BUAs removed questions/concerns

[David Schlanger]

Looked it through briefly and I have two questions/concerns, which someone who has participated in the development process might know the answer to:

- BUAs. Totally agree that long and complex BUA rules are a waste of space, but I don't see why they could not be used as impassable terrain. That way, they can become an interesting tactical challenge (and allow people with nicely painted BUAs to use them), while not requiring much text at all and not having too much influence on the game if they still must be placed near the edge of the table.

Viking - thanks for the questions/concerns. I am going to focus on the BUA question/concern here.

Regarding BUAs in v2.2+, we had extensive discussion on the GM List in an effort to reach a consensus on what to do with them. We finally settled on remove them, despite a number of interesting suggestions (similar to yours). The arguments for/against BUAs in DBA have raged for the last 10 years and there is no reason to repeat them here.

The Beta version of v2.2+ calles for all BUA related text to be removed from the rules. We are still considering some additional modifications that would be part of the Line Edit process with the inclusion of WTF (Walled Town or Fortification). This would allow a player to use a BUA model, as a WTF under the umbrella of the Woods terrain type. Another possible line edit would allow for a large walled city to be placed similar to a Waterway along a board edge (without littoral landings) as impassable terrain. This would fall under the Waterway umbrella.

Thanks for your interest. Hope you give v2.2+ a try!

DS

[Viking]

Thanks for the explanation. I will certainly give 2.2+ a try.

Using a BUA like a waterway but allowing other measurements (i.e. smaller than the whole board edge) would seem like a really simple fix and similar to what I'm thinking, so I'll be hoping that others think that's a good idea too :-)

[david kuijt]

Thanks for the explanation. I will certainly give 2.2+ a try.

Using a BUA like a waterway but allowing other measurements (i.e. smaller than the whole board edge) would seem like a really simple fix and similar to what I'm thinking, so I'll be hoping that others think that's a good idea too :-)

Personally, I really like that idea. But it has one defect that came up in discussion on the GMlist -- a BUA that hangs off the edge of the board may end up hanging off the edge of the table, when the board is turned.

Also, part of our objective is to keep the set of line edits small -- which means any solution that involves creation of a lot of text in the rules is ... less desirable than a briefer solution, all other things being equal. It is a matter of priorities -- how many people see something as "good" vs. how many people see it as "no need for that."

[Viking]

But it has one defect that came up in discussion on the GMlist -- a BUA that hangs off the edge of the board may end up hanging off the edge of the table, when the board is turned.

Hm, I see, I guess I may have misread some part of the 2.2 terrain rules then. My thinking was that (using 2.2 15 mm measurements) a BUA cannot be bigger than 11.25 cm (4.5 in.) in the shortest direction and a waterway can extend up to 15 cm (6 in.) into the board, so then it should be possible to place a BUA just at the edge of the table without having it extend too far into the board or outside of it. What am I missing here?

[Menacus Secundus]

......We are still considering some additional modifications that would be part of the Line Edit process with the inclusion of WTF (Walled Town or Fortification)...... DS

If you are proposing to retain BUAs in a modified form - and I don't feel strongly about the matter - I suggest you choose a different set of initials. I understand from my children that WTF has a meaning all of its own in "text-speak". Perhaps "Walled settlement"?

On the other hand, "WTF?!" may be exactly the the reaction of someone who thought BUAs were being abolished under 2.2+ and then finds himself facing one on the table.

[Tony Aguilar]

If you are proposing to retain BUAs in a modified form - and I don't feel strongly about the matter - I suggest you choose a different set of initials. I understand from my children that WTF has a meaning all of its own in "text-speak". Perhaps "Walled settlement"?

On the other hand, "WTF?!" may be exactly the the reaction of someone who thought BUAs were being abolished under 2.2+ and then finds himself facing one on the table.

That is one of the reasons "WTF" was chosen. ;)

[winterbadger]

Hm, I see, I guess I may have misread some part of the 2.2 terrain rules then. My thinking was that (using 2.2 15 mm measurements) a BUA cannot be bigger than 11.25 cm (4.5 in.) in the shortest direction and a waterway can extend up to 15 cm (6 in.) into the board, so then it should be possible to place a BUA just at the edge of the table without having it extend too far into the board or outside of it. What am I missing here?

I'm guessing here, but I think DK was referring to the possibility that people would be using large BUA models, only part of which was actually on the board. Depending on the surface you're playing on, there may be plenty of room between the rear board edge and the table edge, but not so much room between the side edge and either the table edge or the next board, if several boards are laid out in a row at a tournament.

[El' Jocko]

If you are proposing to retain BUAs in a modified form - and I don't feel strongly about the matter - I suggest you choose a different set of initials. I understand from my children that WTF has a meaning all of its own in "text-speak". Perhaps "Walled settlement"?

On the other hand, "WTF?!" may be exactly the the reaction of someone who thought BUAs were being abolished under 2.2+ and then finds himself facing one on the table.

WTF is just Dave's little joke. You won't be finding it in the playsheet.

- Jack

[Viking]

I'm guessing here, but I think DK was referring to the possibility that people would be using large BUA models, only part of which was actually on the board. Depending on the surface you're playing on, there may be plenty of room between the rear board edge and the table edge, but not so much room between the side edge and either the table edge or the next board, if several boards are laid out in a row at a tournament.
Yes, but why would people be using BUA models which are larger than the legal 2.2 size? I don't advocate 2.2+ allowing that, I think the BUA size as per 2.2 would be fine (or you could perhaps allow it to be longer in its longest direction, to cover more of a table edge as DK suggests, but I don't think that would be necessary). And the way I understand it a 2.2-legal BUA would not have to stretch further out into the table than a waterway, so I'm wondering if I'm somehow reading the terrain sizes incorrectly. They seem very clear to me but people who have more DBA experience than me appear to have come to a different conclusion than I have.

[Rong]

I have been playing DBA for many years now, and the BUA was and is considered a non-essential piece of terrain. To be used, it has to be agreed upon by both parties involved (2.2). As part of a set piece campaign, I have seen it used, where terrain and troops are pre set, (ala 2 Davids):2up, but not in any open or tournament games. :eek

[Richard Lee]

As far as I am aware, most DBA players that I have met do not favour BUAs as written in DBA version 2.2. If you ignore realism and play two spear-based arable armies against each other they can provide a bit of entertainment, until you start to use them with other armies or think about the plausibility of the rules. Then, you want a fix for them. The simplest fix is to abolish them (as in 2.2+). As far as I am concerned, whichever fix is used (no BUAs, BUAs as impassible terrain or BUAs as woods with houses) is less important than the fact that they are fixed.

[winterbadger]

Yes, but why would people be using BUA models which are larger than the legal 2.2 size?

Um. Because they have nice building models that they want to use as BUAs?

[David Constable]

As far as I am aware, most DBA players that I have met do not favour BUAs as written in DBA version 2.2. If you ignore realism and play two spear-based arable armies against each other they can provide a bit of entertainment, until you start to use them with other armies or think about the plausibility of the rules. Then, you want a fix for them. The simplest fix is to abolish them (as in 2.2+). As far as I am concerned, whichever fix is used (no BUAs, BUAs as impassible terrain or BUAs as woods with houses) is less important than the fact that they are fixed.

Agree, I can remember seeing Phil Barker using once, and I believe one other occasion, so in five years and circa 800 games (club and competition), only twice that come to mind.

The simplest thing is to remove them, or make them woods.

David Constable

[Viking]

Um. Because they have nice building models that they want to use as BUAs?
Sure, but they weren't able to use them in 2.2 either, if they didn't fit the size specifications. I would have expected that all people who have made BUAs would have made them so that they would be legal within the current ruleset, and therefore I expected that all existing BUAs would follow the 2.2 rules. Although I think BUAs could be a nice variation (and not unhistorical as a lot of battles took place outside BUAs although not with them in the middle of the battlefield or playing a major role in the battle), I don't see why BUAs which were too big to be allowed in 2.2 should necessarily be allowed in 2.2+ if they are to be included. I get the impression that you are saying that if BUAs are to be included, then the size restriction on them must be removed/changed. That doesn't make much sense to me, particularly as the problem you and others have mentioned will not occur if the size restriction is simply kept as it is (unless I have misunderstood some part of the terrain size rules, but no one has pointed out any errors in my calculation so I'm starting to think I may actually have gotten it right).

[winterbadger]

I get the impression that you are saying that if BUAs are to be included, then the size restriction on them must be removed/changed.

Sorry, I must have said something poorly if that was the impression you got.

I don't think anyone is saying that the size restriction for the are of BUAs allowed on the board as area terrain featuresshould be changed.

I should perhaps point out that currently in 2.2+ BUAs are not allowed at all.

What DS said that

We are still considering some additional modifications that would be part of the Line Edit process with the inclusion of WTF (Walled Town or Fortification). This would allow a player to use a BUA model, as a WTF under the umbrella of the Woods terrain type. Another possible line edit would allow for a large walled city (NB: my emphasis) to be placed similar to a Waterway along a board edge (without littoral landings) as impassable terrain. This would fall under the Waterway umbrella.

and the subsequent discussion has been about the second point, how to "allow for a large walled city to be placed similar to a Waterway along a board edge."

So we're not talking (in this part of the thread) about a BUA model to be put on the board as an area terrain feature like woods, rough, hill, etc. We're talking about something that will occupy some or all of an edge. And while, yes, some people might make a new BUA feature to do that, what (I think) DK was referring to was the fact that many people already have city/fortress models that could be used by placing a portion of the city on the edge of the map as a terrain feature without placing the whole thing on the board. And that they are trying to find a way to write a rule that will accommodate that practice.

Maybe you see no reason to accommodate that practice, but as I understand it, that's the concern that DK was addressing in post #3 in this thread. DK can, of course, correct me if I am wrong. He is well experienced in chastising me for foolishness. :o

[El' Jocko]

So we're not talking (in this part of the thread) about a BUA model to be put on the board as an area terrain feature like woods, rough, hill, etc. We're talking about something that will occupy some or all of an edge. And while, yes, some people might make a new BUA feature to do that, what (I think) DK was referring to was the fact that many people already have city/fortress models that could be used by placing a portion of the city on the edge of the map as a terrain feature without placing the whole thing on the board. And that they are trying to find a way to write a rule that will accommodate that practice.

The problem is that BUAs that extend off the board simply won't work. If you're using a 30" board on a 30" table, and the board ends up rotated such that the BUA is on a base edge, the BUA will simply fall onto the floor.

DK has kindly offered to take a table saw to my BUAs, fixing this problem by eliminating the part of the BUA that extends off table, but oddly enough, that didn't appeal to me.

It's possible to build new BUAs that fit this idea, but that's kind of missing the point--which was to allow players to find some way to use their existing BUAs.

- Jack

[Viking]

So we're not talking (in this part of the thread) about a BUA model to be put on the board as an area terrain feature like woods, rough, hill, etc. We're talking about something that will occupy some or all of an edge. And while, yes, some people might make a new BUA feature to do that, what (I think) DK was referring to was the fact that many people already have city/fortress models that could be used by placing a portion of the city on the edge of the map as a terrain feature without placing the whole thing on the board. And that they are trying to find a way to write a rule that will accommodate that practice.
I see, I guess that explains the confusion. I have discussed how to allow for existing (DBA 2.2-sized) BUA models to be used in a manner which will require minimal edits (that is why I like the "similar to waterway" approach) and give them a more historical role (i.e. a static obstacle, typically at the edge of the battlefield).

I have not taken larger city/fortress models into consideration as my estimate is that DBA 2.2-sized BUAs would be far more common among DBA gamers than such models as you describe. Perhaps my estimate is wrong and a lot of DBA gamers also play other games where such models are used, it's just that I have never heard of that.

The problem is that BUAs that extend off the board simply won't work. If you're using a 30" board on a 30" table, and the board ends up rotated such that the BUA is on a base edge, the BUA will simply fall onto the floor.

DK has kindly offered to take a table saw to my BUAs, fixing this problem by eliminating the part of the BUA that extends off table, but oddly enough, that didn't appeal to me.

It's possible to build new BUAs that fit this idea, but that's kind of missing the point--which was to allow players to find some way to use their existing BUAs.
Is this one of those super-large BUAs big enough to extend across a whole table edge? I'm getting a bit curious, why is it that people have these, is there some other popular game in which they are used?

I figured that a simple rule allowing the use of 2.2-sized BUAs would be sufficient, but it seems I'm mistaken here.

[david kuijt]

I see, I guess that explains the confusion. I have discussed how to allow for existing (DBA 2.2-sized) BUA models to be used in a manner which will require minimal edits (that is why I like the "similar to waterway" approach) and give them a more historical role (i.e. a static obstacle, typically at the edge of the battlefield).

[....]

I figured that a simple rule allowing the use of 2.2-sized BUAs would be sufficient, but it seems I'm mistaken here.

2.2 sized BUA are pretty damn large if they aren't hung over the edge -- they can be 6x12 mu (3x6 BW) or 8x10 mu (4x5 BW), both of which are quite significant sizes. Other people may have been talking about larger BUA, but I was talking about regular sized ones, only half-on the map.

As someone whose research focused on computer representation of spatial data (GIS, spatial databases) the problem with using BUA on the map is really a windowing issue. The real world is infinite (well, not, but very very large) and you have a DBA-map-sized window that you can shift in any direction in 2-D space to cover the battlefield. The best place to put that window down is in a position where the edge of the world (the edge of the window) won't impact the battle. If you put the window down such that the BUA is fully on the battlefield, you create a chokepoint or a waist where the distance from the BUA to the opposite side edge is significantly smaller than the width of the map; this can make it much easier to stretch an army from BUA to other edge. Which causes the edge of the world to become a critical artifact in that battle.

Putting the BUA in a corner is better, but still, as a windowing problem, you must ask why it is there rather than another 4-5 BW further away from the center (i.e., just off the map edge)? In other words, why must the window in space include the BUA, rather than having it be impassable right off the map edge? The only answer is "because I have this beautiful model", which is how the problem arose in the first place -- according to Phil, back in 2000 or so, Sue acquired a beautiful castle model, and wanted to use it in DBA battles.

[winterbadger]

Putting the BUA in a corner is better, but still, as a windowing problem, you must ask why it is there rather than another 4-5 BW further away from the center (i.e., just off the map edge)? In other words, why must the window in space include the BUA, rather than having it be impassable right off the map edge?

Because then I can't position the BUA and the river I've put down in such a way as to make Frank tear his hair out and scream in frustration? :silly

No, the question you ask is the sensible one. And the answer you supply, while it has the ring of plausibility, isn't a great one from a game design standpoint. :)

[Richard Lee]

Have to say that I am glad that whenever I made a BUA model I made it with an eye to using it as a HotT stronghold as well. :)

[Viking]

Thanks DK, for a very good explanation of how you see the issue. I think I must say I agree with you pretty much in your reasoning, although my conclusion is probably a bit different. I'll try to sum up my thoughts in a few points, as a kind of response to your points and motivation for why I think BUAs could be used. Some of these may of course be obvious to you, but here goes:

- Having a BUA extend 12 MU from the table edge might create a too big chokepoint, I agree here. As they're never over 9 MU on their shortest side, use the waterway-template and state (similar to waterways) that they may not extend more than 9 MU from the edge.

- Only difference from waterways is that they do not occupy the whole edge but merely a part of it, minimizing the line edits necessary.

- This way, they should not pose much more of an edge-of-the-world problem than waterways (18 vs 15 cm into the battlefield at most, but with a more limited width). And as the new table size is 30" (although I personally hope it will be rewritten into a recommendation, to not scare people off), the table will still be about the same width where the BUA is, as a 2.2 table (without waterway) edge-to-edge.

- In many battles, the BUA might be placed just outside the map like you mention. That's when a BUA is not used; I hope everyone agree that they should not be compulsory :)

- The only reason for having them shouldn't be "I want to use my beautiful model", although I can understand why people might like to use the ones they have. Most of all, I think BUAs as described above could provide an interesting tactical challenge with noticeable yet not dominating effect on the battle.

- As the attacker chooses board edge, it is hard to place them so that their utility as a chokepoint is maximized. Using these rules, I don't think BUAs would have to limit the attacker's choice of preferred table edge. And using the terrain randomization in 2.2+, the attacker might even get to move it.


And oh, I'm personally a sucker for maneuver armies, so I'm not lobbying for the inclusion of BUAs because I want to limit the maneuver advantage of my opponents. Looks like I'm actually trying to make things more difficult for myself ;)

[david kuijt]

Because then I can't position the BUA and the river I've put down in such a way as to make Frank tear his hair out and scream in frustration? :silly


Ah, the simple pleasures of DBA...:D

[Redwilde]

- The only reason for having them shouldn't be "I want to use my beautiful model"

That's the only reason why large template BUA's and all the goofy citizen rules are in the game. In first edition, built up areas were just another piece of bad going in every detail.

Treating them like a standard piece of woods, but decorated with processed trees, is actually the best mechanic for representing those battles that did flow through unwalled towns.

The nearby presence of Walled Towns or Fortifications did not magically shrink the size of the battlefield (DK's window).

First edition also had lakes, which geologically disappeared for completely mysterious reasons.

[Viking]

That's the only reason why large template BUA's and all the goofy citizen rules are in the game. In first edition, built up areas were just another piece of bad going in every detail.

Treating them like a standard piece of woods, but decorated with processed trees, is actually the best mechanic for representing those battles that did flow through unwalled towns.
While I understand that it may be the historical reason why BUAs appeared in the game (I've read what Phil has said about that, which makes me shake my head sadly), I think they may be interesting game-wise which is what I'm trying to say here. The ridiculous citizen and puppet regime rules are exactly that, ridiculous, but I think nobody's suggested that they should be used in 2.2+.

Unwalled towns would probably be best represented by woods rules, but my reasoning is that the layout of the BUA could make it very difficult to place elements in it (balancing elements on the top of buildings, etc) so I'm more interested in what can be done with the WTF.

The nearby presence of Walled Towns or Fortifications did not magically shrink the size of the battlefield (DK's window).
For sure, but neither were the armies magically constricted to a frontage represented by 24" or 30". There will be an "edge of the world" phenomenon, as long as people use real, physical gameboards. I'm thinking that the presence of a nearby walled town would make using it to anchor a flank an attractive prospect, particularly if the enemy has the maneuver advantage. And the same reasoning you use here can be applied to waterways as well - what is the motivation for them causing the battlefield to shrink (not just in one place, but along an entire edge)?


But to be sure, I think the game would be perfectly fine without BUAs. I just think we would be missing an opportunity for interesting tactical variation, which can be entered into the rules with a very small amount of edits.

[winterbadger]

Unwalled towns would probably be best represented by woods rules, but my reasoning is that the layout of the BUA could make it very difficult to place elements in it (balancing elements on the top of buildings, etc) so I'm more interested in what can be done with the WTF.

To me, that's a non-problem. How many of us play with fully modeled woods?most of us have a template for the area with trees to put on it for looks. If someone has a BUA model they want to use, fine, but if it's going to be an area terrain feature (instead of a camp-like black box, which I submit might be a better idea if BUAs are going to enter into the game at all) then have a template under the beautiful BUA model, and take the model off the board when fighting takes place.

I'm thinking that the presence of a nearby walled town would make using it to anchor a flank an attractive prospect, particularly if the enemy has the maneuver advantage.

Maybe so, but I'm still waiting for anyone to adduce any significant number of field battles (not sieges or assaults that were, in fact, *all* about fighting through the town or city) where BUAs were anything but the historical equivalent of the model that sits off to the side of the board and looks pretty.

There seem to have been a number of battles where the bank of a major river or the shore of a lake or sea was used by one side or the other as a flank guard (though if it were up to me, that would simply mean that such a board edge was completely impassable--which would really only have campaign relevance--not provide a mechanism for shrinking the battlefield). But I have yet to hear of any field battles where one side or the other formed up under the walls of a castle or town and used that to constrict the options of the enemy. Formed up outside the town, as at Kortrijk, yes. The other..not that I'm aware of.

I think the rules would be a lot better off just leaving out the tainted BUA concept entirely and leaving fights in cities or storming of bulwarks to scenario special rules.

[Redwilde]

For sure, but neither were the armies magically constricted to a frontage represented by 24" or 30".

I just think we would be missing an opportunity for interesting tactical variation, which can be entered into the rules with a very small amount of edits.

Yes any board size is an artificial size limit, but one that has been tested to be a good minimum. Making it drastically smaller is not beneficial, and not an historical replication of tactical situations.

There weren't a lot of battles that flowed around WTFs. The example that pops to mind first is Qadesh. The Hittites left their camp and swung around the city to attack the Egyptians. Theoretically, they could have held a large reserve force to swing round the other side too, but they didn't, and that would be an interesting tactical choice. But, the key part for actually playing the battle is that the presence of the city in no way restricted the size of the battlefield -- it was still a huge sweeping chariot battle on wide open ground. Best handled as a special scenario on a super large board if you want to preserve the tactical options of maneuvering around the city as part of the game.



And the same reasoning you use here can be applied to waterways as well -


Yes waterways do indeed have the same problem and for locating the playing window are best represented by some blue string along the board edge. But also they do not intrude as deep into the playing space as the BUA size templates do. And the mitigating factor of the 30" board means they don't need to face the amendment axe.

[Pavane]

Yes waterways do indeed have the same problem and for locating the playing window are best represented by some blue string along the board edge. But also they do not intrude as deep into the playing space as the BUA size templates do. And the mitigating factor of the 30" board means they don't need to face the amendment axe.
Waterways also don't contain 360 degree field of fire artillery. :eek

[winterbadger]

Waterways also don't contain 360 degree field of fire artillery. :eek

Maybe we need to add rules for ships! :silly

[Tony Aguilar]

Maybe we need to add rules for ships! :silly

...with turrets, no doubt. ;)

[Viking]

I think the rules would be a lot better off just leaving out the tainted BUA concept entirely and leaving fights in cities or storming of bulwarks to scenario special rules.
Some of your points make good sense, but I keep hearing this over and over and it's the very definition of a strawman argument. What I'm suggesting has nothing to do with that and as I've written before anything siege-like does not belong on the DBA battlefield. I'm not some kind of sick BUA-phile who liked the 2.2 BUA rules, I just think of 2.2+ as an opportunity to make BUAs into something good instead.


Yes any board size is an artificial size limit, but one that has been tested to be a good minimum. Making it drastically smaller is not beneficial, and not an historical replication of tactical situations.

There weren't a lot of battles that flowed around WTFs. The example that pops to mind first is Qadesh. The Hittites left their camp and swung around the city to attack the Egyptians. Theoretically, they could have held a large reserve force to swing round the other side too, but they didn't, and that would be an interesting tactical choice. But, the key part for actually playing the battle is that the presence of the city in no way restricted the size of the battlefield -- it was still a huge sweeping chariot battle on wide open ground. Best handled as a special scenario on a super large board if you want to preserve the tactical options of maneuvering around the city as part of the game.
I've not discussed maneuvering -around- a city, merely outside of one. And I do think there were a number of such battles, there were some mentioned on the DBA Yahoo group I believe. I'm in total agreement that most did not but if keeping it as an option, and at that one which should not give a particularly big advantage for the defender, should mean that it is seen occasionally but not all the time. That is, at least, the idea behind my suggestion and I may have some misjudgment in how such a BUA would influence the game, but nobody's pointed out ways of abusing it yet.

Yes waterways do indeed have the same problem and for locating the playing window are best represented by some blue string along the board edge. But also they do not intrude as deep into the playing space as the BUA size templates do. And the mitigating factor of the 30" board means they don't need to face the amendment axe.
A DBA 2.2 waterway could extend at most 15 cm into the table. With the limitations on BUA placement I've suggested, they could extend at most 18 cm into the table. A difference of 3 cm. Given that such a BUA would only influence the board width along 18 cm of the board, whereas a waterway does so along whole the board, it could even be said that a BUA would make -less- of a limitation of board width. I think the final sentence in the quote above sums up very well another reason why I think BUAs (or WTFs, whatever one prefers) could be used in 2.2+ without having too much influence on the battle. However, I do think that combining BUAs and waterways would probably give some weird results, depending on how the roll for attacker edge would turn out, so that's something that would then need to be looked into.

[pozanias]

Viking,

Speaking only as a humble member of the 2.2+ test group (and not as a designer), I think your idea has plenty of merit. As does removing BUAs. As does treating BUAs as woods. I don't think there is an argument that will win this debate. The reality is that BUAs have a bit of a stigma associated with them and so the option that removed them from the rules entirely probably had an unfair advantage over your equally good idea.

I think that using nicely modeled BUAs as camps is a nice compromise. Most people won't care if your camp is bigger than what is allowed in the rules (as generally this is a disadvantage for you), but if someone does object -- just position part of the BUA off the board (if possible).

[winterbadger]

Some of your points make good sense, but I keep hearing this over and over and it's the very definition of a strawman argument.

No, it's not. Check the definition of a strawman argument. I don't raise the argument that these actions took place so they should be modeled--other people do. I disagree with an argument that someone else is making, not one I'm inventing myself. Maybe you disagree with it as well. In that case we're in agreement on that.

But we certainly disagree about whether BUAs should be included in DBA. I am still waiting to see any significant number of cases adduced where they had the sort of impact on battles that you are advocating should be available.

Qadesh is not, by any account that I've seen, a support to the sort of battlefield constriction that you are advocating. Look at the maps of the battle shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qadesh). The city of Qadesh is a tiny postage stamp that plays little or no role in the action and certainly does not compress the battlefield. If those maps were DBA battle boards, it might not be possible within the rules to create a terrain piece that size. It certainly has no effect on the combat.

A DBA 2.2 waterway could extend at most 15 cm into the table. With the limitations on BUA placement I've suggested, they could extend at most 18 cm into the table. A difference of 3 cm. Given that such a BUA would only influence the board width along 18 cm of the board, whereas a waterway does so along whole the board, it could even be said that a BUA would make -less- of a limitation of board width.

Correction: a WW can only extend 600p into a board for no more than half its length, and even that (IMO) is far too much for anything but a special Thermopylae-like scenario. Only in the presence of an escarpment, swamp, or other major impassable terrain is it justified to allow a WW to so violently constrict a map.

Again, where are all these battles that need this sort of huge obtrusion into the battlefield in order to represent them?

[Viking]

Viking,

Speaking only as a humble member of the 2.2+ test group (and not as a designer), I think your idea has plenty of merit. As does removing BUAs. As does treating BUAs as woods. I don't think there is an argument that will win this debate. The reality is that BUAs have a bit of a stigma associated with them and so the option that removed them from the rules entirely probably had an unfair advantage over your equally good idea.

I think that using nicely modeled BUAs as camps is a nice compromise. Most people won't care if your camp is bigger than what is allowed in the rules (as generally this is a disadvantage for you), but if someone does object -- just position part of the BUA off the board (if possible).
You may be right here, I just wish it wasn't so :) Using BUAs as camps kind of defeats the purpose I'm aiming at here, getting a new kind of terrain in the game, but it should be a great compromise for people who just want to use their nice BUA models. But I'm fine either way, it would be nice to have good BUA rules but skipping them won't make me shed any tears.

No, it's not. Check the definition of a strawman argument. I don't raise the argument that these actions took place so they should be modeled--other people do. I disagree with an argument that someone else is making, not one I'm inventing myself. Maybe you disagree with it as well. In that case we're in agreement on that.
Actually, I've now went back and read the entire thread. It seems to me that nobody in this thread is suggesting that BUAs with siege rules etc. as per 2.2 should be in 2.2+. So arguing against that is, indeed, a strawman as far as I can see. There seems to be a little communication problem here, similar to when you were discussing edge-wide BUAs while the discussion I was involved in was about 2.2-sized ones. Which by the way reminds me that I'm still a bit curious about what game it is which uses BUAs large enough to cover a whole a DBA board edge, can you bring me some clarity regarding that?

But we certainly disagree about whether BUAs should be included in DBA. I am still waiting to see any significant number of cases adduced where they had the sort of impact on battles that you are advocating should be available.

Qadesh is not, by any account that I've seen, a support to the sort of battlefield constriction that you are advocating. Look at the maps of the battle shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qadesh). The city of Qadesh is a tiny postage stamp that plays little or no role in the action and certainly does not compress the battlefield. If those maps were DBA battle boards, it might not be possible within the rules to create a terrain piece that size. It certainly has no effect on the combat.
I did not bring up the Qadesh example, but thanks anyhow for pointing this out. I do not intend to search for a bunch of examples to bring up here (I can only think of one from the top of my head, the battle of Wisby in 1361), people with greater historical knowledge than me seem to think they may deserve a place and have brought up examples in various places in this forum and in the Yahoo group. Sorry if this comes off as lazy, but I'm mainly focusing on the game aspects of BUAs here.

Correction: a WW can only extend 600p into a board for no more than half its length, and even that (IMO) is far too much for anything but a special Thermopylae-like scenario. Only in the presence of an escarpment, swamp, or other major impassable terrain is it justified to allow a WW to so violently constrict a map.
Yes, I assumed I wouldn't have to spell out the entire rule regarding waterways, but I guess I should have done so then. It is of course so, and applying a little geometry should then make it apparent that the area covered (or just the area covered by the widest half) will be significantly greater than that of a maximum-size BUA.

A WW does of course not have to be as big as its maximum size, which naturally holds true for BUAs as well. I'm looking at the extremes here, to determine how they may influence the game -at most- in competitive play.

[winterbadger]

I do not intend to search for a bunch of examples to bring up here (I can only think of one from the top of my head, the battle of Wisby in 1361), people with greater historical knowledge than me seem to think they may deserve a place and have brought up examples in various places in this forum and in the Yahoo group. Sorry if this comes off as lazy, but I'm mainly focusing on the game aspects of BUAs here.

But you're the one who is advocating for this new terrain type (at least on this thread, since we're apparently limiting all discussions of topics to what has taken place on a specific thread :rolleyes). And it seems to me that to add a whole lot of new rules to the game, there ought to be some compelling historic reason to do so. So, please, if you're going to advocate for a new type of BUA (indeed, any at all), could we have at least as many instances of cases where BUAs made a big difference in a battle as, say, woods or swamps or steep hills. :)

Just because something might make for an interesting intellectual tactical challenge doesn't seem like a good reason, alone, to add it to the game. A sudden flood (the pesky Flemish breaking down some dykes, perhaps) or a horde of tigers ("A tiger? In Africa?") appearing might make for a quite stimulating tactical challenge, but I'd really rather not add rules for those! :silly

[Viking]

But you're the one who is advocating for this new terrain type (at least on this thread, since we're apparently limiting all discussions of topics to what has taken place on a specific thread :rolleyes).
Well, yes, I find it that the purpose of threads is to limit the discussion to a manageable size, and if references to other discussions are done they should be pointed out. When posters keep running discussions over several different threads in parallel or, like you, implicitly refer to any number of previous discussions which may or may not have taken place a long time ago (and which other participants may or may not have read), it's a sure recipe for confusion.

And it seems to me that to add a whole lot of new rules to the game, there ought to be some compelling historic reason to do so.
As you may have noted, my suggestion is intended to keep the changes in the rules as small as possible. Calling it "a whole lot of new rules" is, according to me, not even close to doing it justice. And to be honest, I can't even claim credit for this idea, my suggestion is merely a variation of the one discussed by the 2.2+ GM group and which DK posted previously in this thread. I suggested a variation of it which I felt would be an improvement and pointed out a few facts regarding it, so that it could perhaps be considered again by the 2.2+ GM group (that is what I'm hoping for, at least).

So, please, if you're going to advocate for a new type of BUA (indeed, any at all), could we have at least as many instances of cases where BUAs made a big difference in a battle as, say, woods or swamps or steep hills. :)
As stated before, I am not going to do that. The fact that the 2.2+ GM group obviously has seen similar rules for BUAs as an alternative for 2.2+ is enough for me to believe that they are not exactly unhistorical. If that is not enough for you, feel free to remain unconvinced.

[a cynic writes...]

mmm...it seems to me that BUAs cover too many different things.

I live a few miles away from the site of the battle of Maldon.

Just south of the battle site is Iltney Farm - however at the time it was hamlet called Iltney, which according to my trusty copy of the Domesday Book was split into 2 manors of a couple of hides each worth all up 50s (£2.50).
An bunch of hairy-arsed vikings would go through the place without slowing down. If you wanted to represent it glue a monopoly house to a field model and you're done.

A mile to the west there's Mundon, now a small village with a pub, a church and a village hall. Back in the day it had 10 villagers, 8 smallholders, 9 slaves and a couple of freemen. Worth £10 clearly a thriving (if undefended) place.
This to me would be the BUA as woods and I can't quite see a reason not to include them.

Further north there's Maldon itself, now a sleepy rural town of 15,000, which at the time was a huge fortified metropolis with 180 houses :rotfl
Maldon I agree would be a BUA as imagined in the rules. Should it be included? I can see an argument for dealing with it as a waterway (principally so you could use the littoral landing rule as providing reinforcements) but on balance probably not.

...and yet...

I'd like to have a go at redoing the battle of Benfleet - the storming of a Viking fortified camp by Edward the Elder in 894 just north of the reclaimed marshland where Essex Miniatures are made. So whilst I'm happy to see fortified BUAs relegated to "scenario special rules" do you know any good ones? :D

[Pavane]

I live a few miles away from the site of the battle of Maldon.

I've been to Maldon on a couple of trips to England. I had some fine Adnams Broadsides at the Blue Boar.

[a cynic writes...]

I had some fine Adnams Broadsides at the Blue Boar.
They have their own brewery (http://www.maldonbrewing.co.uk/) now. :up