Post by twrnz on Dec 3, 2017 4:54:16 GMT
My opinion remains heavily influenced by the 1/2 BW restriction in woods etc. Over the last few days I’ve mulled over what this is supposed to represent. I believe it abstractly represents visibility which is a feature in Phil Barker’s other rules. In my mind the result is you can’t see enough of the target to fire at it effectively, in much the same way as 1/2 BW of a target must be visible.
I’m not being difficult or argumentative. I often mull over various sections and certainly have misunderstood some rules. I wondered if I had yet again. As a result I tried the interpretation that some believe here is correct. I remain however unconvinced.
I believe that DBA 3.0 is a vast improvement over previous editions. However, there are a number of areas that I believe are poorly written and ambiguous. The discussion here has illustrated yet another area that is poorly defined.
I’m not being difficult or argumentative. I often mull over various sections and certainly have misunderstood some rules. I wondered if I had yet again. As a result I tried the interpretation that some believe here is correct. I remain however unconvinced.
I believe that DBA 3.0 is a vast improvement over previous editions. However, there are a number of areas that I believe are poorly written and ambiguous. The discussion here has illustrated yet another area that is poorly defined.
