Sea Peoples (I/28) - allowing BUA terrain

Author: Duncan Head

Proposal: Add BUA to the list of permitted terrain.

Under Discussion

Justification: There is uncertainty as to whether a defender using

this list with the v3.0 DBM rules must place a BUA. Adding BUAs to

the terrain list seems to be historically the best solution.

The published list currently has a mandatory WW, but does not allow

BUA. The rules however, state (p.12 para 4 first bullet) that a

defender placing a WW must place a BUA in contact with it. It is not

clear, therefore, if a defending Sea Peoples player must, or cannot,

place a BUA.

One interpretation is that there is no real contradiction, as the

rules' earlier statement (p.12 para 2) that "Only features specified

by our DBM army list books for the defender's army can be used"

overrules the requirement to place a BUA; but arguing that one

sentence in the rules overrides another does not seem to be a very

safe procedure. For clarity, either the list notes should state

explicitly that defenders using this list can place the mandatory WW

without a BUA; or else the list should allow BUA.

An inscription of Ramses III mention the Peleset being "hidden in

their towns", suggesting that at least one group of Sea Peoples

either possessed or had acquired towns, and that these were within

reach of Egyptian forces. If necessary, the BUA could be assumed to

be towns which Sea People forces had captured but not, or not

completely, razed. Allowing them BUA seems therefore to be historical.

(Some at least of the Sea Peoples had towns in the homelands from

which they are presumed to have migrated, for example the Lukka in

western Anatolia. But this is probably not relevant to this list,

which only represents these peoples when operating far from their

original homeland.)

References: For the Ramses III inscription, see

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/w%20civ%2002/seapeoples.html