|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 16, 2024 15:18:43 GMT
I can just imagine all these snarling hairy Herberts milling about confused as they remain in a straight line and stopping as soon as one of them hits the corner of the enemy. Both sides then shuffling about rather embarrassed and the warband apologising because it 'Union Rules' and more than their job is worth. Every game has the vices of its virtues, in my opinion, skb. Compared with rule sets like ADLG, DBA has the virtues of a clean battlefield (no damage markers), what I think of as a 'historical looking' battlefield (mess, rather than armies staying engaged in straight lines) and tricky tactical choices such as deciding the order in which you make attacks. (I am not sure that the last has a historical basis, but I enjoy it.) The cost we pay for these virtues, the vice, is DBA's fiddly movement rules. Movement backwards (and pursuit) takes the place of damage markers; the mess is created by this, and by our edging left or right to try and get a flank attack, which is more powerful in this game than others; the order in which you make attacks influences whether and where you make holes in the enemy line. All these things are regulated by the fiddly movement rules, and I've made my peace with them - though I also enjoy their absence in skirmish games like Infamy Infamy. The reason for my original post was that given that we do in fact have this type of rule, the best thing - if we want to keep things moving along rather than getting bogged down in rule discussions during games - is to have a consensus in advance on how the rules should be read. (Another of the virtues of DBA is how quick games can be; different readings of the rules slow them down.) On the substance my instinct is that Brian Ború is right, but I'd also be happy to play the other way. I'd just like to know which. Paul H
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 16, 2024 13:11:11 GMT
(Hi hodsopa, BTW: why do you like your own post? , Cheers, Brian) Out of incompetence, Brian!
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 16, 2024 12:14:11 GMT
A question came up in an informal game before the Slimbridge tournament earlier this month. Although the question is about close combat, it is helpful to take diagram 15a in the rules (which is about shooting) as the starting point.
In that diagram, if it is the turn of Warband X and the warband is fast, it has enough movement to contact the front left corner of Bow A with its own front edge. But it hasn't got enough movement to contact any more of Bow A's front edge than that.
The rules state that "an extra sideways slide of up to 1 BW is allowed if this is necessary to conform after contacting an enemy front edge".
The issue is whether 1) Bow A's front corner forms part of its "front edge" and if so, whether 2) a "sideways slide" can include a pivot.
If so in both cases, then Warband X can conform. If one or the other of those things is not so, then it would seem that there is no possibiity of an extra slide. In that case Warband A could not conform. The contact would be "illegal" and would not happen.
How should the rules be interpreted on these two points?
Paul H
PS If Warband X was part of a group and Bow A was not, it would be up to Bow A to conform. But I think the rule interpretation questions wouldn't change.
PPS Tell me if I have expressed the issue wrong.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 16, 2024 11:09:47 GMT
Planning transport... what time are you thinking of starting and finishing?
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 15, 2024 23:32:58 GMT
very nice so far
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 9, 2024 18:50:26 GMT
I'm sure Paul will include a camel-wielding army or two to give me a chance ...
but even so I think it will be the year of my mate Tom Howes, over from Brussels for the Cup
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 9, 2024 13:57:03 GMT
Hi Attila, as a participant in Saturday's Slimbridge tournament - I share Colin's remarks on all the good things about it and its venue - I can have a go at answering your first question, though it's certainly for Keith to answer the second.
Game winners scored 8 points, minus 1 point for each element they lost (excluding hordes and scythed chariots, and with bonuses for generals and camps, as usual).
Game losers scored 1 point, plus 1 point for each element (defined as above) they made the winner lose.
I am not sure what the rule was for draws - as far as I know there weren't any (there was plenty of time).
When Colin speaks of "weird scoring", he may mean the cases when battles were so close that the loser killed 4 elements and the winner had to kill more. For example, in my game against Martin (above), Martin killed my general + 3 other elements. I killed 4 elements of his. Martin was the winner and scored (8-4) = 4 points: I was the loser and scored (1+4) = 5. I share the view that this was an anomaly. Though the game was close, it would have been appropriate, for example, for Martin to have scored a point more than me, not a point less.
Hope this is helpful
Paul H
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 4, 2024 12:22:43 GMT
I've booked the Cornerhouse too
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 4, 2024 9:47:22 GMT
Ä possible scenario, from Tacitus, Annals. Cerialis’ attempt to relieve the city of Camulodunum (Colchester) besieged by Boudicca “The victorious enemy met Petilius Cerialis, commander of the ninth legion, as he was coming to the rescue, routed his troops, and destroyed all his infantry. Cerialis escaped with some cavalry into the camp, and was saved by its fortifications.” Use the Collision Course variant for deployment. Hi, can you tell me where to find the Collision course variant? (I'm not on facebook). This scenario looks interesting.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 4, 2024 9:41:30 GMT
Thanks CarlL. I don't know what Joe Collins can have been thinking!
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 3, 2024 18:01:08 GMT
I will be. (Nothing arranged yet though)
Paul H
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 3, 2024 0:01:57 GMT
It's great. I'm tempted to try it, with even greater outnumbering by the British.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 2, 2024 12:41:04 GMT
Thanks to both of you
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jan 2, 2024 10:06:39 GMT
Dear all,
Can anyone point me to a scenario for a historical Ancient British vs Romans battle (other than Mons Graupius)?
If so, I'll write a report afterwards with pleasure.
Paul H
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Dec 29, 2023 16:12:11 GMT
Surely we can all agree that the solution is to minimise buffering and, indeed, to optimise performance of 4Ax?
|
|