|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 26, 2016 15:17:03 GMT
Hi everyone I would like to draw your attention to Sue Laflin-Barker's Start Ancient Wargaming Using DBA3.0 Page 74 which states in part Romans lost a total of 4 Germans lost a total of 4 Since neither side had lost more, the battle continued. The next losses would determine the outcome. I think this pretty well sums it up. Spratzman Thanks, Spratzman. Hadn't seen Sue's book, but as you say it pretty much confirms it. We've always have played to a win (unless in timed competition games), but a player on the Society of Ancients website suggested he had drawn at 4-4, and another agreed with his interpretation. Still not sure if he's convinced....but there's no helping some  M Sadly, the reference in Sue Laflin-Barker's book is is not necessarily as conclusive as it might appear. In the original edition, the illustrative battle narrative - from which this is taken - contained at least one error (although I understand this has now been put right).
Menacus S
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 27, 2016 15:39:29 GMT
Games end in a draw only if you reach the time limit.
Otherwise play continues until one side has lost at least 4 elements and more than opponent at end of Bound.
This demonstrates why its almost impossible to write a rule that someone won't misinterpret. So please give Phil a break...
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 27, 2016 20:51:44 GMT
Yes, Tom is correct...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by evilgong on Oct 3, 2016 7:53:51 GMT
I've had some 6-5 games, but no 7-6 games.
David F Brown
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 3, 2016 16:29:54 GMT
Thanks, Spratzman. Hadn't seen Sue's book, but as you say it pretty much confirms it. We've always have played to a win (unless in timed competition games), but a player on the Society of Ancients website suggested he had drawn at 4-4, and another agreed with his interpretation. Still not sure if he's convinced....but there's no helping some M Sadly, the reference in Sue Laflin-Barker's book is is not necessarily as conclusive as it might appear. In the original edition, the illustrative battle narrative - from which this is taken - contained at least one error (although I understand this has now been put right).
Menacus S
indeed there were a couple of errors in the original release, they were quickly pointed out. The tie game continuing was not one of them so what is the purpose of suggesting that this is an error? |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 3, 2016 17:49:11 GMT
Sadly, the reference in Sue Laflin-Barker's book is is not necessarily as conclusive as it might appear. In the original edition, the illustrative battle narrative - from which this is taken - contained at least one error (although I understand this has now been put right).
Menacus S
indeed there were a couple of errors in the original release, they were quickly pointed out. The tie game continuing was not one of them so what is the purpose of suggesting that this is an error? Bob,
I didn't say it was an error. What I said - and you have my comment before you - is that the reference in Sue's book isn't necessarily conclusive, which, given that she is one of the co-authors, one might have assumed it was.
Personally, I tend to play until there is an outcome (or time is called). However, I can see the argument that 4-4 - or 5-5 or even 6-6, if the final round is particularly bloody - means the game ends at that point.
Menacus S
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Aug 21, 2017 20:09:12 GMT
We always played it that the first person to lose 4 actually loses. Meaning, during a bound's combat resolution, the combat that causes the opponent to lose the 4th element loses the game. However, I think we have surely been playing that wrong and I can see how I missed that in the rules. The battle shall continue!
Sorry for necromancy...
|
|
