Sabots for Dux Bellorum

Some of my 25mm Late Dark Age Vikings on a sabot base.

I was originally planning to do some 10mm armies for Dux Bellorum, but when my friend Ian recently bought a load of 28mm plastic Early Dark Age figures and said he was going to base them individually on 2p coins but also group them on sabots for playing Dux Bellorum, I decided to get some sabots myself so I could use my 25mm Late Dark Age armies.

Long, long ago my Vikings were based for WRG Ancients but more recently I rebased them individually for Lion Rampant.

To be honest I didn't use to like the idea of sabots and I'm still not keen on movement trays, but I now appreciate their utility and might also start using them in Rampant games too. I don't personally find moving lots of individually-based 28mm figures a burden, but some people like to speed things up.

The sabots were supplied by the nice people at Products for Wargamers.

Dux Bellorum: The River Battle Scenario

The Dux Bellorum Shooting query featured in my last two posts absorbed our attention but didn't actually stop our game because the only shooting was from a hill and all targets were completely in arc...

We were playing the River Battle scenario which has a river running across the table and a ford towards its centre. The object of the game is to be nearest to the ford at the end of the game or to rout the enemy before that. Unfortunately, no game length is specified but as this game was essentially a rules refresher we decided to just start playing.

I chose Late Romans while Ian had Early Saxons. The armies comprised:

Saxons

1 Mounted Companions
1 Noble Riders
1 Noble Warriors
5 Ordinary Warriors
2 Foot Skirmishers (Bow)

Romans

1 Mounted Companions
1 Noble Riders
1 Cataphracts
2 Noble Shieldwall
2 Bow

As expected, Ian ended up as the Aggressor while I was the Repeller. It's not a good idea for Shieldwall units to to attack into rough ground so I formed a plan to block rather than occupy the ford, at least initially.

As Repeller I was able to place two additional pieces of terrain. I chose hills and placed these either side of the river overlooking the ford, so I would get use of one of them regardless of which table edge Ian chose. Sneaky or what?

The armies deployed. The 28mm plastic figures are Ian's and only recently acquired. They were undercoated in two contrasting colours so they could be used in the game. I like these figures!

 The armies advance towards the river.

The Romans Bow gain the hill as planned but the Shieldwall troops didn't quite reach the river. At first I thought this was a failure but it turned out to my advantage.

The barbarian Companions characteristically but rashly attack across the ford.

3:1 is not good odds and Ian's Companions are severely mauled and withdraw. Had I been more up to speed in playing the rules I should have interrupted this retreat and finished them off.

More fodder for the Roman meat-grinder. (The cavalry have not yet been properly fixed in their bases and were prone to falling over - they are not casualties).

 

They keep coming...

...but there are less and less of them...

Thanks to my Bow, local superiority on my side of the crossing and good dice, Ian's units were getting chewed up one by one and he conceded the game.

Ian could simply have occupied the ford without attacking thus fulfilling the victory condition. I would then have been forced to attack at a disadvantage, but I would gradually have chipped away at the occupying unit with my Bow. Whether that would have worked would have depended on the game length so that really needs to be set.

Anyway, apart from our one big, seemingly resolved, rules query, the game flowed smoothly and we were pleased to be playing it again.

Dux Bellorum: Stumped by a rules query 2

My plea for help in my last post didn't elicit any responses so I'll move onto the next stage...

My playing companion, Ian, has argued that the problem is a simple contradiction. On the surface this does appear to be the case. He has suggested we adopt one option or the other, that is that to be eligible as a target (1) a unit's nearest edge must be wholly within Line of Sight (LoS) as implied by the bullet point,  or (2) a unit need be only partially within LoS as implied by the diagram.

I have tested both these options, but neither of them seem to work.

(1) Target wholly within

In this example A cannot shoot at B because B's nearest base edges is not completely within A's LoS. This would be ridiculous!

(2) Target partially within

At first this seems more realistic. A shooting unit would not have to see all of a target unit in order to shoot at some of it. But what happens when the target is obscured by other units or terrain? Is there a point at which a gap is so small that shooting becomes negligible and shouldn't be allowed?

A are shooters. B is the target. C and D are intervening units. B is within A's LoS but it's not exactly a clean shot.

Basically, neither of these interpretations seem to work.

Postscript

Billchuck (on Lead Adventure Forum) had  problems replying here but sent me a private message in which he said:

'...keep in mind that often there will be two “closest edges”. I would play it as “if all of one of the nearest base edges is entirely visible"...'

In the diagram from the book, the unit on the left would be a valid target because you can see all of the left side of the unit. The unit on the right would be valid because you can see all of the right side of the unit.

This approach would solve the problem. A target can be partially within sight but you have to be able to see the whole of at least one of the nearest sides.

I had more-or-less assumed that the diagram was probably right because the author would have spotted any inaccuracy in something so visual.

I had also assumed that the bullet point had some sensible and necessary intention behind it, and that it was probably introduced to avoid the 'shooting through gaps' problem illustrated by my second diagram.

I was thus very reluctant to accept the idea of simply jumping one way or the other without resolving the apparent contradiction. I was not able to resolve the issue myself, but this is a very elegant solution and I am eternally grateful.

Postscript 2

On further reflection I'm not entirely sure that seeing the whole of one of the nearest edges is a complete solution...

If you look at my second diagram but imagine that B is shuffled along so that its right-hand edge is opposite the gap between C and D, A can then see the whole of one of B's side edges and it becomes a valid target.

I think the time has come to consider a house rule.

I am thinking about adding: you must also be able to draw uninterrupted straight lines between the front corners of the shooting unit and two corners of the target unit. (Obviously the two lines shouldn't cross and there should be a clear field between them.)

Nothing is going to be a 100% fix.

Postscript 3

Billchuck has suggested:

Or just “the entire front of the shooting unit must be able to see some part of the target unit.”

Interestingly this shifts the test from the target to the shooters.

Postscript 4

I've finally arrived at:

“A target is valid if at least part of it is in range, one of its (nearest) base edges is entirely visible, and the whole front of the shooting unit can see some part of the target unit.”

Beyond that one might be forced to just use common sense! It seems to work for most people.

Dux Bellorum: Stumped by a rules query

The stumbling block

I enjoyed Dux Bellorum but haven’t played it for a long time. I was keen to start playing again, but our first game was almost immediately stymied by a rules query which I don’t remember encountering before. The query stopped us in our tracks and we have been debating it ever since without agreeing on a solution.

The query relates to Shooting but also concerns Uncontrolled Charges as the rules use the same wording. (It also touches on an optional rule, Line-of-sight Charges.) It is thus pretty fundamental.

I would normally hope to get an answer from a forum, but Dux Bellorum was published in 2012, the world has moved on, and the Tapatalk board is pretty quiet.

According to the rules, a unit's Line-of-sight is constrained by a 45 degree angle and the whole of the nearest edge of the target unit must be visible to the shooting unit. In the accompanying diagram, however, valid targets are indicated even though their nearest edges are not wholly within the Line-of-sight.

I’ve tried all sorts of ways to make sense of this, but I won’t confuse the picture with my speculations.

If anyone reading this still plays Dux Bellorum and can explain it, please help us out so I can enjoy a relaxed Yule!

Update

Please see the Postscript 4 at the end of the next post for a solution.

Dux Bellorum

Back in October of last year I played a couple of games of the popular Dark Age rules, Dux Bellorum, and really enjoyed them. By now you'll find lots of  DB reviews and AARs elsewhere. I've included some game photos here, but they are just for decoration as what I really want to talk about is aesthetics. The rules are very period-specific and one of their major appeals to me is the look of the armies. DB is one of those games which requires relatively few bases (phew), but they can be big and dioramic (huzzah). Think DBA on steroids.