BUAs and Barkers

[dicemanrick]

We used a BUA in a campaign game recently (I'm a charter member of the BUA Delenda Est club...so no comments, please!). How does barkering work? Does one opposing unit on a side prevent the troops inside from exiting? If it's a long side, does a barkering enemy unit affect the entire lenth of the side? Does a barkering opponent stand prevent the defender exiting on any or all of the four sides?? Enquiring minds want to know! The occupying troops can teleport through the BUA to exit on any side, so what's the scoop?

[xeswop]

This is an excellent point to raise, thanks.

A element in a BUA has no set position. It exists inside, in effect, all over the BUA. A BUA can be attacked by up to three enemey and these could be anywhere on the outer perimeter and the inside element could fight them all. The element inside can move out at any point along the permiter. The inside element exerts control all around the BUA for a base width distance.

No one has ever asked what control the external elements exert. This is clearly not covered by any rules, directly. The inside element has no facing so we do not know where its rear edge faces. We know that it can move as needed to combat any external element in contact with the BUA.

Any explicit statement on what the internal element can do when an enemey is within a base width distance must be an interpretation. A related question is whether an element in a BUA can break off from an element in contact, left from, for exampl, a tie result in previous bound.

I would make a first stab at this situation by saying the element in the BUA within a BWD of enemy, can exit from any point around the BUA but only as a move to its rear, thus ends facing the BUA and cannot move other than straight to its rear unless allowed multiple moves.

If in combat with an enemy, then it must go at least 200p from the BUA edge. If in combat with enemy, then the exit must be directly opposite that element. If that path is blocked then it cannot exit, just as it cannot break off.

In the latter case, normal pursue rules apply. If there are denizens, then the pursuing element must fight them prior to entering.

An element that has captured a BUA but not yet thrown a 5-6 on PIPs cannot vacate a BUA so such an element could not leave in the above situations.

These are all my interps based on current rules. Looking forward to other views, based on the rules.

[Chris Brantley]

I'm not sure this makes sense to me. An element "barkering" a BUA is basically investing it, or at least a portion of it. An element inside the BUA that wants to sally out wouldn't march out backwards, they'd open the gate and attack head on, or exit via a rear gate to attack the investor in the flank. Why should a sally be treated as a movement to the rear?

In the case where the sallier (is that a word?) wants to attack the barkering element, but the barkering element is too close to the BUA, then I would suggest deploying the sallying element with its rear edge adjacent to the edge of the BUA, and pushing back the barkering element the distance required to allow placement of the sallying element.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Bob.:

I would make a first stab at this situation by saying the element in the BUA within a BWD of enemy, can exit from any point around the BUA but only as a move to its rear, thus ends facing the BUA and cannot move other than straight to its rear unless allowed multiple moves.
That doesn't work at all, Bob. Your interp would make it impossible for an element inside a BUA to move so as to attack the element ZOCing it. For example, you have a 4Sp attacking my BUA with my 4Wb garrisoning it. You lose and recoil on your bound (I get no QK because I'm a garrison). On my bound I want to sally and attack. Seems perfectly reasonable, if I have the pips (2 pips to move from a BUA). But by your interpretation, there is no way to attack the element that is ZOCing me.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by dicemanrick:
(I'm a charter member of the BUA Delenda Est club...so no comments, please!).Ah, I don't recall seeing you at the organising meeting, but it was pretty crowded. I suppose BUA, BUAE (genitive) would be a feminine noun and take delenda.

Bob's interp does make more complications when you factor in the numbers of attackers and extra zocers a BUA can have.

The second simplest interp is to say BUAE (nominative plural) ignore the efffects of ZOCing and a garrison can leave anytime it wants to.

The simplest and preferred mehtod of course is just to smack the abomination with a hammer :D

______
BUA Delenda Est.

[xeswop]

The garrison can always sally forth to attack the investing element just as an element within a Base Width Distance can attack any element whose BWD it is in. Movement out of BUA is independent of gates. The question is how do BUA element within the BWD of an enemy GET AWAY, if it wants to.

Good suggestion for the sally move, or allow the exit from next to the enemy and a flank attack.

Originally posted by Chris Brantley:
I'm not sure this makes sense to me. An element "barkering" a BUA is basically investing it, or at least a portion of it. An element inside the BUA that wants to sally out wouldn't march out backwards, they'd open the gate and attack head on, or exit via a rear gate to attack the investor in the flank. Why should a sally be treated as a movement to the rear?

In the case where the sallier (is that a word?) wants to attack the barkering element, but the barkering element is too close to the BUA, then I would suggest deploying the sallying element with its rear edge adjacent to the edge of the BUA, and pushing back the barkering element the distance required to allow placement of the sallying element.

[xeswop]

I read the question as one having to do with how an element in a BUA can exit if any enemy are within a base width distance. There is no problem with the interal element attacking the outside element.

1. Enemy element is within a base width distance of a a BUA. How does the interal element get out of the BUA, if not to attack?

2. Enemy element is in contact with BUA, how can the internal element break off?

These are the questions I addressed, not how the internal element can attack the external element.

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
That doesn't work at all, Bob. Your interp would make it impossible for an element inside a BUA to move so as to attack the element ZOCing it. For example, you have a 4Sp attacking my BUA with my 4Wb garrisoning it. You lose and recoil on your bound (I get no QK because I'm a garrison). On my bound I want to sally and attack. Seems perfectly reasonable, if I have the pips (2 pips to move from a BUA). But by your interpretation, there is no way to attack the element that is ZOCing me. [/QUOTE]

[dicemanrick]

Again I think this shows why BUAs don't belong in DBA ;)

Look at this ludicrous example: An aux stand garrisons a BUA. I put a blade opposite the BUA. The aux on it's turn comes out of the BUA to the left or right of the blade and then attacks the flank of the blade!

Sally ports indeed...more like TELEPORTS!!

[xeswop]

Rich,
I agree fully with your first statement!

But if there were an Ax in a BUA vs a Bd on the outside, I have to wonder why the Ax gives up +3 defensive factor to fight the Bd in the open??? +3 vs +5 or +6 vs +5. But yes a Destroy if Beaten if the Ax loses in the BUA.

I wondered why any element would ever sally out to fight external enemy. All I can think of is to attack an Art or maybe a Bw who is just outside, shooting at the BUA.

[dicemanrick]

Bob: consider this if I manage to roll enough pippage....

Ax exits the BUA 'around corner' and then attacks flank of attacking element. Bd enters BUA passing through to attack front. Crunch.

Or Ax defending BUA against spear, suffers tie. Ax breaks off and exits, replaced by nearby blade (and effectively taking place in line). The question is, does the Barker apply, and where is the rear?

[Chris Brantley]

Originally posted by dicemanrick:
Look at this ludicrous example: An aux stand garrisons a BUA. I put a blade opposite the BUA. The aux on it's turn comes out of the BUA to the left or right of the blade and then attacks the flank of the blade! Sally ports indeed...more like TELEPORTS!! But look at it this way...a body of 500-1200 men (i.e. the supposed strength on one DBA element) without additional supports marches up to the wall of a city with at least four gates. What will an intelligent defender do (if he decides to attack)?....sally out of one of the uncovered gates and attack the exposed flanks. Sounds pretty realistic to me when you take the game scale into consideration. This is another reason why I think it is silly for an element leaving a Barkered BUA to back out, even it has no intention of fighting.

Nor is the Blade put at a particular disadvantage...it turns to face the flank attacker, and then fights at +5 vs. the +3 Aux.

History bears out fairly consistently that if you want to keep a garrison inside the walls, you need to outnumber it and/or have it contained by seige fortifications.

The one aspect that could be refined is the idea of gates. A BUA could have one or more gates indicated on the model, and movement into and out of the BUA could only be affected at that point. After all, we're fighting battles, not seiges, where equipment and engineers are available to create breaches in the wall. So most of the fighting would be in the vacinity of the gates.

[ June 21, 2004, 23:33: Message edited by: Chris Brantley ]

[Chris Brantley]

Let me pose a similar question in a slightly different way.

In DBA, at what point does an attacker sufficiently invest a BUA so that the defender may not move elements into or out of a BUA without a fight.

At one extreme, you could say one element barkering the BUA is sufficient.

At the other extreme, you could say enough elements are needed in order to barker the entire circuit of the BUA.

Or you could invent an answer somewhere in between.

[xeswop]

Let me pose slightly different questions in a similar way


1. Enemy element is within a base width distance of a a BUA. How does the interal element get out of the BUA, if not to attack?

2. Enemy element is in contact with BUA, how can the internal element break off?

[ June 22, 2004, 10:15: Message edited by: Bob. ]

[Chris Brantley]

1. Enemy element is within a base width distance of a a BUA. How does the internal element get out of the BUA, if not to attack?One possible answer -- by exiting, face first, from any edge following the same basic movement out of BUA rules provided.

2. Enemy element is in contact with BUA, how can the internal element break off? I hate to answer a question with a question, but is there (should there be) a difference between an element exerting a ZOC on a BUA (or element therein) and an element actually in contact with the BUA (i.e. engaged in an assault).

The reason I ask is because I can see a possible difference in appropriate historical outcomes. Just because someone is lined up 100 yards outside my wall taunting and shooting missiles doesn't mean I won't pull my men off the wall to launch a sally if I see an opportunity. But if the enemy is actively engaged in scaling the walls (i.e. in contact with the BUA), I will not pull my men away from the defenses, except to escape because I fear the day is lost.

[ June 22, 2004, 14:49: Message edited by: Chris Brantley ]

[xeswop]

First let me say that I have not formed an opinion on this strong enough to write an interpretation. I am still looking for good ideas and suggestions, tossing it about so to speak.

Chris's first response assumes that the element in a BUA is not subject to the same zone of control rules as is the external element. Perhaps so. We could say that because Phil writes no rule for an exception, there is no exception. The internal element is not constrained by the external element.

If many agree that the element in BUA is not governed by the Moving Across the Front rule then Chris' suggestion is the best. The simpler rule is the one I prefer.

Leaving the BUA if in combat is a situation a player might find himself in if he has lost an element and a loss in the BUA with garrison then puts him down 3 more and costs the game. Maybe a player up 3-1 but with an elment under attack in the BUA wants to pull out and look for a victory somewhere else. We often read of troops pulling out of a position, leaving behind a few as a rear guard, lights burning to fool the enemy. However, the whole temporial-spatial aspect of fighting with BUA is out of wack anyway so looking at real life examples is not that good an idea.

Better to just formulate a gaming rule to facilitate playing.

So let's say that an element can leave a BUA if the BUA is engaged and this is a game artifact. If so, then how? Do we assume that the external element can break off like any other element?

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Bob.:
If many agree that the element in BUA is not governed by the Moving Across the Front rule ...If it helps I can offer some arguments on this tack. How valid they are only this forum can tell me.

A BUA contains Denizens, which while not represented by an element could be assumed to be a fluid all encompassing element occupying the entire area of the BUA, but permeable to the garrison.

If we accept this hypothesis, then the Denizens of the BUA mask the garrison thus allowing it to move as it pleases regardless of ZOC.

Certainly this works fine for the the BUA being ZOCed. When the BUA is contacted we add the assumption that the garrison leaves a small portion of its men say one in 20 or one in 40 (from its 1000 man strength) to stiffen the occupants while it sallys forth.

If a BUA is captured then we could disallow the movement for the capturing garrison since they have no denizens to mask them. (Only if we want to be nasty).

Thoughts anyone??

[DBAse]

2. Enemy element is in contact with BUA, how can the internal element break off?
Wouldn't it appear reasonable to say the internal element can't break off?

They are under siege, so unless they recoil the sieging element. Sallying forth may simply be represented as one of the possible causes of a recoil result.

There will be a problem if you allow sally forth (meaning elements leaving the BUA for combat) because why would you allow that, but not allow fleeing from the BUA?

DBAse

[ June 22, 2004, 20:59: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[xeswop]

Good comments from DBAse and MacBeth.
for DBAse, I am wondering about the internal element when in combat with the external element, that is the external element, or up to 3 are in contact with the BUA. Can the internal element make a break off move to get out of combat and out of the BUA, away from the enemies, not attack them.

On the outside, an element can do this if it moves at least 200 p to its rear and ends facing the enemy. What is the option for the garrison. Is this any different from leaving if the BUA is just in a zoc of an attacker

MacBeth has good ideas about the role of Denizens. He further writes "If a BUA is captured then we could disallow the movement for the capturing garrison since they have no denizens to mask them. (Only if we want to be nasty)."

Note that if an external element captues a BUA by defeating the garrison or the denizens it cannot vacate until player rolls a 5 or 6.

[DBAse]

Bob: Can the internal element make a break off move to get out of combat and out of the BUA, away from the enemies, not attack them. I'd suggest no. I would have thought that the elements attacking the BUA, once in contact with the BUA, would be able to force combat if they so choose.

DBAse

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by DBAse:
Bob: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Can the internal element make a break off move to get out of combat and out of the BUA, away from the enemies, not attack them. I'd suggest no. I would have thought that the elements attacking the BUA, once in contact with the BUA, would be able to force combat if they so choose.

DBAse </font>[/QUOTE]I would think that they could, in the same way that an element out in the open can break off from combat. Why should it be possible out in the open but not when there are walls in the way.

I know that this is not covered in DBA, nor should it be, but garrisons could fall back from an outer defence to an inner defence. This is surely a real life example of breaking off from a fortification while the enemy pour over it.

Cheers

[DBAse]

I know that this is not covered in DBA, nor should it be, but garrisons could fall back from an outer defence to an inner defence. This is surely a real life example of breaking off from a fortification while the enemy pour over it. But that's breaking off INTO A BUA? I think Bob's asking about breaking off OUT OF A BUA.

If a BUA has walls, and one element can spread around the walls to stop me getting in without combat, i'd have thought it would be reasonable to spread around the BUA enough to block the gates sufficently to not allow an escape without a fight.

If there are no walls... I don't know. But no walls spoils the idea of an element spread around the walls.

DBAse

[ June 24, 2004, 05:25: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[Chris Brantley]

Originally posted by DBAse:
[QUOTE] If a BUA has walls, and one element can spread around the walls to stop me getting in without combat, i'd have thought it would be reasonable to spread around the BUA enough to block the gates sufficently to not allow an escape without a fight.Yeah, but what kind of fight.

If I've got 1000 men defending a fortress (i.e. one element), which is "sourrounded" by 1000 men (i.e. one element), woe on them. Even if they only block the gates (lets say 4 gates), then that means 250 attackers at each gate. With the benefit of knowing the enemy's dispositions, I can easily pull 500 off the wall (maybe more) and attack at any single gate, and defeat the beseigers in detail at 2-1 odds, unless they've had an opportunity to prepare their own defenses.

And if I pull the full 1000 men off the walls and make a break for it out of one of the gates, how long are those 250 "beseigers" likely to stay in the way.

Of course this discussion also hinges on your definition of what the BUA is. The idea of encircling a walled city (e.g. Athens or Rome) with multiple gates with 1000 men is unrealistic. But a medieval stronghold like a motte and bailey castle, with only one gate, is another matter entirely. A smaller force would be able to contain the garrison in that instance.

I guess my underlying point is that I'm still struggling for a historical rationale that would justify letting a single element of troops march up and Barker a BUA, thus pinning down a garrison of equal or greater numbers and perhaps superior quality.

[ June 24, 2004, 10:46: Message edited by: Chris Brantley ]

[nick hux]

I agree with Chris - 1 element should not be able to pin down the occupants of a BUA.

A couple of points in support of this:

1. If more than 1 element can attack a BUA at the same time it is not reasonable that any single element "surrounds" the BUA.

2. The size of a BUA implies that it is more than a single Motte & Bailey castle. It would at least be the castle plus an attached town/village. In this case, again it is unreasonable to think of a single element preventing the occupants leaving in any direction.

I would allow the element occupying a BUA to leave in any direction, except where blocked by an enemy element.

Nick

[dicemanrick]

One besieging element does not necessarily have to stop all movement out of the BUA. But it should (by the nature of all walled structures that must have exits) be able to block the exits. This should prevent the besieger from being flanked by the BUA defender who decides to sally out. There's no other way to look at it. Flank attacks should be prohibited. If the defender attacks head-on fron the BUA, I have no problem. I do have a problem with it otherwise.

[DBAse]

CB: If I've got 1000 men defending a fortress, which is "sourrounded" by 1000 men, woe on them. Even if they only block the gates (lets say 4 gates), then that means 250 attackers at each gate... And what if more than one element contacts a BUA?

If you believe a BUA is a castle, then many many of them have only 1 entrance/exit.

Allow this and you'll have LH leaving BUAs which have been contacted by the enemy, attacking the rear of the enemy and recoiling them into the BUA... and other equally silly cheese.

DBAse

[ June 24, 2004, 18:45: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[xeswop]

I agree with stopping the historical thinking. A BUA is an abstraction of some walled thing existing in all ages of warfare in the rules. We cannot get an historical resolution.

Just consider the issue from within the logic of the rules. Phil, it seems, has left out some important considerations, or not. Use the current rules to create precedences to formulate a rule to cover the cases I mentioned.
1. Element in BUA wants to exit but an enemey element is within a base width, what is the rule to cover this?

I suggest that the rules currently cover the element that is has not yet rolled a 5 or 6 after caputrinig a BUA. It cannot vacate.


a. no element can exit a BUA if an enemy is within a Base Width Distance.
b. element can freely exit BUA anywhere and can end facing in any direction
c. element can exit freely but must end facing the BUA (as if it moved directly to its rear, whatever direction that happens to be.)
d. element must exit directly away from one of the elements that is at or closer than a base width to the BUA, the exiting element must end facing that enemey element. (as would be the case if it followed the Crossing the Front Rule)

OTHERS???

If we get all the options, Chris might post these to the question of the week.

[konstantinius]

The attacking element does not exert any ZOC on the BUA (it doesn't make sense according to my "historical sense"). The defending element can exit from whichever side, including that being attacked but only to combat the attacker. In other words, the defender can choose to either fight the attacker by "exiting" on the side attacked, or any other side in order to come around the flank unmolested by ZOC. How can a small body of men in front of a massive fortification/wall/erthbank even know what's going on on the other side of its periphery, much less influence it?
Note that in case that the attacking element is attacking a much longer side and there's room next to it for another element, the defending element cannot exit and flank. The defender always has to fight if exiting on the attacked side, regardless of the actual positioning of the attacker along a longer BUA side. This should be the only kind of ZOC exerted by the attacker.

[DBAse]

K: The defending element can exit from whichever side, including that being attacked but only to combat the attacker. In other words, the defender can choose to either fight the attacker by "exiting" on the side attacked, or any other side in order to come around the flank unmolested by ZOC. Sure a ZOC may sound odd. But, Allow this and you'll have LH leaving BUAs which have been contacted by the enemy, attacking the rear of the enemy and recoiling them into the BUA... and other equally silly cheese.

DBAse

[Sarduri II]

Looking very closely over the the rules as written, under "Resolving shooting or close combat", BUA denizens are included as "an element".

(Page 10 para 3... a player dices for their element....)

They are explicitly NOT represented by an element base, and as such can be taken as equivalent to the BUA itself.

Further, it is specified that any garrison element should be placed (roughly) at the center of the BUA (page 7, para 4).

Taking these two points together would support the idea that the garrison (with friendly denizens) cannot be Barkered as there would always be another element (the denizens) partially between them and an external enemy unit.

However, where an enemy unit is left in contact with the BUA ("locked" or drawn combat), if the front of the (garrison) unit is equivalent to the whole BUA perimeter, then it has no "rear" to which it may legitimately "break off". (If we do not accept the front as equal to the BUA, then there is no enemy in contact with its -the garrisons- front, and so no break off is possible!).

These interps may seem to contradict one another, (hardly unique!) but in one case we need to look at the situation of the element itself, and in the other position of it's (effective) front edge.

While I agree that trying to argue these points from a "historical" perspective is nigh impossible, as the various interpretations of BUA are simply too broad for any example to include all cases, one justification would be that while the enemy merely threaten outside, the garison is free to manouver, but while they are pressing at the walls it must weather this assult before it can act.

Question. Why can I break off from contact in the open, but not when there are "walls" between me and the enemy?

An Answer. In the open the unit is still a coherent body which can be easilly commanded, and combat is not necessarilly an entire bound of smiting hip and thigh (elements rally, pull back, charge in again, feint and bluster). In a BUA the garrison is spread over a wide area, and if still under attack, all command assets are likely to be concentrated at that specific point(s) untill the attackers are repulsed.

[Stelzone]

I tend to agree since all units in contact must roll a combat roll, the only way that a unit is not screened by the denizens (which I see as including the normal guard units in a BUA) is if the combats ended up locked. That holds the garrisoning unit in the BUA. If the attackers are recoiled they have no influence on the garrisoning unit, so it may sally forth.

As to breaking off from a locked combat situation, then the rules are followed, and the unit ends up two inches outside the BUA, in effect giving up the BUA on the next bound, or that bound if the engaged units are impetuous. The break off rule is the idea that you are breaking off with with all combat comtact, the only way that a unit garrisoning the BUA can do so is to leave it, if they are locked in combat at any point that bound. As to a LH leaving and attacking from the rear they would have to use a second move to do so and the can't end in combat on a second move. A Wb would be disallowed because of the break off rule. Wb could, if not locked from the previous bound, exit and with a second pip attack.

[xeswop]

Good comments on the control of elements in a BUA. I like te idea that the Denizens could screen the Garrison element so they have free movement butI must disagree that they are an element. See page 7 para 4, "denizens not represented by an element" Denizens are not troops, but considered foot. The Crossing the Front Rule that has the "other element even partially between." would not apply, then as Denizens are not elements. They are included with other elements on page 10, Resolving Combat for easy writing.

I do not like the idea of a LH moving out of a BUA what is within a base width of an enemy and then hitting the attacker in the rear. This could be done in one bound with 1 move.

Also when considering this problem, note that a bua can be one element base width square. That is a very small walled town and an attacking unit would probably have scouts around the perimeter of the structure.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Bob.:
I like te idea that the Denizens could screen the Garrison element so they have free movement butI must disagree that they are an element. See page 7 para 4, "denizens not represented by an element" Denizens are not troops, but considered foot. The Crossing the Front Rule that has the "other element even partially between." would not apply, then as Denizens are not elements.
Good Point Bob, when I first considered this theory I think I suggested that Denizens be allowed "element like behaviour" for this special case. (I think I used the term 'nominal element'). Basically I believe that the cover offered by a BUA or its citizens manning the defences or a combination of the two allow would allow the Garrison to be obscured as it excutes a withdrawl.

I believe that they should be able to break off while in contact, remember that for this to happen they must have been attacked in their opponent's bound and had an even result. This simulates abandoning defences when they are on the verge of falling. If it were a siege, then the defenders could be pulling back to the inner walls but in this case as the assault is being carried, the defenders break off from the walls and abandon the fort.

When I suggested that a captured BUA's garrison could not do this (for those wanting to be nasty) I did mean that it was for after they had rolled the 5/6 for PIPs and were manning the defences. My theory being that they would be less inclined to break out while there were enemy in the vicinity because they had no "screen" of citizens, the defences were compromised and since they were within enemy territory, their knowledge of the ground is less certain. I could be putting too much into this, but I'm enjoyin myself.

Originally posted by Bob.:
I do not like the idea of a LH moving out of a BUA what is within a base width of an enemy and then hitting the attacker in the rear. This could be done in one bound with 1 move.
Who could like this! :D Its a risk I admit but not a big one. The LH have to survive the initial attack, and since mounted troops do not get the +3 for defending a camp or BUA, this is unlikely. Then they have to make the attack and win that one in order for it to pay off.

Any player that pulls this manuever off deserves thirty seconds to gloat before being pummeled and ostracised.

Originally posted by Bob.:

Also when considering this problem, note that a bua can be one element base width square. That is a very small walled town and an attacking unit would probably have scouts around the perimeter of the structure. Unless there are some sharks out there planning the LH maneuver I can't see really small BUA's being very common. But I see the problem.

On a more general note with assaults on a BUA. We seem to be crediting the initial attack with an awful lot of planning and complex execution for a 15 minute time frame. I would suggest that the very first attack at least would be a concentrated run by the attacking element at the fortifications without surrounding it first. A speedy capture being the objective. If the assault is held or thrown back then we would see the attackers flowing around the whole BUA.

Cheers

[DBAse]

More broadly then.

Back to the old ZOC heuristics....
Does a BUA screen a ZOC?

For example 2LH. 1 LH in the BUA, one adjacent to the BUA but whose front edge is 1mm back from the front edge of the BUA.

B= BUA occupied by LH, L= LH facing down, E=Enemy facing and moving up

BBLL
BBLL

_EE
_EE

An enemy element approaches the two LH (but doesn't reach the BUA edge). Not aware of these interpretations he tries ZOCing both LH by placing his front edge such that there is a 20mm overlap with the BUA and a 20mm overlap with the external BUA. (In other words either using rolling carpet or corner to corner and the LH is not ZOCed).

Unfortunately he can now be rear-ended by both LH and die recoiling into the BUA.

Obscue perhaps, unsatisfactory - definitely. It would seem probelamtic at best and inconsistent at worse to have a BUA screen a ZOC for an occupying element but not screen a ZOC for an obscured element.

DBAse

[ June 29, 2004, 05:14: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[xeswop]

Are we ready to vote? Let's check the item on the ballot.

If a garrison element is in a BUA that is within a base depth of an enemy element

1. the garrison element cannot leave the BUA.
2. the garrison element can leave the BUA normally
3. the garrison element can only leave the BUA according to the Crossing the Front Rule by moving to its own rear. Because the garrison element has no specific facing, this can then be in any direction out of the BUA but the element ends facing the BUA. It thus backs out of the BUA in any direction.
4. the garrison element does as 3 but the direction out of the BUA must be facing the front of one enemy element that is within the base width distance of the BUA. Thus it backs out of the BUA and ends facing one of the enemy elements that are around the BUA. If only one enemy then the garrison element is backing out opposite from that one element.

Are there other options? Are these stated clearly? Once the wording and options are final, I will ask Chris to post these to the question site.

[Chris Brantley]

Great survey question, but I'm afraid the survey tool will only allow answers of about 6-8 words in length, so several of these options would have to be considerably shortened to fit.

[xeswop]

Let's make sure we have all the options and then worry about wording.

[DBAse]

If Bob's commentaries contain the official interpretation on ZOCs. (I can't remember how the record-length ZOC heuristic argument finished).

Why can a ZOC extend through an element, extend through terrain - even impassable terrain, but yet can't extend through a BUA and impact an element in a BUA.

Imagine this.
A BUA is 40mm or less deep.
Some people are suggesting that an enemy in edge to edge contact with the BUA is not ZOCing the occupent of the BUA, but by the Bob commentaries the same element in edge to edge contact with the BUA would be ZOCing an element on the other side of the BUA.

Diagram (BBBB = 40mm deep BUA containing one unit; EE = unit facing down; AA = enemy facing up)

EE
_BBBB
AA

That is silly!!

DBAse

[nick hux]

That's an illegal BUA ;) . It must be at least 1 base width in each direction.

Nick

Originally posted by DBAse:
If Bob's commentaries contain the official interpretation on ZOCs. (I can't remember how the record-length ZOC heuristic argument finished).

Why can a ZOC extend through an element, extend through terrain - even impassable terrain, but yet can't extend through a BUA and impact an element in a BUA.

Imagine this.
A BUA is 40mm or less deep.
Some people are suggesting that an enemy in edge to edge contact with the BUA is not ZOCing the occupent of the BUA, but by the Bob commentaries the same element in edge to edge contact with the BUA would be ZOCing an element on the other side of the BUA.

Diagram (BBBB = 40mm deep BUA containing one unit; EE = unit facing down; AA = enemy facing up)

EE
_BBBB
AA

That is silly!!

DBAse

[xeswop]

Nick, in next message down, is right that a BUA must be at least a base width across in any direction. So, if an element is exactly touching a minimum square BUA on one side and the enemy is in contact on the other side, is the enemy AT 1 base width distance?

DBAse mentions that impassable terrain does not block the restricted zone. Other than a waterway, is there impassable terrain now in DBA?

A camp could be less than a base width. How about 20mm wide by 60mm long, and extending into the battlefield. Does a element on one side restrict an enemy on the other side?

The other DB games (although having no relevance to DBA) do not exempt terrain from blocking the restriced zone, but DBM includes water and DBR and DBM include fortifications. HOTT dies not let a stonghold block or any types of terrain.

This is what Bob's Commentaries say about the Base Width Distance
'Base Width Distance: BWD - a distance equal to the width of the base (element) in the game. These are either 40mm for a game with 15mm figures or 60mm for a game with 25mm figs. The BWD square in front of an element has effect on enemy elements crossing it. Sometimes called ZOC by players who come from a board game background. It is after all more of an area of restriction than control. Phil does not use the term "ZOC." '

Not sure what is meant below by "extent through an element" as an element will block the area of restriction.

By the way, in a game at this high level of abstraction, there are many "silly" things that sometimes happen. Play through them.

Originally posted by DBAse:
If Bob's commentaries contain the official interpretation on ZOCs. (I can't remember how the record-length ZOC heuristic argument finished).

Why can a ZOC extend through an element, extend through terrain - even impassable terrain, but yet can't extend through a BUA and impact an element in a BUA.

Imagine this.
A BUA is 40mm or less deep.
Some people are suggesting that an enemy in edge to edge contact with the BUA is not ZOCing the occupent of the BUA, but by the Bob commentaries the same element in edge to edge contact with the BUA would be ZOCing an element on the other side of the BUA.

Diagram (BBBB = 40mm deep BUA containing one unit; EE = unit facing down; AA = enemy facing up)

EE
_BBBB
AA

That is silly!!

DBAse

[Sarduri II]

Not to cause trouble but I can see one further posibility which I don't think anyone has raised;

Disregard the garrisons notional "round the perimeter" situation, and judge the ZOC on the true position of the actual element (roughly center of the BUA) - assuming here, that we don't give the denizens "element" status.

This works equally for garrisons, occupiers, looters etc.

What it does mean is that all BUA are not equal -a minimun sized one will be easilly ZOC'd whereas it will be impossible to reach a element in the center of a maximum size BUA, but that's not necessarilly wrong/ unrealistic.

Especially if we were going down this road for "crossing the front" I'd have to argue that no break off move would be necessary (or possible - no element in contact with the garrisons front edge) with a unit which "locked" the BUA in combat.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Sarduri II:
Not to cause trouble but I can see one further posibility which I don't think anyone has raised;

Disregard the garrisons notional "round the perimeter" situation, and judge the ZOC on the true position of the actual element (roughly center of the BUA)The HORROR! :eek: :eek: :eek:

What about facing? What about changing facing? What about moving from one position to another within the BUA? What about deciding what the movement rate is within a BUA?

Just making the one simple change you mention would have a cascading domino effect of rules complication, adding a page or more of complicated rules to solve a teeny-weeny problem. Bad, bad, bad...

(in other words, I think your idea may have some problems that make it an unacceptable approach in the long run)

[David Schlanger]

Please refrain from giving my BBDBA partner horror filled nightmares with crazy talk about BUAs.

How about just adopting the most simple fix of all - JUST SAY NO to BUAs - use plenty of roads.

DS

[konstantinius]

I don't think that all options have been covered here. Personally I find it absurd that a lone elemement, attacking one side of the BUA could exert ZOC around the entire periphery.
Imagine this: 500 men are attacking a wall much higher and stronger than they are; they're being pelted with all kinds of projectiles; they're holding on for dear life, but at the same time, they can control the gate at the opposite side of the stronghold? It just doesn't make any sense.
If you don't want to have a situation where the attacking element gets flanked etc, don't send a sole, unsupported element against an entire fortification. In reality they would die anyway.
According to the superb illustrations in Osprey Campaign's "The First Crusade 1096-1099" during the siege of Jerusalem the ENTIRE crusading army is lined up in front of the northern wall alone and it still took them 1 1/2 months to gain a foothold. 500-1000 (the average size of one DBA element) men would have perished immediately; never mind exerting ZOC on the southern side.
Regardless of the verdict, in my solo games I'll play it as follows:
The defending element can exit, face first, not backing out, from ANY side that is not being assaulted. From then on it can move according to the rules, and, yes, if it's an element of LH it could come around with multiple pips and flank the attacker; if you don't want this to happen, protect your attacking element.

[xeswop]

"I don't think that all options have been covered here."
konstantinius


What option is missing? The scenario you describe is no. 2 isn't it.

By the way, that's a nice house rule to allow " if it's an element of LH it could come around with multiple pips and flank the attacker."

The actual rules do not permit a LH multiple move to end within a base width of an enemy. Maybe you did not mean to actually contact the flank, just be close to the flank but not within a base width.

[DBAse]

What proportion of BUAs have walls?

Why can't we deconstruct the BUA into two parts. BUAs as they affect movement within or across the BUA and walls which are like DBM TFs of varying rigidity.

A lot of hamlets, towns, farm BUAs might as well just be difficult going.

Within the time (15mins a bound) and element design of DBA castle walls might as well be impassable terrain. I would submit that it is just silly to believe castles are stormed in 15 minutes and suggest DBA BUAs are not heavily fortified at all.

Bob wrote: Nick, in next message down, is right that a BUA must be at least a base width across in any direction. So, if an element is exactly touching a minimum square BUA on one side and the enemy is in contact on the other side, is the enemy AT 1 base width distance? Exactly... According to the Bob commentaries exactly 40mm away is still in the ZOC. So an element on the other side of a BUA is in the ZOC.

DBAse

[ July 01, 2004, 20:43: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[xeswop]

"What proportion of BUAs have walls?"

All BUA's have walls.

"A BUA (Built-Up Area) represents a large palisaded or walled village, a hill fort or a walled town or castle. "

If some buildings on a battlefield do not have walls then they are not part of a BUA. There is no terrain feature to represent these except maybe Rough but that exists only in Steppe and Tropical. Villages should exist in Arable terrain.

DBAse makes the same arguement about BUAs that people have since the first draft of 2.0. They are out of the temporal-spatial domain of the game. DBA is an open battle game, not one that should involve attacks of fortified positions. Armies would typically ignore such a feature in the 5-7 hours the game represents.

Players should just not pick BUA's for games and we'd be done with them. :eek:

[DBAse]

All BUA's have walls.
Thats embarassing. I cant believe i missed that...

DBAse

Sorry dual language keyboard - no apostrophes

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Bob.:
"What proportion of BUAs have walls?"

All BUA's have walls.

"A BUA (Built-Up Area) represents a large palisaded or walled village, a hill fort or a walled town or castle. "
Personally I like to pretend that in spite of what is written above, that the BUA is more like a collection of farm buildings, a caravanaseri or some other collection of hovels that is at best defended by a low drystone wall. That way I can justify the idea of the BUA having a defensive value but at the same time be capable of being carried by assualt from one face. Similarly, if the fence can be hopped over, then the defenders can exit anywhere they like, so long as there is no-one in the way.

I've always wondered about the battles of St Albans in the Wars of the Roses. Didn't the entire battle take place within a BUA.

One other thing about BUAs that I have blotted from my memory, is the rules text in the campaign rules stating that the BUA represents the city being fought over.

How do the fanataci in general handle the situation where the invader takes the BUA that represents the town, but loses the battle? Why should the invader retreat from the town?

Also, if the defender opts to stand seige, they can fit their whole army within the town, but when they opt to fight, only one element can stay inside. Go figure?

Cheers

[Cremorn]

Macbeth:
How do the fanataci in general handle the situation where the invader takes the BUA that represents the town, but loses the battle? Why should the invader retreat from the town?

Also, if the defender opts to stand seige, they can fit their whole army within the town, but when they opt to fight, only one element can stay inside. Go figure?

Cheers
Also, The rules allow a field army to depart a city when besieged. Can an army enter it's own city when it's under siege?

------------------------------------------------
where is David Lawrence's Eye Candy entry?