat than deeper, fast flowing rivers in the plains. This is not sensible.
I think that the combat terrain of a river should be dictated by the combination of its nature and the going that it is in. So a paltry river would be good going, a normal river would be rough going, and a difficult river should be bad going. However, if the river is passing through terrain that is worse than its nature then the area terrain takes precedence. But that would require a rule change which is beyond the remit of the FAQ team. So I wish them luck sorting this one out!
For those interested in PB's view on rivers, I will follow this post up with a summary of how he deals with rivers in DBMM (where rivers do get classified as Good/Rough/Difficult). For those interested in PB's view on Issus and Granicus, I can refer you to his book on Alexander's campaigns.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 26, 2019 12:27:31 GMT
The dark 1 inch line is the gully. The rest of the piece is just window dressing. It was made by Bill a while back when we weren't thinking of DBA at all, but it serves us well now. One thing the casualty figures showed was 3 elements met their demise in the exact same place, a buzzard's banquet. I can see why it serves you well. Clearly defined and looks good. Just note that a Gully (or any other area feature for that matter) needs a width of at least 1BW perpendicular to its length. There's no stipulation on how much of the feature needs to have this width so even a small bulge would do the trick. But to be honest, I like your interpretation. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 26, 2019 12:17:06 GMT
Thanks for this Pete. Here is the link to the wiki: linkCheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 26, 2019 12:09:28 GMT
Hi stevie.
Do you think you could add a PDF of your random terrain to the Wiki?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 26, 2019 12:00:16 GMT
I think Paddy (although I could be wrong), that Joe Collin’s is saying the following:- I think Obadiah that what Joe is saying is the Arable 2 compulsory Plough should come as a pair, for just one solitary pick (a bit like a ‘buy-one-get-one-free’ offer). So you could have... * One compulsory BUA (for just one pick)...or... * Two compulsory Plough (for just one pick)...or.. * or both a BUA (one pick) AND the 2 Plough (one pick) together as your two compulsory choices. You couldn’t pick two BUA’s, as only one is allowed on the table, and you couldn’t pick two pairs of Plough, as three is the maximum allowed. If this was the original intention, then it got worded badly, so many players like myself thought that the 2 compulsory Plough was two picks, making it impossible to have compulsory Plough and a BUA together. And if you only have a BUA and no Plough, then how can you have ‘Extra Plough’ as an optional pick? ‘Extra’ to what?...the word ‘extra’ implies that you already have some, and are adding more to it. But if compulsory Plough comes as two to a packet, for just one solitary pick, then it all makes sense, and you can never have a single Plough all on its own. But it really has very little impact on the way we have all been doing it (apparently wrongly) up till now, as outlined here:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/24404/There is one contradiction with Joe's rule. If you take 1 BUA and 2 Plough then you have 3 compulsory features when the rules clearly state 1-2 compulsory features. I wish the "2" wasn't there. The "or" doesn't bother me as much as PB uses "or" in the army lists to mean any mixture can be used. So at least that would be consistent! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 26, 2019 11:51:07 GMT
I like Joe's interpretation. Makes more sense that farms may be near towns, forts or temples. Seems sensible. Cheers Jim You can do the same with what Bob got back from Sue . I just wish someone would put something in the FAQ then this will hopefully be put to bed once and for all .  Agreed. But then you have to ignore the word "extra". If you took a BUA then you couldn't take "extra" Plough. If you took 2 Plough then there is no BUA in the optional terrain. I'm not sure how the FAQ team will solve this problem with an interpretation rather than recommending a change to the "Rules as Written" (i.e. ignore a word printed in the rulebook) Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 25, 2019 9:45:31 GMT
I can’t think of a single instance of when you would want both a BUA AND compulsory Plough together. (Except maybe for realistic or aesthetically pleasing reasons)
Well, my new Welsh army debuted by invading their Saxon neighbour. He seems to have built a fort to reassure his local farmers and the Welsh did not want their "rambling" curtailed. Anyway, the Saxon put in a fort (garrisoned with Sp makes it reasonably difficult for the Welsh to take, occupying the Welsh general) and decided to put lots of big plough to try and fill the board, block less desirable terrain and allow his Spears freedom of movement. First PIP roll...1! The best made plans of mice and men... I like Joe's interpretation. Makes more sense that farms may be near towns, forts or temples. Seems sensible. I hope you incorporate this into your random terrain matrix stevie. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 15, 2019 11:44:26 GMT
But Paddy, would it be as much fun if the rules were unambiguous and in simple English?  Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 10, 2019 3:21:20 GMT
Or you could stick to DBA & try my DBA amendments for ECW available in the file sections of the Facebook groups and the Yahoo group  Hi Pete. Found the QRS on the yahoo site. Is there another file with army lists? It would be great if we could have them on the wiki. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 10, 2019 2:58:57 GMT
Excellent report. Love the casualty figures! Great way to keep score and a I can see a good use for spare minis.
Just wondering how you played the gully terrain piece given that it has to be at least three times as long as it is wide. Was it marked inconspicuously somehow?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 30, 2019 4:56:29 GMT
Take a look at these videos from Tony Aguilar's channel: linklinklinkI've emailed Rod as I desperately want the Persian War Tower! He was very helpful and has pushed me to consider 3D printing (did I mention that I desperately want that tower?). Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 26, 2019 23:34:40 GMT
That video inspired me to make my own board. Small bathroom tiles on a piece of MDF, a bit of grout, some polished stones...taa daa!
I'd put a picture up but not so easy any more...
Jim
|
|
|
|
D3H2
Jul 21, 2019 14:34:48 GMT
Post by jim1973 on Jul 21, 2019 14:34:48 GMT
Great write up! It made me realise that I need a Green-skin army. Who would've thought? The (lead) mountain continues to grow. But they will have to wait for the Naps for DBA-HX 3.0 Cheers Jim |
|
