Newbie to v 2 asks - are BUAs a Good Thing?

[winterbadger]

I agree with Alan and Chris. Modelling is a nice part of the game and should get some accomodation.

And there are certainly enough examples that a *simple* form of BUA might be justifiable as an optional terrain type (I would think as a sort of impassable terrain or even a place that troops can sally from or flee to).

One problem I see, even with simple rules, though, is that with the small battlefields of DBA, a player might use a BUA to unnaturally constrict opponent's movement. Even where such a place might enter into a battle, it's unlikely that it would cause the battlefield to shrink substantially (as adding another piece of terrain, even board edge terrain like WW, does).

So I think they're probably best as piece is big battle or super big battle games where they can be an interesting sidelight but not a dominating feature.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by Chris Brantley

...and larger walled towns and fortresses as impassable terrain (i.e. the gates are locked until the battle's over).

It is tempting, however, to allow walled towns/fortresses to have a garrison that can sally...since that did occur in non-seige battles historically on at least a few occasions.

We've done exactly this (on a 30" board with the 2.2 placement rules which kept it from dominating the battlefield).
It was a lot of fun as a variation.
I'm not sure I would want this all the time though...

[Richard Lee]

If you decide to go the 2.2+ route (i.e. goodbye to BUAs) then most BUAs can make good strongholds for Hordes of the Things.

[pozanias]

BUAs in 2.0 were "break the rules" bad. Honestly, the rules were completely unplayable if your opponent placed an artillery piece in a BUA in the middle of the board. Even without artillery, BUAs almost always turned into the focal point of the battle.
BUAs in 2.2 are just bad.
BUAs in 2.2+ are gone.

I could live with BUAs as a form of rough terrain (small hamlets) or as impassable terrain (forts and fortified cities) with deployment restrictions. Otherwise they don't belong in DBA.

[Redwilde]

It's a general maxim of game design that the percentage of rules space an item takes up is proportional to how important that item is to the overall play of the game. BUA rules take up about 2/3 of a page out of 6 pages of actual rules (and the page for Creating the Battlefield is unusually more fluff text than hard rules). So that puts them at about 15% of what the author thought was important to have in the game.

[peleset]

One might ask, if the BUA rules are so poor, why have they been around for so long and are being expanded in the next edition?

Maybe it's all gold and you just don't know it?



Perhaps if I chant it a hundred times you'll all come around?

[Richard Lee]

Perhaps people who are not enamoured with BUA (such as myself) should spend a few more years using them to see whether or not we suddenly decide that we love them after all?

[Redwilde]

"Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!"

[Doug]

BUA are great for replicating some historical battles, but as part of a competition they suck.

This was made clear when one player using Later Imperial Romans vs Parthians placed a BUA which blocked off 1/2 the board, and was impossible for the Parthians to take.

Local tournaments here normally apply the ruling that a BUA may be placed, but it simply counts as another piece of bad-going.

So in summary, the BUA rules work for historical scenarios, but are (IMHO) an unmitigatedly bad thing in competition environments as written.

I think 2.2+ would have been better if it had left BUA but explicitly written them out of competition rules.