|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 8, 2018 18:19:19 GMT
While playing DBA 3.0 we ran into a situation yesterday that has questioned everything we know. In DBA 2.2 where the rules say that “Elements of different sides that can shoot at each other must do so.” Which means all three Bw units would have been required to shoot at each other, with the Red Team being a +1 and the Blue Team a +2. We need to retrain everyone (including ourselves) as it is apparent that there are more options in DBA 3.0.  In this picture above it is the RED TEAM’S bound. (the die rolls behind each unit further illustrate what the unit’s nomenclature is, not what they rolled) Bw 2 and Bw 3 are both in the arc and distance of shooting at Bw 1 and no unit has moved more than 1BW so they are eligible to shoot. One thing that is odd is that we can’t find anywhere in the rules that is says you have to declare all shots BEFORE beginning to roll for them. Is this correct? Since it is RED’S bound, they get to decide what order to resolve the shooting. According to our reading, at the beginning of the shooting phase, Red BW1 is NOT required to shoot at either BW2 or BW3 since they are not firing at BW 1. This brought us to two conclusions (heck there may be even more) 1. If BW1 decides to shoot at the enemy CV and then BW2 and BW3 decide to shoot at BW1, can BW1 (since it is the bounding player) decide to shoot at the CV FIRST and then keep the same die roll in defense against the fire from BW 2 and BW3? 2. Or does the fact that BW2 and BW3 target BW1 pull BW1 away from being able to shoot at the CV. I will be posting this on Fanaticus and both DBA Facebook groups to hopefully get a consensus. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 8, 2018 20:00:51 GMT
2. Unless you are artillery, you must shoot at a target shooting you.
Artillery in their own bound may always pick their target.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:03:03 GMT
I have already replied to this on Facebook, but for those of you who are not on Facebook, I'm repeating it here.
As far as I am concerned, the rules are clear that IF one or other (or both) Blue Bws shoot at the Red Bw, it has to shoot back at them and cannot shoot at the Cv.
However, if the Blue Bws decide to gang up on the Red Kn - or even divide their shooting with Bw 2 targeting the Wb and Bw 3 targeting the Kn - then Bw 1 would be free to shoot at the Cv.
|
|
|
|
Post by attilathenun on Aug 8, 2018 20:12:07 GMT
2. Unless you are artillery, you must shoot at a target shooting you. Artillery in their own bound may always pick their target. Joe Collins Where is that stated Joe? |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Aug 8, 2018 20:15:27 GMT
I have already replied to this on Facebook, but for those of you who are not on Facebook, I'm repeating it here. As far as I am concerned, the rules are clear that IF one or other (or both) Blue Bws shoot at the Red Bw, it has to shoot back at them and cannot shoot at the Cv. However, if the Blue Bws decide to gang up on the Red Kn - or even divide their shooting with Bw 2 targeting the Wb and Bw 3 targeting the Kn - then Bw 1 would be free to shoot at the Cv. Not as simple as that... there needs to be some declaration of intent by both sides before rolling, otherwise the conversation goes... Red, who's bound it is, says 'I want to shoot at the Cv'. Red and Blue roll and, let's say, Cv gets recoiled. Blue now says, 'I want to shoot at your Bw with both my Bw'. Blue says 'Oh, crap, that means I can no longer shoot at you Cv...so do we withdraw the recoil result...?' |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:19:44 GMT
2. Unless you are artillery, you must shoot at a target shooting you. Artillery in their own bound may always pick their target. Joe Collins Where is that stated Joe? Page 10, fourth paragraph, final sentence, for the artillery bit. Slightly earlier in that paragraph for Bows and Warwagons having to shoot back at whatever is shooting at them. However, the latter only apples if the Bows or Warwagons do not have a target in their TZ. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:27:14 GMT
I have already replied to this on Facebook, but for those of you who are not on Facebook, I'm repeating it here. As far as I am concerned, the rules are clear that IF one or other (or both) Blue Bws shoot at the Red Bw, it has to shoot back at them and cannot shoot at the Cv. However, if the Blue Bws decide to gang up on the Red Kn - or even divide their shooting with Bw 2 targeting the Wb and Bw 3 targeting the Kn - then Bw 1 would be free to shoot at the Cv. Not as simple as that... there needs to be some declaration of intent by both sides before rolling, otherwise the conversation goes... Red, who's bound it is, says 'I want to shoot at the Cv'. Red and Blue roll and, let's say, Cv gets recoiled. Blue now says, 'I want to shoot at your Bw with both my Bw'. Blue says 'Oh, crap, that means I can no longer shoot at you Cv...so do we withdraw the recoil result...?' <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.660000000000082px; height: 7.399999999999977px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_62942556" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1057px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_63650888" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 307px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_97417363" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1057px; top: 307px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_13707540" scrolling="no"></iframe> Agreed. If Red says (s)he wants to shoot at the Cv, Blue has to make his or her intentions clear before the dice are rolled. If Blue says nothing, then, by implication, (s)he is not going to shoot at the Red Bw (and has to keep to that). |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 8, 2018 20:39:25 GMT
I have already replied to this on Facebook, but for those of you who are not on Facebook, I'm repeating it here. As far as I am concerned, the rules are clear that IF one or other (or both) Blue Bws shoot at the Red Bw, it has to shoot back at them and cannot shoot at the Cv. However, if the Blue Bws decide to gang up on the Red Kn - or even divide their shooting with Bw 2 targeting the Wb and Bw 3 targeting the Kn - then Bw 1 would be free to shoot at the Cv. Not as simple as that... there needs to be some declaration of intent by both sides before rolling, otherwise the conversation goes... Red, who's bound it is, says 'I want to shoot at the Cv'. Red and Blue roll and, let's say, Cv gets recoiled. Blue now says, 'I want to shoot at your Bw with both my Bw'. Blue says 'Oh, crap, that means I can no longer shoot at you Cv...so do we withdraw the recoil result...?' We would agree with you both except for one thing which causes some doubt as to what was really intended. Look under "Sequence of Play (3) ...(In case of dispute in the order the moving player decides.) What would constitute a "dispute?" Would this be a "dispute" where BW1 wants to shoot at the Cv and the BW2 and BW 3 want to shoot at BW1, so the bounding (Moving) player decides to do the shot at the Cv FIRST and THEN keep that same die roll which is used to DEFEND against the shot from BW2 and BW3? We have never played it this way, but it did raise a point. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:51:38 GMT
We would agree with you both except for one thing which causes some doubt as to what was really intended. Look under "Sequence of Play (3) ...(In case of dispute in the order the moving player decides.) What would constitute a "dispute?" Would this be a "dispute" where BW1 wants to shoot at the Cv and the BW2 and BW 3 want to shoot at BW1, so the bounding (Moving) player decides to do the shot at the Cv FIRST and THEN keep that same die roll which is used to DEFEND against the shot from BW2 and BW3? We have never played it this way, but it did raise a point. <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.660000000000082px; height: 7.079999999999984px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_47394546" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.08px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_83172200" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.08px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 162px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_22467251" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.08px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: 162px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_92646247" scrolling="no"></iframe> Except that the rules say "If a shooter whose target does not shoot back is shot at by a third party, that is resolved first....." (page 10, fifth paragraph, final sentence). So Red is shot at "first", forcing the Red Bw to shoot back at the Bw which shot at it and preventing it from shooting at the Cv. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 8, 2018 21:03:30 GMT
Now we are getting somewhere.
So it sounds like the bounding player needs to declare all shots first, then the non-bounding player and this may adjust what shots are actually taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Aug 8, 2018 21:49:16 GMT
I have already replied to this on Facebook, but for those of you who are not on Facebook, I'm repeating it here. As far as I am concerned, the rules are clear that IF one or other (or both) Blue Bws shoot at the Red Bw, it has to shoot back at them and cannot shoot at the Cv. However, if the Blue Bws decide to gang up on the Red Kn - or even divide their shooting with Bw 2 targeting the Wb and Bw 3 targeting the Kn - then Bw 1 would be free to shoot at the Cv. Not as simple as that... there needs to be some declaration of intent by both sides before rolling, otherwise the conversation goes... Red, who's bound it is, says 'I want to shoot at the Cv'. Red and Blue roll and, let's say, Cv gets recoiled. Blue now says, 'I want to shoot at your Bw with both my Bw'. Blue says 'Oh, crap, that means I can no longer shoot at you Cv...so do we withdraw the recoil result...?' No, Blue wouldn't roll for the Cv because he would say "You can't shoot at the Cv because my Bw is shooting you and you must shoot back."
Note that it is only the order of resolution (that is, dice roll and outcome) which can be chosen by the active player, not the order of choosing who shoots at what.
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Aug 8, 2018 21:53:16 GMT
Not as simple as that... there needs to be some declaration of intent by both sides before rolling, otherwise the conversation goes... Red, who's bound it is, says 'I want to shoot at the Cv'. Red and Blue roll and, let's say, Cv gets recoiled. Blue now says, 'I want to shoot at your Bw with both my Bw'. Blue says 'Oh, crap, that means I can no longer shoot at you Cv...so do we withdraw the recoil result...?' We would agree with you both except for one thing which causes some doubt as to what was really intended. Look under "Sequence of Play (3) ...(In case of dispute in the order the moving player decides.) What would constitute a "dispute?" Would this be a "dispute" where BW1 wants to shoot at the Cv and the BW2 and BW 3 want to shoot at BW1, so the bounding (Moving) player decides to do the shot at the Cv FIRST and THEN keep that same die roll which is used to DEFEND against the shot from BW2 and BW3? We have never played it this way, but it did raise a point. It is only the order of resolution that the moving player decides, i.e. the dice rolling and outcome. Determining who shoots at what is decided before resolution (although the outcome of each resolved combat may change who can shoot at what). |
|
|
|
Post by jeffreythancock on Aug 8, 2018 22:52:02 GMT
So, Bow 1 could inflict shooting results on both the Bow 2 and Cav in the same bound? Or would the die roll for Bow 1 vs. Bow 2 only establish if Bow 1 has to make a resolution (recoil, die, stay put), while there is no affect of Bow 1 shooting at Bow 2 because it shot at the Cav first?!
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 8, 2018 23:32:37 GMT
So, Bow 1 could inflict shooting results on both the Bow 2 and Cav in the same bound? Or would the die roll for Bow 1 vs. Bow 2 only establish if Bow 1 has to make a resolution (recoil, die, stay put), while there is no affect of Bow 1 shooting at Bow 2 because it shot at the Cav first?! Yes, Bow 1 could inflict shooting results on both the Bow 2 and Cav in the same bound. Very different from 2.2! No actually. If bow #2 shoots at one, then Bow#1 must shoot back. Third party shooting only occurs if bow #1 has another target that it must shoot or chooses to shoot. Please see diagram 15b for a good example. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 9, 2018 7:35:10 GMT
So, Bow 1 could inflict shooting results on both the Bow 2 and Cav in the same bound? Or would the die roll for Bow 1 vs. Bow 2 only establish if Bow 1 has to make a resolution (recoil, die, stay put), while there is no affect of Bow 1 shooting at Bow 2 because it shot at the Cav first?! Yes, Bow 1 could inflict shooting results on both the Bow 2 and Cav in the same bound. Very different from 2.2! So with the right dice results you're saying that Bow 1 could kill two units from shooting in one turn?! Sorry but can't see many people agreeing to that and it seems to go against what was being said above. |
|
