|
Post by markhinds on Feb 28, 2024 3:37:55 GMT
Thanks for the terrain links.
I'm also interested in how you paint the figures. Basic colors followed by a wash? My big stumbling block has always been how long I take to paint figures, and am always interested in considering a quicker method which looks good on a compatible table. I have come to realize that what I value is the overall effect, from normal viewing distance during a game.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 27, 2024 6:52:22 GMT
Always impressed by your presentation, where the figures, the terrain cloth, and terrain elements go together so well. Please remind me as to where in your blog you describe your painting procedure? Thanks in advance; MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jul 7, 2023 2:33:14 GMT
I haven't visited this site much lately, but I have to say that your game aesthetics are extremely attractive (i.e. painting style, basing, visually compatible terrain, and all consistent with each other).
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Aug 1, 2021 0:25:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Dec 26, 2020 22:34:43 GMT
Question to admin: Shouldn't this be spelled "Who's reading what?"?
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Dec 7, 2020 3:05:53 GMT
Mounted archery was fairly key in open battles wasn't it? Which of course you can't do under DBA. Maybe the house rules guys would like to have a think and make some suggestions? It would also help the Sassanids and Turks as well. Actually you can do this in DBA, if you realize that the game mechanics allow light horse to skirmish with most opponents with relative impunity. Same type of mechanics as with Psiloi. The "problem" arises when we insist that such skirmish shooting be accomplished without base-to-base contact.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 23, 2020 16:24:40 GMT
Myself I always fancied Lady Penelope from "Thunderbirds". Didn't work out though. She was looking for a no strings attached relationship!
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Mar 28, 2020 20:13:38 GMT
I bought a bunch of Donnington "New Era" 15s to represent 9th century AD Bulgars, and I consider them to be very compatible with both Essex and Old Glory. One nice feature is you can pick horses separately from the human riders.
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 13, 2020 1:19:45 GMT
Look the FAQ has to get consensus or we can't issue a ruling. Sometimes a "bad" ruling is better than no ruling. The Diagrams are supposed to be the rules - indeed the game is almost unplayable without them. It isn't clear whether when Phil wrote the rule section he just omitted "front corner" but it was caught by the diagram creator or whether the diagram creator missed this nuance. Phil approved the diagrams and they do clarify a lot of stuff (maybe this too). But we had to get to consensus so we decreed the diagram a misprint mainly because it had the most votes and it seemed too important an issue to not rule on at all. Generally I favor sticking with the diagrams as they are a bit less stream of consciousness than the text. Final thought: what is the better simulation outcome? I'm free to do whatever I want in Knights & Knaves and would like to get some thought on what is the better real world interp. I'm leaning toward front corner contact as the depth is way over scale and a bit random (its legal to have some elements with different depths). Keep in mind that I can fix anything in K&K and to a lesser extent in D3H2. Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games Again, I appreciate the FAQ for those contexts where it is needed, for example in a structured convention competition setting. I just object to people being told on Forums that if they don't use the FAQ, they aren't playing the game correctly. IMHO the FAQ would be equally useful, and less controversial, if was prefaced with a caveat similar to the NASAMW caveat which I quoted to Joe, earlier in this thread.
WRT your "better real world interp" concern, my expertise is probably no better than yours. I see DBA as being over on the more abstract end of the rules spectrum. Therefore, I am not uncomfortable constraining groups to the "front corner" interpretation, because it seems intuitively easier to maneuver a large body of men in formation when aligned by the front. If aligned by the rear, they would have to be looking behind themselves all the time. This fuzzy perception is even more convincing as in DBA we use the same rules for the least organized armies as we do for the more organized ones.
WRT what Phil intended here, who knows? I argue that "front corner" is most logical given the rules as written. OTOH, a quick check of my other DBx rules sets doesn't show this constraint anywhere else, including in DBA 1.1, DBA 2.0, and DBMM.
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 12, 2020 18:22:00 GMT
I think "house rules".
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 12, 2020 18:18:29 GMT
I just like to say that I agree with both Paulisper and Martin (and Paddy and Goragrad). To illustrate this specific case, both of the following are in "the rules". So we ask do they contradict each other? No. Well then what is the logical combination of constraints which they impose? Page 16 defines a subset of the configurations defined on page 8. Since both are in the rules, and don't contradict each other, logically the configurations described on page 16 must prevail. Ah, but there IS a contradiction. Tactical Moves, page 8, third paragraph, says:- "A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another; or in at least in corner-to-corner contact if part of a wheeling column.”(Note no mention of ‘front corner’ contact, just any ‘any corner’ contact)Figure 3a Groups dialogue says:- “These (grouped) elements must all face in the same direction and must be in either full front or rear edge, and corner-to-corner contact, or side-edge contact and front corner to front corner contact.”(Note that the words ‘front’ have now been added before the word ‘corner’)So the rules don’t say ‘front corner’...but the Figure 3a dialogue does. Hence the contradiction. To clarify this the FAQ has decided to follow the rules, and treat the Figure 3a dialogue as a mistake, and it should say:- “...or side edge contact and corner-to-corner contact” by removing the words ‘ front’. Now the rules and the Figure 3a dialogue match each other. You must have quoted an earlier version of my post. Note the final version includes the 2 rules sections you refer to. In my final revision I actually considered explicitly calling attention to the word "front", but decided that it was obvious.
In any case, as I use the term, those 2 rules section are not contradictory. "A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time." They would be contradictory if they said something like "rear corner" on page 8 and "front corner" on page 16, since both could not always be true at the same time. In contrast, the 2 rules sections we refer to are analogous to someone saying "I live in Pennsylvania" and also saying "I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania". The second is more restrictive than the first, due the the addition of the word "Philadelphia", but they can still both be true at the same time.
I have already given my perspective on the FAQ, including how authoritative it is, earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 12, 2020 17:32:35 GMT
....and thus rear corner contact still gives a group, as in previous v2.x Only if one is in a game governed by the FAQ, my opinion of which has already been expressed in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 12, 2020 17:28:15 GMT
Yes, I read your reply - I just don’t agree with it. The diagrams are in support of the rules and act as clarification NOT there to overwrite them where there is contradiction or mistakes made, as in this case. RAW, ie. the body of the text, should always takes precedence 😉 P Well the problem here is that the the diagrams come with additional text. Even if they didn't, I consider ignoring them to be arbitrary. IMHO they are in the rulebook and are therefore part of the rules.
Hence, all you and I can do on this one is agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:32:23 GMT
Nothing to do with FAQ - just read the rules... 😎 P You did read my reply to your post didn't you? The "rules" include BOTH the text section and the diagrams section. One is more general and the other more specific, but they do not contradict each other. Hence basic logic is used to resolve the combination of a general constraint and a more specific constraint.
EDIT (about 20 times; sorry about that): To illustrate this specific case, both of the following are in "the rules". So we ask do they contradict each other? No. Well then what is the logical combination of constraints which they impose? Page 16 defines a subset of the configurations defined on page 8. Since both are in the rules, and don't contradict each other, logically the configurations described on page 16 must prevail. Think of it as sets of situations described by Venn diagrams. Using Venn diagrams, the circle defining the set of configurations specified on page 8 would entirely enclose the circle defining the set of configurations specified on page 16. (See here for more info on the relationship between Venn diagrams and logic: www.britannica.com/topic/Venn-diagram ).
Page 8 Tactical Moves: "A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another . . . "
Page 16, Figure 3a: ". . . These elements must all face in the same direction and . . . be in . . . side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact. . . ."
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:08:21 GMT
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
Yes it is a group. I can see your argument given the wording for Diagram 3a but FAQ says that the last line should read, “and at least one corner to corner contact.” So if you believe FAQ then it’s a group. I agree with you in that "if you believe FAQ then it's a group". However, it depends on whether the people you play with choose to use the FAQ or not.
As mentioned earlier in this thread I view the FAQ as a useful set of interpretations produced by some of our fellow players, but since I disagree with some of the interpretations, not as definitive as the rulebook. I would use the FAQ when playing with people who wanted to use it, and not use the FAQ otherwise. Hence my Mahjong analogy, where the rules differ from venue to venue.
|
|