|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 17, 2018 17:01:14 GMT
As Stevie has pointed out I believe the two statements in Figure 15b: "If Pike X was a little further away otuside the TZ, Bow A would shoot at Bow Y because a target which shoots back takes priority over one that does not. If Pike X was outside the TZ and Bow Y was facing in another direction and unable to shoot, Bow A could shoot at any of the three available targets."
"This sequence is followed regardless of whose bound it is."
Resolves the issue completely - if no target is in your TZ you must shoot at "a target which shoots back".
I do understand, however, that many DBA 3.0 players do not regard the diagrams as rules and feel free to ignore them (I'm not in that camp as several essential rules - including this one appear only in the diagrams - I respect that mine is probably a minority view).
First for players of D3H2 - the diagrams are considered rules for this DBX version so the problem is solved for D3H2 players (I also tweeked the rule in the text which I do rarely and only to enforce Phil's intent which still controls in D3H2).
This was never a problem in Knights & Knaves as the rule was already clear.
This leaves only DBA 3.0. Here players will just have to work it out themselves. The FAQ committee may take it up but we often deadlock. I'm certainly not voting for any version which directly contradicts the diagrams.
RE real world and ammo supply - an interesting subject which has indeed been extensively studied. Reviewing for instance how my arrows were ordered per bow ordered helps us get a feel for how many were available per archer. But DBX does not deal with arrow supplies so its rather a red herring.
As to shooting bear in mind that the real world does not have turns or bounds. Bow units continually shoot at each other without relent - the arrows do not stop in mid flight while someone takes a turn an dicides in some contrived order to shoot at something else. (It might be an interesting experimental rule to allow players to spend PIPs to change the shooting priority or Arrow Storm to increase effect at cost of "ammo".)
DBX is not a you go I go system but uses a highly integrated turn sequence as follows:
Turn begins.
Side A moves some elements as per PIP availability.
Side A & Side B engage in mutual Distance Combat.
Side A & Side B engage in mutual Close Combat.
Side B moves some elements as per PIP availability.
Side A & B engage in mutual Distance Combat.
Side A & B engage in mutual Close Combat.
Turn ends.
Some matters are determined by whose bound (not turn) it is but these are often housekeeping in nature and where outcome determinative remain controversial - a different topic for a different day.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by j2klbs on Aug 17, 2018 17:43:26 GMT
I know I don't have the street cred (i.e. play experience) of anyone else on this forum, but maybe my naive response may have some value.
It seems to me the rules are written from the perspective that both sides are in theory simultaneously attacking. For example, this is true in close combat. Therefore, it seems unrealistic to me that shooting would be different. Therefore, it seems most logically consistent that both sides declare their intended targets before dice are rolled, and if being shot at, must return fire in kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 17, 2018 18:13:56 GMT
Dead right j2klbs. It’s all very simple... When shot at, you must shoot back (if you can). Only if unable to shoot back is the 3rd Party Shooting mechanism employed. It’s what the rules say... It’s what the diagrams say... ...and it’s how Phil Barker wants the game to be played. 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
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Aug 18, 2018 2:09:54 GMT
Tom and Stevie,
You have been very definitive in your statements and you have laid out your logic well. It's too bad we don't have the author's intention on this and that the FAQ group may not be able to conclude on the topic.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that this is not a UGO/IGO system. Not everything in war is simultaneous. The game has a lot of conventions in it that are in no way simultaneous and are completely sequential and under control of the player. Having learned the game by 'playing history' and then adapting to the system and winning more by playing the system as I learned it, there were planty/LOTS of moments I experienced where I felt the system was arbitrary or convention driven. And I have never read the author's intention other than maybe in Sue's book.
No worries, as the overall game is very enjoyable and 'good history' for the most part. Maybe even suprisingly good for as abstract as it is. Still, there are other games I play too.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 18, 2018 3:03:18 GMT
Bill...
We will address this in the next FAQ update. Look for a resolution after the first of the year. I am kind of glad it came up. We have little else to discuss!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 18, 2018 7:40:59 GMT
Well Joe, if you’re looking for things to add to the next FAQ, how about finally nailing down the Threat Zone priority... ...you know, you must respond to first TZ entered, and can’t change your target just because you’ve entered an additional TZ that bound. (like diagram 7b seems to imply when it lists the Spear B move options) And while you’re at it, how about defining who gets to choose the table size? (I prefer the invader to have the choice) And that in BBDBA, demoralized garrisons in Camps, Cities and Forts will also flee, but civilians still within their City do not. (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/522/bbdba-demoralised-garrisons ) Lastly, can a Littoral Landing sail across a Waterway, disembark on a beach, and then march directly into contact with an enemy? And all this in a single bound, the same bound it takes mounted to just dismount, while your opponent is unable to respond in any way. (I think the amphibious troops should obey the extra movement rules in the bound they land, and not go within 1 BW of the enemy) There, these should give the FAQ Team something to talk about...  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
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 20, 2018 15:11:00 GMT
The essential question is must you shoot at something that can shoot at you. Or can you select a different target and if the potential opposing shooter than selects a different target both may merrrily shoot away at something else.
To me: "Bow A would shoot at Bow Y because a target which shoots back takes priority over one that does not." indicates you must shoot at a target that can shoot at you (because in the real world it is already shooting at you). (Admittedly Phil did not write these words - the diagram maker did but he tried very hard to beef up rules he thought were ambiguous in the text - hence the extent of the diagrams.)
While I feel this is Phil's intention, I do so only on the negative evidence that while shooting priorities were extensively discussed he never mentioned nor did we play test any such radical change in how shooting works as that entailed in the Australian rules. While we used to correspond almost daily as I picked his brain for every DBX idea I could, getting any feedback from him is now virtually impossible. The rules will just have to stand as is.
We divide games up into turns and bounds for our convenience not because we believe battles sorted themselves into orderly occurrences. Wellington believed that describing a battle was much like describing a ball impossible as everything was happening at once. But our game needs some order if humans are to play. The trick is to keep "game order" in the background as much as possible and not make it the determinative factor - play the battle not the system. Overall DBX mechanics do this quite well. You go I go games are generally about beating the system while integrated sequences bring back the battle. (The third method - random activation - makes player commanders mere spectators to random events you don't so much play such games as watch them.)
My sympathies as always are with the players trying to sort this out.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Aug 20, 2018 17:07:01 GMT
Tom,
A game design observation: Video games look very much like they are simultaneous with the computer software and hardware doing all the work instantaneously in the background. In reality they have complex prioritization rules to make something inhernetly sequential look simultaneous. Manual process don't do so well with this complexity.
As an example, charge sequences, even in simultaneous movement systems/games, are generally complex and have to pick some type of Attacker goes/defender goes sequence as the process to be followed.
Games that model out only the decisive moments in a battle, which are generally NOT simultaneous, have had a lot of influence on game design. I like those games and don't find them 'less accurate'. I'm not sure I would agree with your critiques about "you go I go" and random games, but I think those are very fair personal taste observations. And I can certainly think of 'broken' game systems where the game systems dominate the historical aspects of the game. Some are always in search of the perfect rules system.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by martini on Aug 23, 2018 11:00:26 GMT
medievalthomas - what is D3H2?
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 23, 2018 16:15:23 GMT
I agree that a simulteous action game is either too complex or too chaotic to work on the table top (early versions of Command Decision had both players moving units at the same time with an obvious advantage for the "slow" mover as he got to see what the other fellow was doing before finishing his move - one of the first things I corrected about the basic design engine when I did Combat Command). But we try and reflect at least "mutual" action by joint shooting/melee phases and limiting how much you can move in a non-joint movement phase by the PIP system. My preferred sequence of play which I use for Combat Command: Orders, Mutual Movement Phase (high quality troops decide who moves first), Mutual Stationary Fire Phase, Mutual Advancing Fire Phase, Morale/clean Up End of Turn. It made my reputation as a game designer - and remains my favorite.
As to D3H2 - I thought the word was out - its DBA 3.0 combined with HOTT 2.0. All the troop types from both systems and using the updated DBA 3.0 mechanics (so players of both games can use the same rules/diagrams/FAQ etc.) Allows for additional troop types like "Shooters" an excellent representation of English Archers and Fast Knights an excellent representation of Companions. Better for both Fantasy/Fantistorical/Historical games than either DBA or HOTT standing alone. Also has a functioning point system. Its a free supplement for anyone who has bought DBA 3.0. Just email me for a copy - also have A Game of Knights & Knaves which is a much more experimental and complete revision and modernization of DBX mechanics - but its a commercial product.
I maintain both systems and updates even for the commercial versions are free - in other words I fix problems answer questions try to improve clarity (not easy with Phil based D3H2 language) and take feedback. Working on a version of Knights & Knaves that uses "big trays" like those Kings of War players/Runewars/Song of Ice and Fire use to try and pull them into DBX gaming.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by louien on Aug 26, 2018 17:52:46 GMT
Hello All,
Please forgive a newbie adding to this thread. I read through it with great fascination, but I did have a observation.
If a Bow unit must shoot at a target that could shoot at them during this step. That forces the target selection of the unit. Could I then use my own Bow units to keep my LH, Cavalry, & Knights "shielded", to choose that word, from missile fire.
I can view it as the Bow units are attempting to suppress each other. On the other hand, it is odd to remove the tactical choice of targets away from player.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 26, 2018 21:07:53 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus Louien.  You make a very good observation, and one that I myself briefly mentioned. (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/14993/ ) If the shooting priority rules were interpreted to read that a player must target an enemy shooter, just because that shooter could target them, then having a Bow element next to your mounted would make them practically immune to missile fire. Fortunately, the rules on page 10 paragraph 4 quite clearly says “...they must shoot back at a target that IS shooting at them.” Not ‘ could’, not ‘ might’, not ‘ can’, but actually IS. So yes, players do pick their targets...but will be distracted and diverted from their chosen target when shot at. 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
|
|
|
|
Post by louien on Aug 27, 2018 3:04:25 GMT
It was not clear how the final resolution would be worded in the FAQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 27, 2018 10:13:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by louien on Aug 27, 2018 15:36:46 GMT
Hello,
I am asking for another clarification.
It is the bounding player who declares all shooting attacks first, followed by the non bounding player. Is that correct?
If that is the case the Bounding player will never have a unit "under fire" trigging the "is shooting at them" criteria. It will only ever potentially apply to the non bounding player.
|
|
