PDA

View Full Version : DBA Terrain Pieces


Susan Laflin-Barker
12-29-2010, 07:22 AM
Should a wooded hill count as one piece of terrain or two?

Sue.

David Constable
12-29-2010, 08:31 AM
Should a wooded hill count as one piece of terrain or two?

Sue.

Strictly two unless the terrain rules are changed.
The only reason for doing it would be to put a wood on a gentle hill, thus making it bad going.

If you see a reason for it then you could create a new terrain piece, a wooded hill counting as bad going, costing one terrain piece, and replacing any type of hill.

David Constable

old mucker
12-29-2010, 09:01 AM
Strictly two unless the terrain rules are changed.
The only reason for doing it would be to put a wood on a gentle hill, thus making it bad going.


Also, having a wooded 'steep hill' will see the existing bad going effects on movement and close combat afforded by the steep hill/woods - an advantage for some, of course - coupled with the limitations on distance shooting provided by the woods.

I like to deploy Bw units on a steep hill, thus taking advantage of their combat status in bad going, while retaining their distance shooting capacity. However, a wooded hill could deny Bw this duel benefit. Thus leaving this terrain type as the domain of Ps and Ax.

I think I am right in saying that with the current terrain placement rules that a wooded steep hill is only currently possible in 'Arable', 'Hilly' and 'Littoral' terrain types. Having a wooded hill category would effectively allow defenders in these terrain types to load up the board with more bad going if the optional terrain placement rules remain at 2-3 pieces. So the impact would be to favour armies with Ax/Ps and maybe Bw.

Also, if they were to be considered for inclusion as a single terrain type, are there any circumstances where a wooded hill category might then be considered a compulsory terrain type?

Overall, I would say leave things as they are in terms of requiring a wooded hill to be made up of two pieces of terrain. This also allows the option (I think) of having the wood expand beyond the edge of the hill providing more terrain permutations than simply having a hill with woods within its boundary. Forgive me if this is vague - it's late! I'm sure there are many of you out there that can make more sense of the impact than I can.

Alan

David Schlanger
12-29-2010, 10:27 AM
Overall, I would say leave things as they are in terms of requiring a wooded hill to be made up of two pieces of terrain. This also allows the option (I think) of having the wood expand beyond the edge of the hill providing more terrain permutations than simply having a hill with woods within its boundary.Alan

I am confused, if we leave things as they are... then we have no wooded hills, correct?

DS

Tony Aguilar
12-29-2010, 10:38 AM
I am confused, if we leave things as they are... then we have no wooded hills, correct?

DS

Correct. Right now the hills come in barren or rocky versions.

Pavane
12-29-2010, 10:41 AM
Sue, I think that you have skipped a question: Should area terrain pieces be stackable in DBA? Currently a wooded hill is not legal as a minimum space of 1 base width must separate these features.

Although they are very common in reality, I don't think that the added complexity of stacked terrain is worth it. A wooded hill in DBA would be treated as a wood with the possibility of an element to be upslope of another. Most armies would just avoid the terrain piece as they would a normal wood, so not much is accomplished to improve game play.

If stackable terrain is allowed, will it go as far as DBM where parts of the hill can be wooded? I shudder at the thought of introducing the DBM terrain monstosity of the gentle hill, with woods on three slope sides only (bare on the top and the side facing the player's baseline), topped by a BUA containing the army's baggage. I have encountered this on more than one occasion. This is like the Mr. Potato-Head of terrain creation; place an eye here, a nose there, etc.

Stackable terrain is a slippery slope indeed.

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 10:54 AM
Sue, I think that you have skipped a question: Should area terrain pieces be stackable in DBA? Currently a wooded hill is not legal as a minimum space of 1 base width must separate these features.


As Will points out, the issue has some imbedded complexity.

Are you talking about introducing a uniform wooded hill that is just a woods with slope bonus? In my view, that is one terrain object.

Are you talking about allowing (some) terrain types to overlap? A woods overlapping all or part of a hill? That should be two terrain objects. That would be a very interesting modification to the rules, but a serious modeling problem for gamers if they wanted something more than a few pre-built wooded hills (i.e., if they wanted to change the amount of overlap on the fly when laying out terrain).

David Constable
12-29-2010, 10:55 AM
Sue, I think that you have skipped a question: Should area terrain pieces be stackable in DBA? Currently a wooded hill is not legal as a minimum space of 1 base width must separate these features.

Although they are very common in reality, I don't think that the added complexity of stacked terrain is worth it. A wooded hill in DBA would be treated as a wood with the possibility of an element to be upslope of another. Most armies would just avoid the terrain piece as they would a normal wood, so not much is accomplished to improve game play.

If stackable terrain is allowed, will it go as far as DBM where parts of the hill can be wooded? I shudder at the thought of introducing the DBM terrain monstosity of the gentle hill, with woods on three slope sides only (bare on the top and the side facing the player's baseline), topped by a BUA containing the army's baggage. I have encountered this on more than one occasion. This is like the Mr. Potato-Head of terrain creation; place an eye here, a nose there, etc.

Stackable terrain is a slippery slope indeed.

This is why it is simpler to create a new terrain type - wooded hill.

You allow any hill to be replaced/exchanged for a wooded hill.
It counts as bad terrain.
In close combat it counts as a hill for the +1 for being uphill.
On all other occasions it counts as a wood.

This I think covers it in a simple way?

On terrain as an aside - Sue what about lake sides?

David Constable

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 10:57 AM
On terrain as an aside - Sue what about lake sides?


Why isn't that just represented as a waterway?

vonBerlichingen
12-29-2010, 11:13 AM
Writing of hills, is there a simple way of representing hill crests (or plateau edges) or "uphillness" that does not entail a geographically counter-intuitive "ridge height" (as opposed to the more likely "spot height")?

For the sake of discussion, might something like the following work as a starting point?

An element is uphill of another if a line traced back from either of its flanks points higher up the hill sooner than does a line traced back from either of the flanks of an opposing element.

RonG
12-29-2010, 11:25 AM
ok, the difference between a bad going hill and wooded is that bow will not be able to fire in the woods. They can fire on either a gentle or steep(bad going) hill. Also the slope advantage applies to both hills. I have allowed "wooded Hills" with no problems at all. :up But I do have a question, can a road go over either hill? does it negate the bad going?

Pavane
12-29-2010, 11:44 AM
ok, the difference between a bad going hill and wooded is that bow will not be able to fire in the woods. They can fire on either a gentle or steep(bad going) hill. Also the slope advantage applies to both hills. I have allowed "wooded Hills" with no problems at all. :up But I do have a question, can a road go over either hill? does it negate the bad going?
Wouldn't a wooded gentle hill and a wooded steep hill be the same beast? The woods would make them both BGo.

David Constable
12-29-2010, 12:06 PM
Why isn't that just represented as a waterway?

Not strictly, it specifies sea or great river, if the word lake is added it would be fine.

David Constable

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 12:11 PM
But I do have a question, can a road go over either hill? does it negate the bad going?

1) Yes

Surely you've come up against this with regard to roads passing through woods or marsh, Ron? There is no rule saying roads can't pass through area features.

2) No

Roads through bad going allow movement on the road at road rate -- it doesn't "negate" bad going. Elements in bad going suffer the usual penalties, whether they are on a road or not. This is already clear in the rules.

Redwilde
12-29-2010, 12:13 PM
Wouldn't a wooded gentle hill and a wooded steep hill be the same beast? The woods would make them both BGo.

As RonG mentioned, the woods would block line of fire in a way that a steep hill doesn't.

I think it would be nice as a single terrain piece option in Forest or Hilly.

Redwilde
12-29-2010, 12:16 PM
As for lakes, I've always used them as a house rule regular-sized impassable area terrain feature in any topography other than Dry. It would be nice to see them added officially.

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 12:26 PM
Not strictly, it specifies sea or great river, if the word lake is added it would be fine.


Geeze... that's a bit literal minded, don't you think? Sure, adding "lake" might be useful, but it isn't as if the line between sea and lake is all that clear. Lake Baikal and Lake Superior are larger than the Aral Sea and the Sea of Marmara. The Caspian Sea is bigger than all of them, and is hydrologically often classified as a brackish lake (being less than 1/3 the salinity of seawater).

So okay, if you wanted to add "lake" to that list, I'd support that, but if someone tells me that I can't put a waterway down (when legal for the defending army) to represent the edge of Lake Baikal, that holds 1/5 of the world's fresh water, he's asking for a Bop in the Nose.

David Constable
12-29-2010, 12:27 PM
As for lakes, I've always used them as a house rule regular-sized impassable area terrain feature in any topography other than Dry. It would be nice to see them added officially.

Realized I did not specify originally.

This is the sort of thing I was thinking about, however using waterway as lake might be simpler.

From memory you do get lakes form in dry areas (usually shallow?), they are temporary, so all but dry is probably correct.

David Constable

Rich Gause
12-29-2010, 12:55 PM
I like the idea of wooded hills counting as one piece of terrain. I don't like the idea of overlapping terrain. Maybe instead of lakes we could have small lakes/ponds which would be an impassable area terrain feature?

David Constable
12-29-2010, 01:06 PM
Geeze... that's a bit literal minded, don't you think? Sure, adding "lake" might be useful, but it isn't as if the line between sea and lake is all that clear. Lake Baikal and Lake Superior are larger than the Aral Sea and the Sea of Marmara. The Caspian Sea is bigger than all of them, and is hydrologically often classified as a brackish lake (being less than 1/3 the salinity of seawater).

So okay, if you wanted to add "lake" to that list, I'd support that, but if someone tells me that I can't put a waterway down (when legal for the defending army) to represent the edge of Lake Baikal, that holds 1/5 of the world's fresh water, he's asking for a Bop in the Nose.

Sorry DK, realized I had missed out the fact that I was thinking of a lake being placed the same as a wood etc originally.
If not a separate piece because too complicated, then classifying waterway as lake is second best.

David Constable

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 01:07 PM
As for lakes, I've always used them as a house rule regular-sized impassable area terrain feature in any topography other than Dry. It would be nice to see them added officially.

I'm not sure about this idea. The devil on my shoulder took less than thirty seconds to come up with half a dozen abusive ways to use that terrain in a way that isn't demonstrably historical. Do we really want to add more terrain that will encourage and reward defensive postures and edge-of-the-world behavior in the middle of the map?

John Loy
12-29-2010, 01:20 PM
I guess I don't have a problem with wooded hills as a new terrain type (1 piece) as long as the usage isn't too convoluted.

HOTT uses impassable terrain and it seems to work OK, but I'm not sure how often this ocurred in real battles??

John

Bob. (and his dog)
12-29-2010, 01:27 PM
Can we assume that Sue really means "Steep Hill" which is bad going and a hill. In the other games that have no relevance to DBA, there are Wooded Hills that act like steep hills in DBA, and are woods.

So consider the question,
Should a steep hill count as one piece of terrain or two?

Or maybe she does mean to add a new terrain type :(

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 01:53 PM
HOTT uses impassable terrain and it seems to work OK, but I'm not sure how often this ocurred in real battles??


HOTT has aerial elements (flyers, airboats, aerial heros, gods, dragons), who ignore (fly over and fight over) impassable. Plus Lurkers. Plus much more interpenetration (mounted can interpenetrate foot freely). With all that, "impassable" is only a partial barrier, which would not be true in DBA.

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 01:55 PM
Can we assume that Sue really means [....]

Or maybe she does mean to add a new terrain type :(

Bob, why would you assume she doesn't mean what she says? She was asking about a new terrain type.

David Constable
12-29-2010, 02:15 PM
I'm not sure about this idea. The devil on my shoulder took less than thirty seconds to come up with half a dozen abusive ways to use that terrain in a way that isn't demonstrably historical. Do we really want to add more terrain that will encourage and reward defensive postures and edge-of-the-world behavior in the middle of the map?

Although I would like to see an impassable lake as an option, I would also like to see less terrain.

If a maximum of three for all but forest was allowed that would be enough, 1-C, 2-O.
To stop three pieces being laid diagonally (I have done it in friendlies) how about letting the attacker move one piece before they die for sides.

David Constable

Pavane
12-29-2010, 02:28 PM
If we are talking about one new terrain piece, the wooded hill, then I prefer that it counts as one terrain choice. Otherwise, those armies that prefer open battlefields will use this to their advantage by placing a tiny wooded hill that counts as two terrain choices with the footprint of only one.

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 02:29 PM
Although I would like to see an impassable lake as an option, I would also like to see less terrain.

If a maximum of three for all but forest was allowed that would be enough, 1-C, 2-O.


Seems to me that would cripple any of the bad-going armies.

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 02:31 PM
If we are talking about one new terrain piece, the wooded hill, then I prefer that it counts as one terrain choice. Otherwise, those armies that prefer open battlefields will use this to their advantage by placing a tiny wooded hill that counts as two terrain choices with the footprint of only one.

Good point, Will.

Further, it makes no logical sense to count it as two pieces. After all, Rough and Woods are identical save for the second blocking missile fire -- and now Steep Hills and Wooded Hills would be identical save for the second blocking missile fire. If Woods doesn't count as "Rough plus Woods", why should Wooded Hills count as "Rough Hills plus Woods"?

Bob. (and his dog)
12-29-2010, 02:39 PM
Bob, why would you assume she doesn't mean what she says? She was asking about a new terrain type.


There was no future tense in the question. What she said was
" Should a wooded hill count as one piece of terrain or two? "

She did not say, "If we add a wooded hill, should it count as one piece of terrain or two? "

She asked about current terrain. If we address DBA as it is, there are Steep Hills that count as bad going and a hill = 2 terrain types.

Why do you think She wants to add a new type of terrain. In the Camps thread the text was
"DBMM has mobile baggage - should some camps be mobile? "

In either event, I vote against any 1 piece counting as 2 for the reasons cited above by Will and David.

Note the "should." Here the question was not.
DBMM has wooded hills - Should some hills be wooded and count as two terrain pieces?"

You can assume she is talking about a new terrain type and I will assume she just confused "steep" with "wooden." As this is a discussion about DBA and there are no wooded hills in DBA.

And in either case I would vote against 1 piece counting as two whatever it is, for all the good reasons cited by David and Will

David Schlanger
12-29-2010, 02:59 PM
Correct. Right now the hills come in barren or rocky versions.

I guess I should make it more clear when I say I am confused, but am not really confused :)

DS

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 03:07 PM
You can assume she is talking about a new terrain type and I will assume she just confused "steep" with "wooden."
In spite of my constant help, Bob, you are free to make any mistakes you wish!:D

(in which vein, she said "wooded", not "wooden"...)

Pavane
12-29-2010, 03:33 PM
Why do you think She wants to add a new type of terrain.
Mainly because there is no wooded hill option in DBA 2.2. Either Sue is proposing a new terrain type or a new way to deploy existing terrain types.

winterbadger
12-29-2010, 03:34 PM
Geeze... that's a bit literal minded, don't you think? Sure, adding "lake" might be useful, but it isn't as if the line between sea and lake is all that clear.

Really? Really? Three more pages and no one else is prepared to go there? Do I always have to be the Shawn Spencer of Fanaticus?

No, David, he's not being literal minded--he's being littoral minded! :silly

And wooden hills? Clearly a form of stationary gulai gorod, and therefore better classified as a camp. :D

As for wooded hills, I'm all for them. And as much as I would like to be able to form them by overlapping a wood and a hill, I agree with Will that it would be open to abuse by players looking to minimise BG. Unless you wrote a very convoluted rule that would just make things too complicated to be worth it.

If we have a new type of terrain, Lake, can my Picts and Scots-Irish combine a BUA with a Lake and have a crannog? :cool

old mucker
12-29-2010, 05:37 PM
I am confused, if we leave things as they are... then we have no wooded hills, correct?

DS

Ahh yes, correct - my mistake. I have in the past overlapped hills and woods (to make a wooded hill) but, of course, area terrain pieces are not stackable in the rules as they stand. And yes, it does pose modelling problems - I used to use a purpose built hill.

Alan

winterbadger
12-29-2010, 05:55 PM
And yes, it does pose modelling problems - I used to use a purpose built hill.

I use fairly smooth models for hills and felt shapes for woods, so it wouldn't cause me any problems, but I realise others may have better/more classy terrain than I do.

Redwilde
12-29-2010, 06:44 PM
I'm not sure about this idea. The devil on my shoulder took less than thirty seconds to come up with half a dozen abusive ways to use that terrain in a way that isn't demonstrably historical. Do we really want to add more terrain that will encourage and reward defensive postures and edge-of-the-world behavior in the middle of the map?

Ah, that's never been an issue for home play. It's just as well as a house rule then.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-29-2010, 09:52 PM
[QUOTE=David Kuijt]In spite of my constant help, Bob, you are free to make any mistakes you wish!:D

(in which vein, she said "wooded", not "wooden"...)[/QUOTe

Many of my hills are made of wood, sorry for that wrong usage.

Maerk
12-30-2010, 05:46 AM
I am confused, if we leave things as they are... then we have no wooded hills, correct?

DS

On the WRG website there is a draft of Sue Laflin's "Start Wargaming" book which she states "may be included with the new edition of DBA" (see http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/start.html). In the last paragraph of chapter two "Making your terrain", she says:

"You may also have wooded hills or rocky ones. The wooded hill is treated like a wood (i.e. difficult going) but troops within it may have the advantage of being uphill of the enemy. Similarly a rocky hill will count as an area of rough and the psiloi or warband occupying it will also have the advantage of being uphill. (...)"

Since this book seems to be linked to "the new edition of DBA", I assume that Phil intends to introduce the new terrain types of wooded and rocky hills in the DBA 3.0 edition.

David Kuijt
12-30-2010, 06:43 AM
Since this book seems to be linked to "the new edition of DBA", I assume that Phil intends to introduce the new terrain types of wooded and rocky hills in the DBA 3.0 edition.

Maybe.

But even if so, there is no functional difference between rocky hills and the steep hills we already have.

Pavane
12-30-2010, 08:44 AM
Maybe.

But even if so, there is no functional difference between rocky hills and the steep hills we already have.
Unless, as stated, Psiloi and Warband are always considered upslope of other troops on rocky hills.

winterbadger
12-30-2010, 10:01 AM
I *really* don't think that it is safe to assume that descriptions in the draft "how to" manual are comprehensive rules references. I would question whether that will ever be the case.

I think it's *totally* pointless to start deconstructing the *draft*, partial primer for a set of rules THAT AREN'T COMPLETED. They're all at sixes and sevens, and probably full of half-discussed ideas, missteps, and language that there's been no attempt to make consistent yet ("decimal" is used in place of "metric" and "England" in the place of "UK"; there are references to "bad going" and to "difficult going"; punctuation is missing; some illustrations use terrain that isn't valid for DBA or even show non-DBA games).

Yes, in one place it mentions that PS and Wb get uphill bonus on rocky hills--is that meant to imply that *only* those troops get it? I doubt it. In another place it states that BUAs contain camp followers; does that mean they've settled on the camp follower model and tossed out the denizens rule? And does the reference to wooded hills being just like woods, which is to say "difficult going", mean that woods now don't block LOS? Or that "difficult going" is now wording to represent bad going + no LOS?

We could speculate or make assumptions endlessly but this is just a draft primer. It's not the rules, and it's not final, and before we all eat our own young, I think we need to simmer down and chill out.

Roland Fricke
12-30-2010, 10:41 AM
. . . create a new terrain type - wooded hill.

You allow any hill to be replaced/exchanged for a wooded hill.
It counts as bad terrain.
In close combat it counts as a hill for the +1 for being uphill.
On all other occasions it counts as a wood.


I think David Constable sums it up quite succinctly. The effective difference between this and a steep hill would be that woods block bow fire and more of the line of sight than a steep hill.

Maerk
12-30-2010, 11:45 AM
... and before we all eat our own young, I think we need to simmer down and chill out.

.. and stop these wonderful and creative speculations? Why, no! ;)

Susan Laflin-Barker
12-31-2010, 07:15 AM
OK. Probably I should have said, "If DBA had wooded hills, should they count as one terrain piece or two?"

It is speculation and I was interested to hear what you thought. It may or may not be added to DBA. That's Phil's decision.

To summarise what I have heard so far, it seems that most people feel it should be a new terrain type and a single piece of terrain. Opinion is divided over whether or not such a new terrain type is desirable.

Stackable terrain as a general concept is probably gpoing too far. Are there other examples which should be considered.

Please remember that "considered" is no guarantee that it will be included.

Sue.

nixon1411
12-31-2010, 07:31 AM
. Are there other examples which should be considered.

Please remember that "considered" is no guarantee that it will be included.

Sue.

I'm not too keen on the idea of wooded hills. I don't really feel that they would add much to the game and would, as others have said, be challenging to model well.

I suspected that the wooded hill question might be just to test the water with regard to the appetite for additional terrain types. I for one wouldn't like to see DBA go down the DBMM route, with a number of different Rough Going types, each having different effects on some troop types. I also wouldn’t like to see terrain broken down into Feature Equivalents dependent on their size/type, and each player having an FE allowance based on whether they're the invader or defender. These changes would, IMHO, only add complexity and prolong set-up, which would be a concern in a tournament setting.
The existing WW rules would work well enough for sizeable lakes/inland seas.

winterbadger
12-31-2010, 09:13 AM
OK. Probably I should have said, "If DBA had wooded hills, should they count as one terrain piece or two?"

It is speculation and I was interested to hear what you thought. It may or may not be added to DBA. That's Phil's decision.

To summarise what I have heard so far, it seems that most people feel it should be a new terrain type and a single piece of terrain. Opinion is divided over whether or not such a new terrain type is desirable.

You might get more clarity if you defined your thinking in terms of what effects would be. It might seem obvious that if it's a wooded hill it will have both the characteristics of a hill (the ability of troops to be upslope) and those of a wood (being BG, blocking LOS/LOF) but this is a group of readers obsessed with nuance and unwilling to take anything for granted, so...

Are there other examples which should be considered.

I think the options for terrain in DBA are pretty good right now.

The one thing that does bother me is that more dense terrain types (forest, hilly, tropical) don't end up automatically with more terrain and very open areas like steppe and dry don't automatically have less. Instead the options for terrain are varied. IMO, the variation in sizes of terrain pieces should be vastly reduced (1 square base area to 20 square base areas is a huge range!) and the number should be tied to the type of terrain. But I agree with the previous poster that that would complicate the game, and it would make a vast change in how it is played currently, so I predict most people will react violently against it.

I'd also change the restriction on which features can be narrow. I've seen very few long, narrow marshes; I've seen far more long, narrow ridges. But again, I expect that suggestion will raise a chorus of shrieks.

Please remember that "considered" is no guarantee that it will be included.

Please forgive our forum members who will, I promise, frequently read far more into almost anything you post than you probably mean by it. :) Yes, this totally contradicts what I said above about providing more detail. We're a schizophrenic bunch.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-31-2010, 02:39 PM
Now we have clarification. I would vote against any more, especially more complicated, terrain. This has been summed it up well. A Cavalry army with wooded hills or heavy infantry one would just put out one WH at minimum size along a quarter battlefield boundary , and there is two required optional terrain placed.

What armies will get it, how will it work. All takes up more space in the rules, which is sparse as it is.

Maybe someone who knows how, can set up a poll.

Add Wooded Hill to DBA

yes as one piece
yes counting as two pieces
no

winterbadger
12-31-2010, 02:59 PM
Now we have clarification. I would vote against any more, especially more complicated, terrain. This has been summed it up well. A Cavalry army with wooded hills or heavy infantry one would just put out one WH at minimum size along a quarter battlefield boundary , and there is two required optional terrain placed.

Not if it counts as one piece of terrain, it won't. As for minimum size and placement on a boundary, those are existing issues (at least one of which I think needs to be fixed), not anything new with the proposed terrain.

What armies will get it, how will it work. All takes up more space in the rules, which is sparse as it is.

??? Surely you jest. Given the way the rules are currently written (tersely, to say the least), how it would work would probably take up a line or two at most. There's more than enough room for that. Which armies get it? Yeah, that will take all of adding one word to terrain lists for the terrain types. Talk about your straw men!

El' Jocko
12-31-2010, 05:30 PM
I don't see any real problems with adding a wooded-hill terrain type. If added it should count as a single terrain piece--making it count double adds complexity without any real benefit. But my preference would be to not have it added at all. I can't recall ever setting up a game of DBA and thinking, "Gosh, I wish I could put down a wooded hill here."

On the other hand, I do have a minor request for the terrain section. Currently armies with Hilly home topography can only put out, at most, two hills (both steep). I've definitely encountered situations where I would have liked to put more hills down for a Hilly army, but have been unable to. This seems especially odd since an army with Arable home topography can put out three hills! And the fix is simple: Just add Gentle Hills to the optional terrain types for Hilly topography.

Thanks,
Jack

Adamantius
12-31-2010, 06:15 PM
Should a wooded hill count as one piece of terrain or two?

Sue.

One. It should be a new piece of terrain added to DBA 3.0.

Si@BAM
12-31-2010, 07:31 PM
Just add Gentle Hills to the optional terrain types for Hilly topography.


Great suggestion!!!

Rich Gause
12-31-2010, 08:15 PM
I like the idea of gentle hills for hilly. I like the wooded hill as one piece. If I had an army with a fair bit of aux or psi and was facing an enemy with bow or arty it would be very beneficial to have a wooded hill to block firing while retaining the possibility of an uphill bonus.

Roland Fricke
12-31-2010, 08:15 PM
Just add Gentle Hills to the optional terrain types for Hilly topography.



That is a great idea. :2up

ferrency
12-31-2010, 10:41 PM
Just add Gentle Hills to the optional terrain types for Hilly topography.

I agree. It has always bothered me that Hilly topography can take fewer hills than Arable.

Alan

Martin Smith
01-01-2011, 11:14 AM
Just add Gentle Hills to the optional terrain types for Hilly topography.

Thanks,
Jack
Like Si, I agree too. Always seemed strange that it was steep hills only.
Martin

RonG
01-03-2011, 11:48 AM
That is a very good question. wooded terrain on a hill should count as 2 terrain features. You are setting a disordering hill (Bad Going), and adding the woods on top. :2up

Martian
01-15-2011, 11:46 AM
Sue,

Wooded hills were often featured on my DBA 1.0 and 1.1 battlefields.

I would welcome their return to DBA and believe they would not be unbalancing. Players and the tactics will adjust.

The addition of gentle hills to Hilly terrain is also a good idea.

An adjustment to current river rules is also desirable. There really needs to be a mandatory crossing point (bridge or ford) somewhere on the map otherwise why are the armies there?

And finally BUAs need a major rewrite! If they could be turned into a terrain type with a defendable edge (like a river edge) they might be welcome back on the field. Well, maybe more acceptable anyway.

Andreas Johansson
01-15-2011, 12:14 PM
Wooded hills (combining the effects of a hill and a wood) seems like a straightforward and sensible addition to me. Definitively should count as only one terrain piece.

Allowed in any topography currently having both hills and forests I guess? That would be all but Steppe, Dry, and Tropical, tho why Tropical can't have hills currently is anyone's guess.

(Speaking of curious absences in the terrain list, Arable, covering places like England, the Netherlands, and Iraq, can't have marsh, prompting a friend to wonder if Phil Barker has ever been to England.)

ObNitpick: Contrary to what David Kuijt said a few pages ago, stopping missile fire isn't the only difference between rough and woods, as they have different effects on impetuous troops. Rough are also allowed to be more than twice as long as wide, unlike woods.

Scott Russell
01-15-2011, 12:18 PM
(Speaking of curious absences in the terrain list, Arable, covering places like England, the Netherlands, and Iraq, can't have marsh, prompting a friend to wonder if Phil Barker has ever been to England.)



I have always thought arable Chinese should be allowed marsh to account for the paddy fields which I understand played a significant role in reducing the effect of cavalry armies raiding into China.

Scott

Andreas Johansson
01-15-2011, 12:29 PM
I have always thought arable Chinese should be allowed marsh to account for the paddy fields which I understand played a significant role in reducing the effect of cavalry armies raiding into China.
I've heard that too, but AFAIK northern China traditionally relied chiefly on wheat, not rice, so I'm a bit skeptical.

That said, allowing Chinese armies (many of the lists cover both the north and south anyway) to place marsh would seem appropriate.

Xavi
01-15-2011, 03:35 PM
Frankly, I do not think this terrain type is necessary. There is already enough variation in terrain.

What would be wise would be to reduce to HUGE differences in terrain size (from stamp size to covering 75% of the board in bad going) and to limit some sillyness in terrain, like marshes or rough in the form of looooooooong sausages 20 bases long and 1 base wide placed matematically (seen that a lot in French tournaments where classy indians were being used) or the corner-stamp forests (total area covered in terrain, around 40x80mm) and "potato field" tables (around ... all the table covered in bad going).

Removing rivers, BUAs and litoral landings from the rulebook would be a boon as well.

When something is forgotten in most tournaments, you know it is not quite right.

Cheers,
Xavi

Andreas Johansson
01-15-2011, 04:11 PM
You don't use litoral landings in tourneys? They're common and AFAIK uncontroversial in tourneys over here.

Rivers should be fixed, not removed. Unlike BUAs, they played a rôle in many period field battles.

david kuijt
01-15-2011, 04:48 PM
You don't use litoral landings in tourneys? They're common and AFAIK uncontroversial in tourneys over here.


Here, too.

I did have one opponent explode about them once (when his General was killed bound one by a rear shot due to them), but then, I've also had an opponent who was shocked to find that Spears were QK by Elephants -- if you play enough, you'll see everything eventually.

But no, littoral landings are entirely uncontroversial at the major US conventions.


Rivers should be fixed, not removed. Unlike BUAs, they played a rôle in many period field battles.

I'm with you, Andreas.

Paul Potter
01-15-2011, 05:13 PM
NO NO NO. don't get rid of littoral landings!

Alan Lauder
01-15-2011, 05:53 PM
F
What would be wise would be to reduce to HUGE differences in terrain size (from stamp size to covering 75% of the board in bad going) and to limit some sillyness in terrain, like marshes or rough in the form of looooooooong sausages 20 bases long and 1 base wide placed matematically (seen that a lot in French tournaments where classy indians were being used) or the corner-stamp forests (total area covered in terrain, around 40x80mm) and "potato field" tables (around ... all the table covered in bad going).


Most of these would be eliminated if the terrain size and placement rules currently in DBA 2.2 were enforced, I believe.

Alan

Paul Potter
01-15-2011, 07:04 PM
What would be wise would be to reduce to HUGE differences in terrain size (from stamp size to covering 75% of the board in bad going) and to limit some sillyness in terrain, like marshes or rough in the form of looooooooong sausages 20 bases long and 1 base wide placed matematically (seen that a lot in French tournaments where classy indians were being used) or the corner-stamp forests (total area covered in terrain, around 40x80mm) and "potato field" tables (around ... all the table covered in bad going).



Xavi

If your opponent is placing illegal terrain call him on it. -Paul

Xavi
01-15-2011, 08:29 PM
Maybe I was unclear. Problems with stuff

I do not have much problems with litoral assaults, except that they were hardly ever seen in pitched battles in the real world. They are in the category of BUAs being part of a pitched battle for me. Part of the campaign? For sure. Part of a pitched barttle? Err... what? Making it more general and making it a flanking manoeuvre would be anothing thing.

When it comes to terrain I am refering to this mathematical terrain placement that you can see below.

There is 29mm between the rough/marsh going and the border of the table, so a LH cannot run around it.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x181/xrequejo/Pau%202008/IMG_1796.jpg?t=1295136584

Another game:
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q307/prichzgz/Zaragoza2010/Zaragoza2-1.jpg

Stamp terrain example:
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/238/imgp0561d.jpg


And also about this: the potato field. I will find a picture about that later.

Cheers,
Xavi

Paul Potter
01-15-2011, 09:15 PM
I'm looking these photos over Xavi and I see your complaint. Are those oblong pieces longer than the rules allow? If I understand right such an oblong piece has to be at least a base width across which leaves about 8 elements worth of length (if I'm doing the math right). looks like these are legal. I see the frustration with how they are place though-suits an open going army. I would not like this.

only 2 types of terrain can be oblong-rough and marsh. neither of which are found in Arable armies. Are these terrain types allowed for the armies that deployed them in the photo? Tropical is the only type that allows rough and marsh. that army in the second photo may be an Indian army.

I am courious about the 'potato field'.

-Paul

Lobotomy
01-15-2011, 11:16 PM
Xavi,

I see, and have used, similar set ups to the long marshes on the sides but usually with waterway or other bad going such as hills and woods. While the hills and woods do not go as long they work just about as well. So it would seem your suggestion is really to keep terrain more than 40mm from the side of the board so an element can get through.

kontos
01-16-2011, 12:19 AM
I don't have much of a problem with any of the above. A good defensive position by a competent commander would not allow LH running around in his backfield. I have more of an issue with "postage stamp" terrain than too much terrain. I would like to see the minimum sizes increased to portray realistic battlefields. Maybe less terrain but larger would suit my tastes. Just my 2 cents allowing for inflation.

Frank

david kuijt
01-16-2011, 03:02 AM
The rough on the bottom is not legal, Xavi. It looks like it is about 8 base widths by two base widths.

Xavi
01-16-2011, 10:42 AM
Might be. I will have to check next time I face the "sausage" terrain. I only face that against some opponents in tournaments, so I cannot check regularly.

The problem is the sausages, but also their deployment in a highly mathematical pattern. That is surreal from a historical point of view. I dislike that kind of terrain because it makes the battle look silly. And play silly most of the time.

Xavi

david kuijt
01-16-2011, 11:04 AM
The problem is the sausages, but also their deployment in a highly mathematical pattern. That is surreal from a historical point of view. I dislike that kind of terrain because it makes the battle look silly. And play silly most of the time.


I agree. I haven't seen the "box" terrain deployment you picture before, but I've seen the mathematical "X" terrain several times (four pieces of BGo in a diagonal X pattern). Surreal, silly, and stupid.

With that said, the real issue in preventing such terrain deployments is giving the defender perfect control of terrain position and shape. In a perfect world it would be nice to have imperfect defender positioning, although nobody has suggested a system that isn't non-DBA-complex yet.

So I will! Here it is:


Defender positions all terrain as currently.
Attacker rolls 1d6 for each terrain piece. On a "1" he may shift that piece up to 100p in any direction he chooses, or spin it up to 45 degrees on its center (not both -- just one choice). Each piece must be rolled for and repositioned (or not) before moving to another piece.
If the table has less than the maximum number of terrain pieces, the Attacker rolls once more, and on a 1-2 he may place one additional area terrain piece of no more than 2 BW by 2 BW size. If the Attacker chooses to place such a piece, the Defender has the same chance to move it (roll a 1 on 1d6).
After all adjustments, roll for board edge as normal


Fast and simple -- but would reduce stupid symmetric terrain (a terrain with four area terrain pieces would have something moved or rotated about 50% of the time)

Stephen Webb
01-16-2011, 05:34 PM
So I will! Here it is:


Defender positions all terrain as currently.
Attacker rolls 1d6 for each terrain piece. On a "1" he may shift that piece up to 100p in any direction he chooses, or spin it up to 45 degrees on its center (not both -- just one choice). Each piece must be rolled for and repositioned (or not) before moving to another piece.
If the table has less than the maximum number of terrain pieces, the Attacker rolls once more, and on a 1-2 he may place one additional area terrain piece of no more than 2 BW by 2 BW size. If the Attacker chooses to place such a piece, the Defender has the same chance to move it (roll a 1 on 1d6).
After all adjustments, roll for board edge as normal


Fast and simple -- but would reduce stupid symmetric terrain (a terrain with four area terrain pieces would have something moved or rotated about 50% of the time)

Quite a reasonable suggestion.

Rich Gause
01-16-2011, 07:33 PM
I agree. I haven't seen the "box" terrain deployment you picture before, but I've seen the mathematical "X" terrain several times (four pieces of BGo in a diagonal X pattern). Surreal, silly, and stupid.

With that said, the real issue in preventing such terrain deployments is giving the defender perfect control of terrain position and shape. In a perfect world it would be nice to have imperfect defender positioning, although nobody has suggested a system that isn't non-DBA-complex yet.

So I will! Here it is:


Defender positions all terrain as currently.
Attacker rolls 1d6 for each terrain piece. On a "1" he may shift that piece up to 100p in any direction he chooses, or spin it up to 45 degrees on its center (not both -- just one choice). Each piece must be rolled for and repositioned (or not) before moving to another piece.
If the table has less than the maximum number of terrain pieces, the Attacker rolls once more, and on a 1-2 he may place one additional area terrain piece of no more than 2 BW by 2 BW size. If the Attacker chooses to place such a piece, the Defender has the same chance to move it (roll a 1 on 1d6).
After all adjustments, roll for board edge as normal


Fast and simple -- but would reduce stupid symmetric terrain (a terrain with four area terrain pieces would have something moved or rotated about 50% of the time)

I like it too. I have played variants where the attacker can move a terrain piece anywhere or remove one and that does not work, this looks more promising. Maybe I can talk people into playtesting it in Kissimmee this on 1/22?

Tony Aguilar
01-16-2011, 07:36 PM
Maybe I can talk people into playtesting it in Kissimmee this on 1/22?

Maybe you won't need to talk some of us into it. :)
At first glance the only issue I see is that 100 paces doesn't seem like much a change, but we can try it as-is and get back to you DK.

david kuijt
01-16-2011, 08:35 PM
Maybe you won't need to talk some of us into it. :)
At first glance the only issue I see is that 100 paces doesn't seem like much a change, but we can try it as-is and get back to you DK.

100p isn't much of a change -- but it shouldn't be. The idea is not that the attacker gets to totally F-up the defender's terrain -- the idea is that the defender doesn't have perfect control. Because there is a fairly good chance with four or five pieces that you will get to move two pieces, and moving two pieces apart by 100p each, or moving one 100p and rotating another, starts to get significant.

So if the defender puts out terrain, it will always be basically where he thought -- but will often be not EXACTLY where he wants.

And long-skinny pieces are not changed much by shifting them, but you can rotate them to reduce the stupidity of box terrain such as Xavi mentioned.

Lobotomy
01-16-2011, 09:28 PM
I agree. I haven't seen the "box" terrain deployment you picture before, but I've seen the mathematical "X" terrain several times (four pieces of BGo in a diagonal X pattern). Surreal, silly, and stupid.

With that said, the real issue in preventing such terrain deployments is giving the defender perfect control of terrain position and shape. In a perfect world it would be nice to have imperfect defender positioning, although nobody has suggested a system that isn't non-DBA-complex yet.

So I will! Here it is:


Defender positions all terrain as currently.
Attacker rolls 1d6 for each terrain piece. On a "1" he may shift that piece up to 100p in any direction he chooses, or spin it up to 45 degrees on its center (not both -- just one choice). Each piece must be rolled for and repositioned (or not) before moving to another piece.
If the table has less than the maximum number of terrain pieces, the Attacker rolls once more, and on a 1-2 he may place one additional area terrain piece of no more than 2 BW by 2 BW size. If the Attacker chooses to place such a piece, the Defender has the same chance to move it (roll a 1 on 1d6).
After all adjustments, roll for board edge as normal


Fast and simple -- but would reduce stupid symmetric terrain (a terrain with four area terrain pieces would have something moved or rotated about 50% of the time)

What do you do with a Waterway? Also, do you prohibit spinning or shifting the piece so it goes off the board edge? How do roads get spun? Moving things only 100 paces from the side edge still does not allow movement of LH through a side edge gap, which Xavi mentioned. Just some random, "lawyerly" thoughts. :eek

kontos
01-16-2011, 09:49 PM
I can see the proliferation of circular terrain pieces now. "Go ahead. Rotate this!" :rotfl

Frank

dicemanrick
01-16-2011, 09:59 PM
DK, I like it...it's simple enough for even me to understand!

Use it for area terrain features only, not linear as WWay or Road...and Frank we still can move the round spot!

Those x-shaped boards look rather stupid to me also (Larry!!)

Spencer
01-16-2011, 10:00 PM
Defender positions all terrain as currently.
Attacker rolls 1d6 for each terrain piece. On a "1" he may shift that piece up to 100p in any direction he chooses, or spin it up to 45 degrees on its center (not both -- just one choice). Each piece must be rolled for and repositioned (or not) before moving to another piece.
If the table has less than the maximum number of terrain pieces, the Attacker rolls once more, and on a 1-2 he may place one additional area terrain piece of no more than 2 BW by 2 BW size. If the Attacker chooses to place such a piece, the Defender has the same chance to move it (roll a 1 on 1d6).
After all adjustments, roll for board edge as normal


Fast and simple -- but would reduce stupid symmetric terrain (a terrain with four area terrain pieces would have something moved or rotated about 50% of the time)

I don't find this fast or simple....but I have a small brain.
Current terrain system works fine for me. I can't recall when I last felt I lost a game as attacker due to the terrain. I do recall a few games as defender that I won, that I thought terrain helped me.

If more balance is needed in terrain placement, I think I would advocate alternating placement by both attacker and defender. Using Defender's terrain type, defender places one piece then attacker places one. After the first round of terrain placement each side may place an additional piece of terrain or pass (choose not to place anything.) Once two passes occur (one from each side or two rounds from one side) terrain placement ends. The Defender then rolls for side of his choice.

Eliminates minimum and maximum and quadrant requirements. Cool...less rules...more terrain variety.
Needs play tested of course.

jcpotn
01-16-2011, 10:29 PM
Too bad I never complainedat one Historicon when bad going terrain nearly covered the board with narrow lanes between the pieces but no clear terrain areas equal to any one piece of bad going. Sigh. :eek

Jeff

kontos
01-16-2011, 10:37 PM
If more balance is needed in terrain placement, I think I would advocate alternating placement by both attacker and defender. Using Defender's terrain type, defender places one piece then attacker places one. After the first round of terrain placement each side may place an additional piece of terrain or pass (choose not to place anything.) Once two passes occur (one from each side or two rounds from one side) terrain placement ends. The Defender then rolls for side of his choice.

Eliminates minimum and maximum and quadrant requirements. Cool...less rules...more terrain variety.
Needs play tested of course.

This is similar to the system Warhammer Ancient Battles uses, or used to. Rules have been revised since I last played.

Frank

Rich Gause
01-16-2011, 10:41 PM
I don't find this fast or simple....but I have a small brain.
Current terrain system works fine for me. I can't recall when I last felt I lost a game as attacker due to the terrain. I do recall a few games as defender that I won, that I thought terrain helped me.

If more balance is needed in terrain placement, I think I would advocate alternating placement by both attacker and defender. Using Defender's terrain type, defender places one piece then attacker places one. After the first round of terrain placement each side may place an additional piece of terrain or pass (choose not to place anything.) Once two passes occur (one from each side or two rounds from one side) terrain placement ends. The Defender then rolls for side of his choice.

Eliminates minimum and maximum and quadrant requirements. Cool...less rules...more terrain variety.
Needs play tested of course.

With that system armies that have difficulies with bad going would be screwed because the other guy gets to place two max sized bad going patches anywhere he wants. I've tried terrain systems where the attacker gets too big a say in terrain placement and they are bad. The movement options and option to place a SMALL terrain piece only if the defender does not put down a 4th piece sound about right. There may also be some value in restricting terrain other than WW from 40mm around the board edge, especially when playing with 24" boards.

Spencer
01-16-2011, 11:03 PM
With that system armies that have difficulies with bad going would be screwed because the other guy gets to place two max sized bad going patches anywhere he wants. I've tried terrain systems where the attacker gets too big a say in terrain placement and they are bad. The movement options and option to place a SMALL terrain piece only if the defender does not put down a 4th piece sound about right. There may also be some value in restricting terrain other than WW from 40mm around the board edge, especially when playing with 24" boards.

Hmmm...good thoughts.......

How 'bout place one or move one? Move one equals a pass and puts more control back with the defender.
Any change to the current system puts more control in the hands of the attacker. But, I think that is the complaint/dissatisfaction...whoever wins terrain has an unfair advantage.

Rich Gause
01-16-2011, 11:59 PM
With that system armies that have difficulies with bad going would be screwed because the other guy gets to place two max sized bad going patches anywhere he wants. I've tried terrain systems where the attacker gets too big a say in terrain placement and they are bad. The movement options and option to place a SMALL terrain piece only if the defender does not put down a 4th piece sound about right. There may also be some value in restricting terrain other than WW from 40mm around the board edge, especially when playing with 24" boards.

After a little thought the base width no terrain zone around the edge is probably not needed and might even be counterproductive with Davids idea above.

Rich Gause
01-17-2011, 12:18 AM
Hmmm...good thoughts.......

How 'bout place one or move one? Move one equals a pass and puts more control back with the defender.
Any change to the current system puts more control in the hands of the attacker. But, I think that is the complaint/dissatisfaction...whoever wins terrain has an unfair advantage.

I don't think it is so much about giving an advantage to one side as much as it is lessening the defender's ability to set up silly gamey terrain ploys that may help decide the game and allowing the attacker to modify the outcome without creating worse unintended consequences. I have already played variants that give the attacker a defacto ability to move(anywhere on the board), remove, or place terrain and they are much worse for abuse and gameyness than the current rules to the point where deploying second and moving first becomes a much greater edge than defending in the current terrain system.

I like Davids suggestion of only allowing the defender to place a single small terrain piece if the defender allows it by not placing enough terrain. Smart defenders WILL place enough terrain to avoid this, even if they are 12 Kn facing 12 Psi. No more 2 postage stamps in opposite corners. The ability to adjust the terrain by a small amount can ameliorate the extreme terrain choices of too much or too little terrain somewhat without opening up a whole nuther can of worms of new abuses.

ferrency
01-17-2011, 12:43 AM
I can't recall when I last felt I lost a game as attacker due to the terrain.

I've been lucky not to have faced a lot of this symmetrical terrain in competitions, and don't feel that absurd symmetrical terrain typically causes me to lose a game (that I wouldn't have lost anyway).

However, it seems to me that the bigger problem than winning or losing is whether you enjoy playing. If an attacker's enjoyment of the game is reduced due to the defender's terrain placement, then this could be considered a much more important effect than winning or losing.

Regarding DK's proposed terrain movement rules: I like them and would be interested to try them some time. However, I wouldn't say they reduce the possibility of symmetrical terrain; they only increase the attacker's ability to affect the terrain. If the attacker wants symmetrical terrain, this slightly increases their ability to get it, though not enough that I'd consider it a problem.

If you think the Real Problem is "the other guy" is annoying when they're defending, then giving the attacker more control means "the other guy" might be less annoying when defending, but more annoying when attacking. Overall, I think it's a net reduction in potential annoyance, however.

Alan

david kuijt
01-17-2011, 01:08 AM
What do you do with a Waterway? Also, do you prohibit spinning or shifting the piece so it goes off the board edge? How do roads get spun? Moving things only 100 paces from the side edge still does not allow movement of LH through a side edge gap, which Xavi mentioned. Just some random, "lawyerly" thoughts. :eek

Your random, lawyerly thoughts need some help reading -- I was talking about area features. Waterway, roads, rivers, ain't.

Every single movement/rotation must end with a legal map. Not complicated.

david kuijt
01-17-2011, 01:10 AM
But, I think that is the complaint/dissatisfaction...whoever wins terrain has an unfair advantage.

No, Spencer, that wasn't what Xavi was complaining about. He was complaining about super-mathematical wierd-ass symmetric terrain, not total amount thereof. There's a picture in his original post; take a look and you'll see what we're talking about.

Xavi
01-17-2011, 08:06 AM
Yup. Terrain does not bother me much. I tend to play quite rabble-ish (BGo heavy) armies myself. The perfect distributon of swamps and rough to reduce the area of play and forcing a frontal engagement is what concerns me.

And this is why I think that the easiest change would be to change the play area to 30". That would solve quite some of the issues here. Even if macxed out and mininmized out terrain are too extreme as written.

Xavi

david kuijt
01-17-2011, 11:24 AM
Yup. Terrain does not bother me much. I tend to play quite rabble-ish (BGo heavy) armies myself. The perfect distributon of swamps and rough to reduce the area of play and forcing a frontal engagement is what concerns me.

And this is why I think that the easiest change would be to change the play area to 30". That would solve quite some of the issues here. Even if macxed out and mininmized out terrain are too extreme as written.


You are a wise man, Xavi. I've always thought so.

pozanias
01-17-2011, 12:00 PM
So I will! Here it is:


Defender positions all terrain as currently.
Attacker rolls 1d6 for each terrain piece. On a "1" he may shift that piece up to 100p in any direction he chooses, or spin it up to 45 degrees on its center (not both -- just one choice). Each piece must be rolled for and repositioned (or not) before moving to another piece.
If the table has less than the maximum number of terrain pieces, the Attacker rolls once more, and on a 1-2 he may place one additional area terrain piece of no more than 2 BW by 2 BW size. If the Attacker chooses to place such a piece, the Defender has the same chance to move it (roll a 1 on 1d6).
After all adjustments, roll for board edge as normal


Fast and simple -- but would reduce stupid symmetric terrain (a terrain with four area terrain pieces would have something moved or rotated about 50% of the time)

I think this is a very good concept. It's probably more words than Phil would like to use. But, in many games terrain placement is the most important single event so I think its worth a few extra words to make a significant improvement.

As with any proposed rule change, I think it is essential to play test first -- just to be sure.

Bobgnar
01-17-2011, 12:49 PM
I generally do not like any procedure that increases the time of a game, for tournaments that is. There has not been any ground swell for changes in terrain placement, if it not broke is there a need to fix it. The suggestions below are, however reasonable ways to add more strength for the attacker and could be used. Perhaps an event at Cold Wars could be done this way.

A couple of problems. We seldom, if ever, in the US at least see pre-made battlefields, but this negates their use. Players may resort to bringing their own boards unless that option is removed. Second, will all players be required to carry a 2 BW by 2BW terrain piece of all types allowed to the defender to allow for its additional placement. Also, I would add the text as follows,
"one additional area terrain piece of a type allowed to the defender"

Some topographies might cause problems
Steppe: what if defender puts out 2 Gentle hills and 2 Roughs. That is less than the maximum of 5 pieces. What does Attacker put out -- a BUA?

Same for Hilly; put out 2 Steep Hills and 2 Woods and all that is left is River, Road, or BUA

Perhaps, just allow attacker to slightly adjust what is put out. Need to add that the resulting layout must be legal in terms of position on the battlefield and distance between features.



Defender positions all terrain as currently.
Attacker rolls 1d6 for each terrain piece. On a "1" he may shift that piece up to 100p in any direction he chooses, or spin it up to 45 degrees on its center (not both -- just one choice). Each piece must be rolled for and repositioned (or not) before moving to another piece.
If the table has less than the maximum number of terrain pieces, the Attacker rolls once more, and on a 1-2 he may place one additional area terrain piece of no more than 2 BW by 2 BW size. If the Attacker chooses to place such a piece, the Defender has the same chance to move it (roll a 1 on 1d6).
After all adjustments, roll for board edge as normal


Fast and simple -- but would reduce stupid symmetric terrain (a terrain with four area terrain pieces would have something moved or rotated about 50% of the time)

david kuijt
01-17-2011, 01:21 PM
The suggestions below are, however reasonable ways to add more strength for the attacker and could be used. Perhaps an event at Cold Wars could be done this way.

I think you might have missed the point a bit, Bob. With the exception of adding a 2BWx2BW piece to a pool table, which is (frankly) not a major strength addition for the attacker in a game where he might have to hide his whole army in that one patch of bad going, there isn't anything that is aimed at adding more strength for the attacker. Shifting terrain might help the attacker -- and might hurt him.


A couple of problems. We seldom, if ever, in the US at least see pre-made battlefields, but this negates their use.

Pre-made battlefields supplied by the GM, you mean? In the majority of supplied-terrain events the terrain ends up illegal as per the rules as written anyway -- and a GM can do whatever he wants in his events regardless.

Players may resort to bringing their own boards unless that option is removed.


Could you restate what you meant by the above? I don't understand.

Second, will all players be required to carry a 2 BW by 2BW terrain piece of all types allowed to the defender to allow for its additional placement.

"required to carry" is a bit harsh, don't you think? And this is sort of a niggling point anyway -- the idea that it might be impossible to find or manufacture (with the teeth of DS) a 2BW square terrain piece during a convention filled with players and their terrain boxes seems ... pretty unlikely to me. Almost every DBA player has a box of his own terrain -- if he can't find a piece in there, then he should bring one next time.

Also, I would add the text as follows,
"one additional area terrain piece of a type allowed to the defender"


Okay, but that's already taken care of if you require that the terrain be legal at every point (each modification), as I mentioned.


Some topographies might cause problems
Steppe: what if defender puts out 2 Gentle hills and 2 Roughs. That is less than the maximum of 5 pieces. What does Attacker put out -- a BUA?


BUA are stupid, Bob. If you don't bring them up, everyone will be happier.


Same for Hilly; put out 2 Steep Hills and 2 Woods and all that is left is River, Road, or BUA


BUA are stupid. If they are removed from the rules, then there isn't any problem, is there? Or if they are turned into a patch of BGo, then there isn't any problem either.


Need to add that the resulting layout must be legal in terms of position on the battlefield and distance between features.

Yup. But I think I mentioned that already.

Tony Aguilar
01-17-2011, 02:22 PM
As with any proposed rule change, I think it is essential to play test first -- just to be sure.

We will try it out with 30" boards at our weekly DBA Game night, which is tonight.

Bobgnar
01-17-2011, 03:28 PM
I think you might have missed the point a bit, Bob. With the exception of adding a 2BWx2BW piece to a pool table, which is (frankly) not a major strength addition for the attacker in a game where he might have to hide his whole army in that one patch of bad going, there isn't anything that is aimed at adding more strength for the attacker. Shifting terrain might help the attacker -- and might hurt him.

Pre-made battlefields supplied by the GM, you mean? In the majority of supplied-terrain events the terrain ends up illegal as per the rules as written anyway -- and a GM can do whatever he wants in his events regardless.

Could you restate what you meant by the above? I don't understand.

Okay, but that's already taken care of if you require that the terrain be legal at every point (each modification), as I mentioned.

BUA are stupid, Bob. If you don't bring them up, everyone will be happier.

BUA are stupid. If they are removed from the rules, then there isn't any problem, is there? Or if they are turned into a patch of BGo, then there isn't any problem either.


David, you are missing a couple of points:

1. What if player wants to use his own terrain board
" Alternatively, the player can provide permanent terrain boards or blocks incorporating equivalent features. "page 6

2. You suggest if less than maximum terrain is placed by Defender, the Attacker adds a 5th piece (max 2 required and 3 optional). Both Hilly and Steppe allow only 4 pieces other than a BUA. So Attacker could/would add a BUA? Yes, pretty stupid. So players with these two typographies "get away" with 4 pieces of terrain. Why not make a rule that applies to all armies?

I think the IWF has the solution,
"Players need to provide their own terrain features. The umpire reserves the right to reject the use of any terrain pieces by any player, that is deemed inappropriate by design or layout (eg. dodgy terrain; star shaped hill, triangular gullies, etc.) "

david kuijt
01-17-2011, 03:57 PM
1. What if player wants to use his own terrain board
" Alternatively, the player can provide permanent terrain boards or blocks incorporating equivalent features. "page 6

Your comment might be more relevant except nobody does that. Well, almost nobody -- in Big Battle I've made a couple of Big Battle Doubles terrain boards for a particular army. But other than boards made by me for scenario games (most of them not legal or intended for regular tournament play), I haven't ever seen any permanent terrain boards.


2. You suggest if less than maximum terrain is placed by Defender, the Attacker adds a 5th piece (max 2 required and 3 optional). Both Hilly and Steppe allow only 4 pieces other than a BUA. So Attacker could/would add a BUA? Yes, pretty stupid. So players with these two typographies "get away" with 4 pieces of terrain. Why not make a rule that applies to all armies?

Why not just take out BUA and fix another problem as well, without complicating things?

Bob, I'm certain exact wording of this rule would need to be debated if it were ever adopted -- but I have little interest in debating exact wording of how this rule might interact with the BUA rule right now. There is some chance that BUA might be removed or modified in DBA 3.0 -- which would make any discussion of the exact details of BUA interaction with this rule a total waste of time, wouldn't it?

Sure, there would need to be some work done, if BUA is kept. But seriously, that isn't important work. For one thing, the rule could be worded "if the Defender puts down less than his maximum non-BUA area features, the attacker may add one non-BUA area feature appropriate to the defender's topography" to resolve the issue completely. (Size restriction etc. elided for brevity)


I think the IWF has the solution,
"Players need to provide their own terrain features. The umpire reserves the right to reject the use of any terrain pieces by any player, that is deemed inappropriate by design or layout (eg. dodgy terrain; star shaped hill, triangular gullies, etc.) "

That's a solution for a different problem, Bob. And in tournaments I run, I reserve the right to act as I think appropriate on all issues without restriction, which covers stupid star-shaped hills without needing a special disclaimer to that effect.

Lobotomy
01-17-2011, 08:01 PM
Your random, lawyerly thoughts need some help reading -- I was talking about area features. Waterway, roads, rivers, ain't.

Every single movement/rotation must end with a legal map. Not complicated.

You may have been talking about area features though it was unexpressed. I read what you said three time before responding and again today, so it must be the glasses need replacing as the word "area" always disappears, except where you use the word in the last line, not part of the proposed rule. But this all would be too "lawyerly" to mention.

All that said, your idea has merit worth considering. As has been suggested, we should play test it. I will try to do so in Pittsburgh with those of us who play and maybe the Stooges will try something out Thursday night of Cold Wars!

Macbeth
01-17-2011, 08:38 PM
"required to carry" is a bit harsh, don't you think? And this is sort of a niggling point anyway -- the idea that it might be impossible to find or manufacture (with the teeth of DS) a 2BW square terrain piece during a convention filled with players and their terrain boxes seems ... pretty unlikely to me. Almost every DBA player has a box of his own terrain -- if he can't find a piece in there, then he should bring one next time.


You might scoff David but I do remember a conversation with a player heading off to a FoG tournament where he was gleefully planning some fiddle with the FoG terrain rules that are (I believe) something like the proposed change above. I think he planned to ask his opponent for a particularly obscure terrain piece when it came his turn to make the modifications and then claim some sort of penalty when it could not be delivered :silly

And in anticipation of your next response - not all of us are fine hockey playing physical specimens like yourself so the punch in the nose might not give the desired result ;)

Cheers

Stephen Webb
01-17-2011, 08:53 PM
You might scoff David but I do remember a conversation with a player heading off to a FoG tournament where he was gleefully planning some fiddle with the FoG terrain rules that are (I believe) something like the proposed change above. I think he planned to ask his opponent for a particularly obscure terrain piece when it came his turn to make the modifications and then claim some sort of penalty when it could not be delivered :silly

If that happened to me, it would make sure that I would never play in the tournament again...

david kuijt
01-17-2011, 09:01 PM
And in anticipation of your next response - not all of us are fine hockey playing physical specimens like yourself so the punch in the nose might not give the desired result ;)


Even a thug will go down if you give him a stout knee in the 'nads.

Stephen Webb
01-17-2011, 10:06 PM
Even a thug will go down if you give him a stout knee in the 'nads.

Is that based on a previous confrontation?

Tony Aguilar
01-18-2011, 12:18 AM
We will try it out with 30" boards at our weekly DBA Game night, which is tonight.

We sat down and played 3 games of Manoeuvre and DBA took a back seat. Our playtest will have to wait until the DBA Games Day in Kissimmee this Saturday.

Macbeth
01-18-2011, 12:26 AM
Even a thug will go down if you give him a stout knee in the 'nads.

Just lately I find myself in a position where I lack that particular weapon. I am not sure if it was playing Laser Tag (a lot more running than I normally do on unsprung floors) or the fall I took at the Photo Counter {all this whilst in Bendigo for the elder of my little warbands' debut with the ACT rep team for junior track and field} but a stout knee is not what I posess.

Cheers

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 02:17 AM
Is that based on a previous confrontation?

Not at all. I'm Canadian -- we are polite and non-violent. Except when playing hockey. I should have had three penalties in the game just finished an hour ago -- tripping (they called it on my defensive partner), boarding (I smooshed the enemy into the boards -- sadly, my own winger was between him and the boards, and got even worse smooshed. But it turned out well, because they called boarding on the enemy, not on me), and interference (I assisted an enemy player in going head-first into my goalies' net, making it very difficult for him to score. But the refs always seem to respect a good moustache, and I am still a candidate for the Lady Byng.

Martyn
01-18-2011, 09:00 AM
Is there a general problem with mathematical or dorky terrain placement? I ask as I have limited experience and wonder how big the problem is, and therefore, does it need a fix.

The proposal put forward by DK seems a good idea, I like the concept of a relatively minor movement or rotation so making subtle changes to the board, but I wonder how much effect it will have. If a defender places his max 5 pieces of terrain, some of those may not be area features, so you are left with, say, 4 pieces to be checked. If a 1 is required by the attacker to alter any one piece there is quite a high probability that none will be affected or more likely that only one piece will. Does the outcome warrant the additional complexity:???

kontos
01-18-2011, 09:04 AM
If that happened to me, it would make sure that I would never play in the tournament again...

Then they win and you lose. Why would I want to give up something I enjoy on account of the actions of one or two others. One would hope the tournament organizers would handle it within the spirit of the rules. If they aren't inclined to do so, THEN I would boycott that particular tournament.

Frank

Bob Mcleish
01-18-2011, 09:51 AM
Is there a general problem with mathematical or dorky terrain placement? I ask as I have limited experience and wonder how big the problem is, and therefore, does it need a fix.


The way I see it, the rules allowing long sausage shaped pieces of Rough or Marsh are included to allow for the placement of historically appropriate terrain for specific scenarios - the ravine at Nicopolis is an example that springs to mind (and one that was used by me during a BBDBA Nicopolis demo game).
Unfortunately, this allows for situations where some Uber-competitive souls (see Xavi's example) abuse this and in doing so violate (IMHO) the spirit of the rules.
Fortunately I haven't encountered such extreme examples but I wouldn't be too keen on facing an opponent who used such "gamey" tactics on a regular basis.

Perhaps a rule allowing only one such piece in a standard competition game would work, whilst keeping them in the rules to allow for terrain in scenario games. Just a thought..!

IIRC gullies are quite an unusual terrain type in DBMM, and are quite difficult to place, being the last terrain type to be placed (often meaning, depending on die rolls, that there's no room for them to be placed legally, so are discarded)

Bob Mcleish
(formerly nixon1411)

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 10:00 AM
Is there a general problem with mathematical or dorky terrain placement? I ask as I have limited experience and wonder how big the problem is, and therefore, does it need a fix.


Always a reasonable question to ask.

In my personal experience, I see precision terrain designed with rotational symmetry (looking the same regardless of how the map is rotated) about one time in three in large tournaments, maybe a bit more often. That's enough to be irritating. As with anything, some players use it all the time, and some players don't use it at all.


The proposal put forward by DK seems a good idea, I like the concept of a relatively minor movement or rotation so making subtle changes to the board, but I wonder how much effect it will have. If a defender places his max 5 pieces of terrain, some of those may not be area features, so you are left with, say, 4 pieces to be checked. If a 1 is required by the attacker to alter any one piece there is quite a high probability that none will be affected or more likely that only one piece will. Does the outcome warrant the additional complexity:???

It might be that 2 in 6 (1/3 prob) is better; that is what playtesting is for.

But the intent is NOT to have a major effect -- the intent is twofold. First to have sufficient impact to reduce the impact of dorky-looking terrain (and reduce the motivation of dorky-terrain-placement-players to retain their memberships in that club), and second to reduce the precision of such placement (a longthin rough placed 29mm from the map edge all the way along one edge? Puh-LEEZE). But in either case, the minimum change that will have a moderate impact in the long run.

The hope is to fix the terrain-silliness we already deal with, not to introduce another layer of terrain-silliness. Keeping the probability low is a good way to do that.

kontos
01-18-2011, 10:46 AM
While I too loathe "dorky, precision, terrain placement", the rules should allow for those circumstances where good commanders used terrain to compensate for their army's disadvantages. For example, the Romans faced a far numerically superior force under Boudicca. The legions were deployed with woods on both flanks forcing a frontal assault with no, in game terms, overlaps on the Roman line. Should these types of battles be reserved for scenario play alone? Shouldn't those commanders that think about terrain and the benefits to their army composition be rewarded for good terrain placement? I just don't want to see us go from one extreme to the other. I would like to see a host of armies in the lists being used in tournaments because the terrain placement rules make it feasible, and fun, to knock the dust off them and be played again. (On 30" boards) ***WINK***

Frank

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 10:50 AM
While I too loathe "dorky, precision, terrain placement", the rules should allow for those circumstances where good commanders used terrain to compensate for their army's disadvantages. For example, the Romans faced a far numerically superior force under Boudicca. The legions were deployed with woods on both flanks forcing a frontal assault with no, in game terms, overlaps on the Roman line. Should these types of battles be reserved for scenario play alone? Shouldn't those commanders that think about terrain and the benefits to their army composition be rewarded for good terrain placement? I just don't want to see us go from one extreme to the other.

Frank -- is this diatribe (with which I agree) aimed at any suggestion in particular? I haven't seen anyone suggest (or discuss) anything that would prevent the above from happening. Perhaps I misunderstood something?

dicemanrick
01-18-2011, 11:35 AM
You can force an attack against a bad position in a campaign because one side might have to win or give up the campaign.

In a tournament, though you have to be careful not to place SO much terrain that the other guy will refuse to attack because the position is overwhelmingly disadvantageous. I'll sit here and wait for ya, Frank...it's draw time and we both lose! :D

Like someone else says "don't bring a blade to a knight fight" :D


While I too loathe "dorky, precision, terrain placement", the rules should allow for those circumstances where good commanders used terrain to compensate for their army's disadvantages. For example, the Romans faced a far numerically superior force under Boudicca. The legions were deployed with woods on both flanks forcing a frontal assault with no, in game terms, overlaps on the Roman line. Should these types of battles be reserved for scenario play alone? Shouldn't those commanders that think about terrain and the benefits to their army composition be rewarded for good terrain placement? I just don't want to see us go from one extreme to the other. I would like to see a host of armies in the lists being used in tournaments because the terrain placement rules make it feasible, and fun, to knock the dust off them and be played again. (On 30" boards) ***WINK***

Frank

Si2
01-18-2011, 11:40 AM
Yup. Terrain does not bother me much. I tend to play quite rabble-ish (BGo heavy) armies myself. The perfect distributon of swamps and rough to reduce the area of play and forcing a frontal engagement is what concerns me.

And this is why I think that the easiest change would be to change the play area to 30". That would solve quite some of the issues here. Even if macxed out and mininmized out terrain are too extreme as written.

Xavi

I'd agree that a sensible sized battlefield will sort out most of the terrain issues. When the 25mm board went from 48 inches to 36 the Libyans suddenly were able to swamp the board with five max size piece of BGo.
But I think to work as a total solution it does need to be combined with a larger minimum sized piece, because there are a number of armies that, if they lose the terrain roll, are in trouble if the enemy can pop out a single 1 base width diameter piece of bad going.

Si

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Always a reasonable question to ask.

In my personal experience, I see precision terrain designed with rotational symmetry (looking the same regardless of how the map is rotated) about one time in three in large tournaments, maybe a bit more often. That's enough to be irritating. As with anything, some players use it all the time, and some players don't use it at all.



It might be that 2 in 6 (1/3 prob) is better; that is what playtesting is for.

But the intent is NOT to have a major effect -- the intent is twofold. First to have sufficient impact to reduce the impact of dorky-looking terrain (and reduce the motivation of dorky-terrain-placement-players to retain their memberships in that club), and second to reduce the precision of such placement (a longthin rough placed 29mm from the map edge all the way along one edge? Puh-LEEZE). But in either case, the minimum change that will have a moderate impact in the long run.

The hope is to fix the terrain-silliness we already deal with, not to introduce another layer of terrain-silliness. Keeping the probability low is a good way to do that.

I was thinking a 2/6 chance to move each piece might be better as well. I also was thinking a basewidth might be a better distance for moving the terrain than 100 paces. I'll have a better idea what I think after we playtest this weekend.

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 11:53 AM
I'd agree that a sensible sized battlefield will sort out most of the terrain issues.

Some of them, anyway.

When the 25mm board went from 48 inches to 36 the Libyans suddenly were able to swamp the board with five max size piece of BGo.
But I think to work as a total solution it does need to be combined with a larger minimum sized piece, because there are a number of armies that, if they lose the terrain roll, are in trouble if the enemy can pop out a single 1 base width diameter piece of bad going.


I'd support having a 2bw x 2bw piece as the minimum size, sure.

Although it won't help the pool table much. Nothing to stop the defender from putting it centered on a base edge, which will still be a pool table.

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 11:56 AM
I was thinking a 2/6 chance to move each piece might be better as well. I also was thinking a basewidth might be a better distance for moving the terrain than 100 paces. I'll have a better idea what I think after we playtest this weekend.

Basewidth might be better, yes. Whether 1/6 or 2/6? Dunno. Playtesting a couple of dozen boards is probably a good step.

Si2
01-18-2011, 11:59 AM
Just wanted to say that the postage stamp terrain piece shown wasn't 'roughly oval'. If it was, then it would be a bit bigger, having a minor axis of 1 base width.

I've always had a soft spot for the term 'roughly oval'...:)

BTW - Roughly oval applies to ALL TERRAIN FEATURES - so those marshes would have to go as well - they look a bit too allantoid to me...


Si

kontos
01-18-2011, 12:02 PM
You can force an attack against a bad position in a campaign because one side might have to win or give up the campaign.

In a tournament, though you have to be careful not to place SO much terrain that the other guy will refuse to attack because the position is overwhelmingly disadvantageous. I'll sit here and wait for ya, Frank...it's draw time and we both lose! :D

Like someone else says "don't bring a blade to a knight fight" :D

Don't bring AGG4 armies. :D

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 12:06 PM
I've always had a soft spot for the term 'roughly oval'...:)


Phil might have picked it because most gamers are roughly oval. Perhaps he originally wanted to use "pear shaped", but switched when he found out that it is a colloquialism for "going to crap" in US military jargon. :D

Kingo
01-18-2011, 12:08 PM
My biggest hope for 3.0 is that the max number of terrain pieces is increased, even the fullest terrain board that should reflect very bad terrain is full of flat areas. After flying over the balkans and macedonia....there is'nt any flat ground there folks :D

kontos
01-18-2011, 12:09 PM
Frank -- is this diatribe (with which I agree) aimed at any suggestion in particular? I haven't seen anyone suggest (or discuss) anything that would prevent the above from happening. Perhaps I misunderstood something?

I guess I failed to reinforce my bid for "larger" sized terrain pieces and less of them. Most battlefields were "dominated" by one or two key features. A "woods" 2bwx2bw just irritates me. If the landscape feature is forest, let's have one. Larger terrain pieces would reduce the effect of the "pool table" as well. Of course this would mean roads would be allowed to traverse terrain, as it should be. Don't get me wrong, DK, I like your terrain placement process. It just needs other rules IMO to achieve what I would like to see on the tabletop. As all rules amendments would affect tournament play, what "I" want isn't necessarily what the community wants so I defer to the community. :up

Frank

Si2
01-18-2011, 12:22 PM
Some of them, anyway.



I'd support having a 2bw x 2bw piece as the minimum size, sure.

Although it won't help the pool table much. Nothing to stop the defender from putting it centered on a base edge, which will still be a pool table.

You're right.
Can't it be bigger then??

To my mind a tiny piece of terrain is placed because the defender doesn't want to place that terrain. If that terrain type is a prevalant terrain type in their home topography then it should be on the battlefield.
If they don't want to place terrain, then cede the terrain to the enemy and become the attacker.
For a forest topography army to place a tiny shrubbery seems daft.
Same for a hilly.
I'd go for bigger than 2BW - 3BW across min maybe.

Some poeple may see max terrain as more of a game breaker than min terrain. But they're normally the ones with the Kn/Bw/Bd armies.

I wonder if we're making too much of terrain issues.

I'd not be happy to be faced with the sausage marsh, but I'd happily face the challenge of a BG sea.

Si

Si2
01-18-2011, 12:25 PM
Phil might have picked it because most gamers are roughly oval. Perhaps he originally wanted to use "pear shaped", but switched when he found out that it is a colloquialism for "going to crap" in US military jargon. :D

That's funny.

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 01:18 PM
After flying over the balkans and macedonia....there is'nt any flat ground there folks :D

I've driven the psycho mountain road down to the coast from the coastal mountains in Yugoslavia near Split -- there is flat ground on the coast, and there is lots of flat ground (farming) up above as well. Even if the road down through the mountains is terrifying.

Anywhere with no flat space for agriculture was somewhere you couldn't maintain an army. Armies need to forage, which means "steal stuff from local farmers". If there aren't any (enough) local farmers, an army would starve to death in a week. That applies to any really bad terrain anywhere.

The Balkans is obviously full of places flat enough to fight battles -- because there are lots of historical accounts of battles in the Balkans, with lots of flat places expressed or implied in those accounts, and very few of those battles describe how the whole battlefield was dominated by BGo. Even the battle with Philip Alexanders-dad and the Aitolians specifically mentions how Philip was suckered into pursuit after fighting (and apparently beating) the Aitolians in the plain, and then got jumped by them when he pursued up into the hills. And that's about the biggest BGo battle I can recall in the Balkans.

Martyn
01-18-2011, 01:21 PM
I do love active threads, I stuck a post on just before having to go out on an appointment and when I get back, 3 hours later, there are two pages of further discussion. Isn’t Fanaticus great. :up

It might be that 2 in 6 (1/3 prob) is better; that is what playtesting is for.

But the intent is NOT to have a major effect -- the intent is twofold. First to have sufficient impact to reduce the impact of dorky-looking terrain (and reduce the motivation of dorky-terrain-placement-players to retain their memberships in that club), and second to reduce the precision of such placement (a longthin rough placed 29mm from the map edge all the way along one edge? Puh-LEEZE). But in either case, the minimum change that will have a moderate impact in the long run.

The hope is to fix the terrain-silliness we already deal with, not to introduce another layer of terrain-silliness. Keeping the probability low is a good way to do that.

Either 2 or 1, it will be interesting to see how it tests. As the effect is deliberately limited the rate of occurrence is not that critical, in fact my concern was that on a 1 the rate of occurrence would be so low that it would not have sufficient effect.

I guess I failed to reinforce my bid for "larger" sized terrain pieces and less of them. Most battlefields were "dominated" by one or two key features. A "woods" 2bwx2bw just irritates me. If the landscape feature is forest, let's have one. Larger terrain pieces would reduce the effect of the "pool table" as well.

I too have concerns on the size of terrain particularly in respect of Forrest and Hilly where you end up with an open plain with a couple of woods/hills. Whether the size of terrain needs to be increased or we go down the route of HoTT which does not limit the max size of individual terrain pieces are possibilities which would be up for discussion. I would put forward the idea that compulsory area terrain features should be given the option of a larger max size.

This thread started out with a simple question from Sue, does anybody know, or can Sue advise if any of this is likely to be considered in a V3, no commitment required, just an “interesting ideas, will consider” type response. Here’s hoping.

Foge
01-18-2011, 01:35 PM
I have a couple of other suggestions for the terrain setup.

One... As an alternate to DK's suggestion (which I think is pretty reasonable, BTW), the defender places terrain as currently written, but then the attacker can either add or remove one piece of terrain. The final terrain selection must still be valid. Waterways and rivers are exempt. This allows an attacker to place some BGo on postage stamp boards and will break the 'X' symmetry or sausage setups.

Two... Add an "open ground" terrain type. IOW, the terrain is simply an area of Good Going. This would allow a player to try to keep at least part of the board open. Obviously, it only makes sense if we adopt one of the alternate terrain schemes that we've been discussing.

I wouldn't mind a bit of randomization in terrain setup (i.e., roll a die to determine what quadrant to place the piece), but I understand that setup shouldn't take too long.

FWIW, I encounter "cheesy" terrain setups (postage stamp or 'X' symmetry) about every other tournament. That's why its a pet peeve of mine.

Later,
Kevin

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 01:35 PM
I do love active threads, I stuck a post on just before having to go out on an appointment and when I get back, 3 hours later, there are two pages of further discussion. Isn’t Fanaticus great. :up



Either 2 or 1, it will be interesting to see how it tests. As the effect is deliberately limited the rate of occurrence is not that critical, in fact my concern was that on a 1 the rate of occurrence would be so low that it would not have sufficient effect.



I too have concerns on the size of terrain particularly in respect of Forrest and Hilly where you end up with an open plain with a couple of woods/hills. Whether the size of terrain needs to be increased or we go down the route of HoTT which does not limit the max size of individual terrain pieces are possibilities which would be up for discussion. I would put forward the idea that compulsory area terrain features should be given the option of a larger max size.

This thread started out with a simple question from Sue, does anybody know, or can Sue advise if any of this is likely to be considered in a V3, no commitment required, just an “interesting ideas, will consider” type response. Here’s hoping.

I don't think we need a bigger max size for terrain(even though the thought of fighting a Knight/Blade army with a Warband army on a battlefield with a 24"x24" woods with a couple of teeny patches of open ground and a road running through it is so amusing Teutobergerwald anybody?) With current rules a defender who wants to make the battlefield into a bad going nightmare can already do so. Increasing the miniumum terrain size to 2 BWx2BW seems a better idea, especially combined with the chance for the attacker to move them around a little to make the battlefield less pool tableish and especially if you have 4-5 terrain pieces down because the terrain adverse defender is scared of you putting a piece of bad going right in the middle of the table.

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 01:47 PM
I have a couple of other suggestions for the terrain setup.

One... As an alternate to DK's suggestion (which I think is pretty reasonable, BTW), the defender places terrain as currently written, but then the attacker can either add or remove one piece of terrain. The final terrain selection must still be valid. Waterways and rivers are exempt. This allows an attacker to place some BGo on postage stamp boards and will break the 'X' symmetry or sausage setups.

Two... Add an "open ground" terrain type. IOW, the terrain is simply an area of Good Going. This would allow a player to try to keep at least part of the board open. Obviously, it only makes sense if we adopt one of the alternate terrain schemes that we've been discussing.

I wouldn't mind a bit of randomization in terrain setup (i.e., roll a die to determine what quadrant to place the piece), but I understand that setup shouldn't take too long.

FWIW, I encounter "cheesy" terrain setups (postage stamp or 'X' symmetry) about every other tournament. That's why its a pet peeve of mine.

Later,
Kevin

Schemes that as a default allow the attacker to add or remove terrain without the defender having a way to counter it are very bad for play balance IMO. I have played them and they simply give the attacker too big of an edge IMO. The nice thing about Davids idea is the defender can prevent the attacker from placing terrain by putting out max terrain which the attacker can then move around. Another idea maybe if the defender puts out max terrain the attacker should have a chance to remove a piece similiar to his chance to add a piece if the defender doesn't put out max terrain? That would be interesting as it would give defenders a reason not to make extreme battlefields in either direction; If I am a terrain adverse defender I now have a reason to put out max terrain as at least that way I can put it in less inconvenient places than a terrain favoring attacker. If I am a terrain dependent defender facing a terrain adverse attacker I have a good reason to then not put out max terrain as I would not want the attacker to remove my most advantageous piece and if he wants to add a piece instead he can go right ahead.

Foge
01-18-2011, 01:58 PM
Schemes that as a default allow the attacker to add or remove terrain without the defender having a way to counter it are very bad for play balance IMO. I have played them and they simply give the attacker too big of an edge IMO. The nice thing about Davids idea is the defender can prevent the attacker from placing terrain by putting out max terrain which the attacker can then move around. Another idea maybe if the defender puts out max terrain the attacker should have a chance to remove a piece similiar to his chance to add a piece if the defender doesn't put out max terrain? That would be interesting as it would give defenders a reason not to make extreme battlefields in either direction; If I am a terrain adverse defender I now have a reason to put out max terrain as at least that way I can put it in less inconvenient places than a terrain favoring attacker. If I am a terrain dependent defender facing a terrain adverse attacker I have a good reason to then not put out max terrain as I would not want the attacker to remove my most advantageous piece and if he wants to add a piece instead he can go right ahead.

Good points. I'd like to see a rule that allows the attacker to remove a piece of terrain simply to get rid of the 'X' symmetry situation. I think adding that option to David's suggestion would work well. Basically, the attacker can move, rotate, or remove a piece of terrain.

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 02:02 PM
Good points. I'd like to see a rule that allows the attacker to remove a piece of terrain simply to get rid of the 'X' symmetry situation. I think adding that option to David's suggestion would work well. Basically, the attacker can move, rotate, or remove a piece of terrain.

I think that would be worse and cause more problems than the current terrain rules.

Foge
01-18-2011, 02:54 PM
I think that would be worse and cause more problems than the current terrain rules.

Heh. Why is that the case? The odds are pretty good that you'll get to remove one piece of the 'X', which is okay. Just moving one piece of the 'X' is pretty meaningless. Heck, I'm not sure that moving *all* of the pieces of the 'X' will do all that much. Or do you think that it will be a problem in a non-degenerate cast? I would think that the minimum terrain requirements would prevent anything too bad.

There seem to be three degenerate cases:
1. Postage stamp terrain.
2. Symmetrical 'X' terrain.
3. Mathematically placed sausage terrain.

I think the goal of DK's suggestion is to either eliminate or reduce the impact of the degenerate cases. It works for 1 and 3, but doesn't really do anything for 2. I'm trying to brainstorm something that will address the symmetry case.

I suppose that there is another degenerate case where the defender puts down 5 pieces of bad going pretty much randomly on the table. I don't know if there is any way to counter that situation. (TBH, I actually find that less objectionable than the 'X' symmetry case.)

David Schlanger
01-18-2011, 03:46 PM
I like the idea of an increasing chance to make the attacker "modification".

Defender places 3 terrain pieces:
Move terrain piece #1 (1/6 chance)
Move terrain piece #2 (2/6 chance, if attempt to move piece #1 failed, otherwise 1/6 chznce).
Move terrain piece #3 (3/6 chance if attempts to move pieces #1 and #2 failed, otherwise 1/6 chance).
Max out at 3/6 - 50% chance regardless of number of failed attempts.

This would allow a small increase in chance to modify the most crucial piece of terrain by attempting it after a failure.

DS

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 04:15 PM
Heh. Why is that the case? The odds are pretty good that you'll get to remove one piece of the 'X', which is okay. Just moving one piece of the 'X' is pretty meaningless. Heck, I'm not sure that moving *all* of the pieces of the 'X' will do all that much. Or do you think that it will be a problem in a non-degenerate cast? I would think that the minimum terrain requirements would prevent anything too bad.

There seem to be three degenerate cases:
1. Postage stamp terrain.
2. Symmetrical 'X' terrain.
3. Mathematically placed sausage terrain.

I think the goal of DK's suggestion is to either eliminate or reduce the impact of the degenerate cases. It works for 1 and 3, but doesn't really do anything for 2. I'm trying to brainstorm something that will address the symmetry case.

I suppose that there is another degenerate case where the defender puts down 5 pieces of bad going pretty much randomly on the table. I don't know if there is any way to counter that situation. (TBH, I actually find that less objectionable than the 'X' symmetry case.)

Allowing attackers to unilaterally remove or place terrain without giving defenders a way to prevent or counter it is a very bad idea IMO. I have played DBA games that allowed just that; I found the terrain rules worse than the current game and the setup process became very unbalanced in favor of the attacker. Giving the attacker a chance to add or remove a piece of terrain with the defender deciding which he gets a chance to do is an interesting way to lessen the occurrence of both too much and too little terrain with the key element being that the defender gets to decide whether the attacker gets a chance to remove a piece or add a piece. Without that key element you have no game mechanic encourageing defenders to make more moderate terrain choices. Your suggestion would, I fear, simply replace the current peceived defender's advantage with an even greater attackers advantage IMO.

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 04:17 PM
I like the idea of an increasing chance to make the attacker "modification".

Defender places 3 terrain pieces:
Move terrain piece #1 (1/6 chance)
Move terrain piece #2 (2/6 chance, if attempt to move piece #1 failed, otherwise 1/6 chznce).
Move terrain piece #3 (3/6 chance if attempts to move pieces #1 and #2 failed, otherwise 1/6 chance).
Max out at 3/6 - 50% chance regardless of number of failed attempts.

This would allow a small increase in chance to modify the most crucial piece of terrain by attempting it after a failure.

DS

I like that idea also because it increases the chances that the attacker at leasts gets to move something without making it more likely that he will get to move everything.

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 04:28 PM
Allowing attackers to unilaterally remove or place terrain without giving defenders a way to prevent or counter it is a very bad idea IMO. I have played DBA games that allowed just that; I found the terrain rules worse than the current game and the setup process became very unbalanced in favor of the attacker. Giving the attacker a chance to add or remove a piece of terrain with the defender deciding which he gets a chance to do is an interesting way to lessen the occurrence of both too much and too little terrain with the key element being that the defender gets to decide whether the attacker gets a chance to remove a piece or add a piece. Without that key element you have no game mechanic encourageing defenders to make more moderate terrain choices. Your suggestion would, I fear, simply replace the current peceived defender's advantage with an even greater attackers advantage IMO.

The other key part is that the defender decides that the attacker gets a chance to remove terrain by putting out too much and add terrain by putting out too little so if more terrain is in the defenders advantage he is encouraged to put out less and if he wants less he is encouraged to put out more so what would happen with savvy defenders anyway is they would be prone to make a more moderate battlefield than they would like so they wouldn't have the potential disaster of the attacker removing the key piece of terrain their plan depends on or of him putting a nasty patch of bad going right where they don't want it. They could still take a chance and hope the attacker rolled bad but I would expect having a certainty of having the terrain be pretty much in your favor would be better than a 2/3 chance to have the terrain a little more in your favor than that with the other 1/3 being a lot worse.

Scott Russell
01-18-2011, 04:32 PM
There seem to be three degenerate cases:
1. Postage stamp terrain.
2. Symmetrical 'X' terrain.
3. Mathematically placed sausage terrain.




the UK variant is three maximum sized bits of bad going placed diagonally across the table with 40mm between each one. Moving or rotating these would at least allow some access.
Scott

Xavi
01-18-2011, 04:34 PM
That last example is known as "the Pyrenees" around here.

It is the least efficient deployment for bad going (easy to pass over, deploying in columns in the area terrain that ends up in your deployment zone), so it is less seen lately.

Xavi

Tony Aguilar
01-18-2011, 05:19 PM
That last example is known as "the Pyrenees" around here.


Well, at least it keep the French out of your back yard. ;)

Spencer
01-18-2011, 05:34 PM
the UK variant is three maximum sized bits of bad going placed diagonally across the table with 40mm between each one. Moving or rotating these would at least allow some access.
Scott

I've used that one with my Early Samurai...worked great!

Does that make me a bad person?

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 05:49 PM
I've used that one with my Early Samurai...worked great!

Does that make me a bad person?

Don't confuse cause and effect, Spencer. It's the other way around. Using rotationally symmetric terrain doesn't make you a bad person -- being a bad person makes you use rotationally symmetric terrain. :D

Spencer
01-18-2011, 06:08 PM
Don't confuse cause and effect, Spencer. It's the other way around. Using rotationally symmetric terrain doesn't make you a bad person -- being a bad person makes you use rotationally symmetric terrain. :D

OK.....I'm good with that

jcpotn
01-18-2011, 06:53 PM
Ok, I'm for woods on a hill for one terrain piece. :sick

Jeff

kontos
01-18-2011, 06:59 PM
Ok, I'm for woods on a hill for one terrain piece. :sick

Jeff

I vote two pieces. :p:D

Frank

jcpotn
01-18-2011, 07:02 PM
I vote two pieces. :p:D

Frank

Ok, ok. Two pieces. Now can we move along? :???

Jeff

peleset
01-18-2011, 07:45 PM
Perhaps people should exercise restraint, then altering the terrain rules could be avoided.

It seemed the obvious answer when I typed it, but I suppose unrealistic.

david kuijt
01-18-2011, 09:02 PM
Perhaps people should exercise restraint, then altering the terrain rules could be avoided.

It seemed the obvious answer when I typed it, but I suppose unrealistic.

What you're saying is, "use the honor system and social pressure to encourage reasonable terrain."

Nothing wrong with the honor system and social pressure. It can work very well, on most people. If the community is relatively active, relatively well-mixed (not regionalized), it can solve a lot of problems.

On outliers (social, regional, or recalcitrant outliers) it is no solution at all. Because the honor system and social pressure only works if there is both a carrot and a stick. If the people who run events and referee them are not willing to create real social pressure (ostracize, shun, or ban severe offenders), then the honor system only works up until the point someone challenges it.

Stephen Webb
01-18-2011, 10:45 PM
Then they win and you lose. Why would I want to give up something I enjoy on account of the actions of one or two others. One would hope the tournament organizers would handle it within the spirit of the rules. If they aren't inclined to do so, THEN I would boycott that particular tournament.

Frank

I also would hope the organisers would prevent such a thing. But if they didn't then I wouldn't play in their tournaments again.

If you remember the comment mentioned a penalty if you couldn't provide the required terrain.

Rich Gause
01-18-2011, 11:10 PM
The rules should define what is legal and what is not. Something that one player may think is cheesy another player may think of as good play. I don't have a problem playing on any terrain my opponent puts out as long as it is legal. Another factor is how experienced a player is and whether he reads the DBA Yahoo group and Fanaticus. I can easily see somebody going to play a tournament taking an army with a plan to use cheesy terrain which is perfectly legal and not being aware that anybody would object being very miffed if somebody in the middle of a tournament told him he couldn't do it, especially if he had something that his regular group considered cheesy done to him earlier that was allowed. I'm all in favor of making the rules better and if you want a house rule for a game it shouldn't be a problem as long as the house rule is made clear beforehand when the event is announced and not after somebody has shown up on the day of the tournament.

Pavane
01-19-2011, 02:31 AM
The rules should define what is legal and what is not. Something that one player may think is cheesy another player may think of as good play. I don't have a problem playing on any terrain my opponent puts out as long as it is legal. Another factor is how experienced a player is and whether he reads the DBA Yahoo group and Fanaticus. I can easily see somebody going to play a tournament taking an army with a plan to use cheesy terrain which is perfectly legal and not being aware that anybody would object being very miffed if somebody in the middle of a tournament told him he couldn't do it, especially if he had something that his regular group considered cheesy done to him earlier that was allowed. I'm all in favor of making the rules better and if you want a house rule for a game it shouldn't be a problem as long as the house rule is made clear beforehand when the event is announced and not after somebody has shown up on the day of the tournament.
I agree with that. I haven't seen a BUA or river placed in one of the big eastern cons DBA tournament. They are not disallowed, but convention discourages them. Players in Canada are more insular so I explicitly prohibit BUAs and make all rivers paltry in tournaments here.

Xavi
01-19-2011, 06:08 AM
For "social pressure" there is a simpler method:

"The organization will provide the terrain to be used in the tournament". Works around here. However, we have had cases of people not attending BECAUSE they cannot use their own (official) terrain. With a small game like ours, this is a huge downturn, so we try to find compromises.

Xavi

Stephen Webb
01-19-2011, 09:28 PM
I provide terrain at my competitions, but players are still allowed to use their own.

It is usually nicer to look at...

However, I have never had to police any illegal terrain so far.

I would expect a player to ask if they thought their opponent was trying to use a terrain piece that wasn't legal.

Just as I expect them to identify if the elements of an army do not conform to the DBA list.

Doug
01-20-2011, 09:12 AM
However, I have never had to police any illegal terrain so far.

I would expect a player to ask if they thought their opponent was trying to use a terrain piece that wasn't legal.

In my experience, the problem is not illegal terrain, so much as legal terrain pushed to the max. I have walked some ancient battlefields and while the ground cover and forestation may have changed, the hillsides, gullies and slopes have not (with few exceptions). The thing to remember is the scale we are representing here, in DBA, 12 elements can be 30-100,000 men. The frontage is then up to 8000 men (2 legions?) with a frontage of 1 kilometre or more. A substantial forest could be 2 elements wide.

The bigger issue for me is getting players to implicitly agree to a social compact that they will play a game.. so that means not expecting either a billiard table or a jungle. Some balance has to provide both sides with a reason to fight. Historically, a 'fair and balanced' engagement simply would not happen in terrain that egregiously favoured one side or another. (I know, someone will trot out Teutoburger Wald etc. but those are scenarios, not open battles.)

I recently played a comp where one player took Early Hebrew, and then deployed maximum bad going and a BUA. if players tried to fight him, they lost, otherwise it was a draw. Not a good game for either side.

Si2
01-20-2011, 12:06 PM
The year 2.2 came out, with it's daft change to the 25mm board size, I took a 3 foot square board loaded with five bits of max sized BG terrain to Bovington show for the weekend.
I sat there with my Libyan army and challenged anyone who felt like it to a game, where the Libyans were always the defender.
I provided a few armies - Numidian was one (that elly was a liability), EIR, Granadine, Berber, I think....

They decided if they wanted to be Libyan or not.

I can't remember the actual results, but it wasn't a complete whitewash for the Libyans. If you have some BG troops then you do stand a chance - the PIPs required to move in BG mean even a Ps rich army cannot get all elements to attack at once very often. It just becomes a hard nut to crack - you are invading their home, they choose the ground, it's not supposed to be easy.

I'd object to marshy sausages or ritz cracker sized woods a lot more than to a five BG board. Ones completely legal and the other two are either not legal or pedantry.

Use a balanced army and you can deal with most situations.
Or bring the Libyans and just put up with it.
Si

Si2
01-20-2011, 12:11 PM
One.






That's an answer to the original post.

Kingo
01-20-2011, 03:56 PM
My biggest hope for 3.0 is that the max number of terrain pieces is increased, even the fullest terrain board that should reflect very bad terrain is full of flat areas. After flying over the balkans and macedonia....there is'nt any flat ground there folks :D

...Ok, I have an army that goes well in bad terrain, I defend, take my full quota of terrain pieces and end up with masses of flat terrain on the board, I'd like the optional quota of pieces to be increased by two.

David Constable
01-20-2011, 04:14 PM
However, I have never had to police any illegal terrain so far.

I would expect a player to ask if they thought their opponent was trying to use a terrain piece that wasn't legal.

I did once take some terrain to the English Open that was slightly over size, having pointed it out to opponents before laying it out, and offering to use theirs, I still ended up using mine.

David Constable

Martin Smith
01-21-2011, 06:20 AM
The rules should define what is legal and what is not. Something that one player may think is cheesy another player may think of as good play. I don't have a problem playing on any terrain my opponent puts out as long as it is legal. .

Totally agree. If it's legal, let the guy do it.
Martin:up

JamesLDIII
01-22-2011, 04:36 PM
My first tournamentI at origins with a Nubian army I tried the 5 spot terrain method. It did help me against monotype good going armies, but made it more difficult to win, especially to win in time. SO I abandoned that tactic.

I think as players become more experienced they figure out that these types of terrain setups aren't the most efficient to winning.

and as far as wooded hills, counts as one.
lake/pond is impassible terrain, counts as one.
cliffs can be in there too.
all kinds of terrain options could be added pretty simply.

I vote for DKs method.

Jim D, from Iraq

Rich Gause
01-23-2011, 01:09 AM
We playtested the latest version of the terrain placement optional and it is so superior to the current rules that I would want to include it in any DBA event I ever play in. It should be given very serious consideration for DBA 3.0 IMO. I think I will start a new thread for it in the DBA 3.0 section.

Tony Wilson
01-27-2011, 11:07 AM
First may I say that, I heartily endorse the concept of allowing the invader (the possibility of) some say over the terrain.

In particularly any mechanism which helps to counter the unrealistic symmetrical placement of terrain, which negates the writers intention to give the invader some choice over approach.

I am keen to see further reports of play testing DK's proposal, but would like to add the following suggestion, which could be partly instead, or indeed, partly in addition.

Require that all area features must differ by at least one base width in combined length plus breadth .

While accepting that this may inconvenience players with solid model terrain features, this simultaneously reduces the total maximum terrain which can be placed (a separate issue, but also a problem) and automatically imposes a small degree of asymmetry on the battlefield.

The largest legal feature at this time is 9 base-widths L+B, with a possible 5 features for maximum coverage.

Simplifying the math, that is 5 x (4x5) or 100 Bw square of bad going on a battlefield (15x15) 225 Bw square, about 44%, although the space influenced by the terrain would be rather more.

Requiring at least 1Bw difference between features, the maximum would reduce to;
(5x4)+(4x4)+(4x3)+(3x3)+(3x2) = 63 Bw square , or about 28%, and could not be exactly symmetrical.

This also reaps some benefit at the other end of the scale where only a single area feature could be as small as (1x1), the next would need to be at least a (2x1) then (2X2).

Unfortunately it does not particularly help against the determined "pool-table" fanatic, however even the suggestion outlined at the beginning of the thread is still subject to abuse by the determined player.

Consider an Arable defender against any non Littoral attacker: place a narrow (200pace) Waterway on one edge, a road, two tiny gentle hills in far corners. There is no bad going to move nor can any be legally added. Similar underhand schemes may be devised with other combination's of terrain.

The principle obstacle here is that any water feature fulfills the "bad going" requirement. One solution might be to require a minimum area of actual "bad going" - perhaps 5 Bw (Length+Breadth) in one or more features.

Whether one varies the terrain sizes or not, I support the case for allowing the invader some chance for adjustment, but would suggest that the distance of movement is allowed might be a factor of the features size.
Easier perhaps to move a very large feature towards the nearest edge, or a small one away from the nearest edge (?).

Rich Gause
01-27-2011, 11:19 AM
I am not so sure the DBA community would be so receptive to a terrain rule that is that complex and that would make a lot of people's terrain unusable. The arable no BGo battlefield is an issue that can only really be fixed if Phil changes the rule in 3.0 so that some BGo is required and that neither river nor waterway remove the requirement.

Richard Lee
01-27-2011, 12:37 PM
The arable no BGo battlefield is an issue that can only really be fixed if Phil changes the rule in 3.0 so that some BGo is required and that neither river nor waterway remove the requirement.

My initial suggestion would be to delete "a Waterway, a River or" from

(2) At least 2 of its quarters must include a Waterway, a River or some bad going.

[See page 6 of version 2.2.]

Don't know why I am suggesting it; I have recently painted and based a Later Bulgar (IV/25) army. Have a strange feeling that it might prefer a billiard table.:D