A shooting dilemma in DBA 3.0

Per Chaotic as per earlier in the thread (sorry I missed this simpler explanation of the sequence and did my own). I am going to call this the Australian Answer and I endorse it only because I like the answer better and not because it is the correct reading of the text.

As in your original picture, it is Red Team's bound.
1. Red player confirms that Red Bw 1 is eligible to shoot at Cv (moved <1 BW, in arc, in range, not in TZ) and decides to do so.
2. Blue player declares that his Bw 2 is eligible to shoot at Bw 1 (not in TZ, in arc and in range) and decides whether Bw 3 (not in TZ, in arc and range) will assist.
3. The combat between Bw 1 and Bw 2 is resolved first. Bw 1 retains its die roll for the attack against Cv. (No harm can come to Bw 2.)
4. If Bw 1 remains eligible to shoot at Cv after the pre-emptive attack is resolved (it might have been recoiled or destroyed), it shoots using the same die roll.

Sorry, Stevie, I think you are reading into the diagram language, the 'regardless of whose bound'. Sounds like from Tony's initial comment that this was directly in 2.2 but not in 3.0? Where does it say in the rules directly, " because a target that shoots back takes priority over one that does not."

"A target that can shoot back and indicates they will takes priority over one that does not or cannot shoot" becomes the first step in the example, if the example was as per paragraph 3 of 15b, and X was outside of the TZ.

Bob, your comments on intention, considering the lack of direct rules on prioritization, is helpful.

Bill

Stevie is, in the last post, entirely correct. At the start of shooting phase - all Bow must shoot its mandatory. So all Bows are shooting at any Bow in arc/range at the start of the phase. (But I do understand the the problems with the original text and acknowledge that the diagrams must be treated as additional rules - which can be disconcerting as they require flipping around in the book to find additional rules). Final note: re helpers. These do NOT need to shoot as a helper just because they can. The target IS NOT shooting at them, they are free to help or shoot at a different target (but you must make this clear before you drop dice).

David C. Your are correct. Its why I did Knights & Knaves and made sure the basic game allows players to convert to DBA 3.0 once they had gotten the basic concepts explained in human readable text. (I changed only one basic concept to solve a long standing DBX problem). Its an excellent teaching tool that every DBX evangelist should have. It was created to teach my 10 year son how to play DBX with his toy soldiers - and he plays to this day. Don't start new players using the obscure rule book filled with what the f's like we have just been discussing. (It is also an excellent competitor to One Hour Wargames - the Advanced game by the way is an excellent vehicle for historical medieval battles - great for demos). Just spent a whole weekend play testing a new version using "big trays" like those of Kings of War and Song of Ice and Fire. Plan to use it to make inroads for DBX in those communities (and it allows the addition of attrition rules). I understand your worries re DBX dissolution but intend to put my considerable energies into preventing.

I quoted the Knights & Knaves rule in my original post - you'll note it solved this problem with no need for complex text/diagram analysis. You'll note how many expert experienced players still could not figure out the DBA shooting rules until Stevie the magnificent did so with his detailed and scholarly analysis. And I appreciate from a new player perspective how game killing the need for such rule parsing even for basic concepts is. (But bear in mind that 3.0 is actually better than most prior version and vastly better than DBMM re this matter).

Final note: third party shooting was intended to handle situations where you are shot at and cannot shoot back (by a shooter our of arc etc.) so its use would be fairly rare - unless we foul up the shooting priorities.

TomT

I entirely agree with you Chris.

Using 21st century armchair logic (which I dislike doing), we know that a single bowman can get off several shots a minute.
Let’s say a conservative 6 shots a minute x 15 minutes = some 90 arrows (probably more than they carry) in a single bound each.

While the first arrow volley from Red Bow 1 to the Blue Cv is in the air, simultaneously a Blue Bow’s first arrow volley is also in the air on its way to Red Bow 1, which once it lands among the Red Bows will cause them out of sheer self preservation to be diverted and distracted into shooting back for the rest of the 15 minute bound.

So one volley from Red Bow 1 will be at the Blue Cv, and the 89 subsequent volleys will be against the Blue Bows shooting at them.
Meanwhile, all 90 Blue Bow volleys will be directed at the Red Bows...
...and 89 to 90 volleys is going to have a far bigger impact, cause more casualties, and have a much greater effect than just one.

Of course, if the Red Bows are not shot at by any Blue Bows, they will not be distracted and diverted, so then they could concentrate all 90 volleys at the Blue Cv...the full effect of which is represented by the single DBA combat die roll.

(By the way, I never got a chance to say hello.
Welcome to the Fanaticus Forums Chris Humphreys  )



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

I'm glad Tony raised this problem. It had not occurred to me that there was any doubt that shooters must shoot at shooters unless there is another target in their TZ. I won't add to the various proposed solutions but I do hope that, via FAQ's or whatever, the way forward can be agreed. It is not a problem for friendly games but it could become an issue in competition games.