Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Boundaried Fields  (Read 630 times)

badhabum

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2019, 04:34:45 PM »
OK but where is it ?

I did not find it and the latest modified terrain table says nothing of it except that you need a BUA !

Onurbm

  • MeG Moderator
  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 55
  • Wuji
    • View Profile
    • Ost de Rueil Malmaison
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2019, 10:17:36 PM »
Could not find it either ... please be kind
IWC is next weekend 19/20 and my Vikings would like the opportunity to attempt boundaried fields

Else i will have to avoid Boundaried just to avoid time wasting argumentations  ::)
Bruno

craig.w

  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2019, 01:39:55 AM »
OK but where is it ?

I did not find it and the latest modified terrain table says nothing of it except that you need a BUA !

The latest clarifications document in 2019 Rules Materials, https://the-wargames-zone.co.uk/wp/theancientszone/2019-rule-materials/

BOUNDARIED   FIELDS   
MUST be   placed   touching a BUA   that   has   ALREADY   been   placed   on   
the   table or   touching   another   field   adjacent   to   a   BUA (the   2BW   
spacing   rule   is   ingored   for   these).      There   is   no   placement   roll   but   the   
opponent   still   gets   an   adjustment   die   roll.      Prior   to   800AD   they   a   
bounded by   OBSTACLES,   thereafter   they   may   be   BARRICADES   at   the   
choice   of   the   placing   player   (using the   date   of   the   defending player).
If   chosen   and   there   is   no   BUA   at   the   time   of   placement, they   are   lost.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 01:46:20 AM by craig.w »

marshalney2000

  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2019, 09:52:07 AM »
I really think we need a ruling on this. The clarification does not agree with what I thought was the conclusion reached by Simon after a lengthy debate on this on the old forum. To be honest, I am now just confused as to where we are.

nikgaukroger

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2019, 10:03:40 AM »
Craig has posted what is in the most current material, therefore, I would suggest that this is what is official - use that until Si says something different.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

nikgaukroger

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2019, 10:09:39 AM »
Also is there any actual issues with what is in the claries? Looks reasonable to me and is nice and clear.

Or are the issues that it doesn't quite match people's (possibly flawed) recollections/desires? Or that Si may have tweaked what he said on the old forum to something he thinks is better/clearer for actual 2019 publication?
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

stuuk

  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2019, 08:02:15 PM »
I think the 2019 clarifications are clear, but may not match previous discussion.
BUT.. the clarification does say they go next to a BUA that is already down (or a field next to existing BUA).
So you muct get a BUA down and then you can place it next to the BUA.
If the BUA is removed, the field cannot be placed. (so sad)

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 315
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Boundaried Fields
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2019, 04:00:09 PM »
Yup right now not easy to get down.

Si
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple