|
|
Post by Baldie on Mar 7, 2019 18:02:10 GMT
New here. Not trying to open up as a hater, but the writing in DBA 3 is terrible. It's like a 8th grader wrote it. The illustrations are pretty straight forward, but holy hell! Is there a rule book without run-on sentences out there somewhere? It like it was translated from Chinese or Mayan or something. /rant. Whew. Ok. That said. I am really looking forward to starting. Army primed. Working on terrain now. Looking forward to joining y'all. Subscribe and watch our THIRTY PLUS DBA 3.0 videos at my link below on Youtube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCbRAe5rGG3lYIHXFgkrC3wQ?view_as=subscriberDBA is a great game, but it requires thorough reading. Of course if you care less about historical accuracy, painted figs, rules knowledge and English grammar there is at least one other channel I know of. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Mar 7, 2019 21:59:10 GMT
Phil is a big idea guy but with little patience for details. The rule book is NOT precisely worded and this concept has caused endless problems. It gives a big picture and then you have to work out the details on your own - its a great mental puzzle. Sometimes there are enough rules to do so but always just barely.
I've written an intro to DBX gaming called A Game of Knights & Knaves based on how I taught my then 10 year old son DBX. Its a very simple version of DBX meant to compete with One Hour Wargames. But it has all the basics in a manner which an actual 10 year old can understand. From there we have created medieval specific supplements which add lots of period detail to the basically robust system.
I did the playtesting for DBA 3.0 and did blind runs where I just gave them the rulebook to read and had very experienced gamers then try to play. Often they simply could not make out the basic concepts. So I game them Knights & Knaves and within a few games they were useful playtesters. Also very good to use an conventions and Big Battle games as you may get players who are unfamiliar with DBX ways.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 7, 2019 22:06:06 GMT
Phil is a big idea guy but with little patience for details. The rule book is NOT precisely worded and this concept has caused endless problems. It gives a big picture and then you have to work out the details on your own - its a great mental puzzle. Sometimes there are enough rules to do so but always just barely. I've written an intro to DBX gaming called A Game of Knights & Knaves based on how I taught my then 10 year old son DBX. Its a very simple version of DBX meant to compete with One Hour Wargames. But it has all the basics in a manner which an actual 10 year old can understand. From there we have created medieval specific supplements which add lots of period detail to the basically robust system. I did the playtesting for DBA 3.0 and did blind runs where I just gave them the rulebook to read and had very experienced gamers then try to play. Often they simply could not make out the basic concepts. So I game them Knights & Knaves and within a few games they were useful playtesters. Also very good to use an conventions and Big Battle games as you may get players who are unfamiliar with DBX ways. TomT Is Sue Laflin-Barker's Starting Ancient Wargaming with DBA 3.0 useful as an intro the game? I haven't read into it yet. www.amazon.com/dp/B00UVXDQXE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 7, 2019 22:30:24 GMT
It is an excellent book greedo. It was my first copy of the DBA rules, as the purple book was out of print at that time.
There is one chapter where two opponents play their first DBA game, and it is quite good.
Someone on the forum mentioned that you can purchase a digital version, and all the pics. are in colour, unlike the soft copy, which I have.
The full rules are there, (and in large font!), yet no diagrams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Mar 7, 2019 22:51:59 GMT
Phil has says that his training was as a technical writer, not a novelist or journalist. I have worked as a tech writer for over 30 years, so I can appreciate some of the writing and structure. BUT the DBA rules are written in a very dated, old school way with a strict grammatical approach that many readers find frustrating or confusing. And those are just the English language speakers!
I also think that for whatever reason the rules themselves were written to fit on 12 pages, which forces all sorts of trunkations and exclusions.
A change of writing style and structure, the inclusion of a quick reference card, and improved cross referencing and indexing would really lift its readability and greatly improve the speed with which people learn (and play) the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdesmond on Mar 8, 2019 2:06:49 GMT
Salutations, gentlefolk,
If I may add my $0.02 here:
First, it seems that 'sentence diagramming' is an unknown art in England (see Dr. Lynne Murphy's new book, _The Prodigial Tongue_, for details.). I have tried diagramming a couple of the 80-word sentences in the DBA rules, concluded that my 7th grade was too long ago.*
Second, I tried, in the 'Gelidis' rules (the 2.1 version is on the Wiki, the 3.0 vernion in the works, onovdesedaze I shall get the draft posted to the wiki for comments...), to break the long sentences with multiple subordinate clauses* into 'units of meaning', putting them on seperate lines, set off by more white space.
Mayhaps that is of help.
Yours, John
* There's an English-teachers' old, bad, and politically-incorrect joke, which may be apropos. It is here ROT-13ed:
Q - "Jul ner oblf zhpu zber yvxryl guna tveyf gb jevgr ybat, zhygv-pynhfr, eha-ba fragraprf ?"
A - "Orpnhfr tveyf guvax onq guvatf jvyy unccra vs gurl zvff n crevbq."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Mar 8, 2019 9:13:33 GMT
New here. Not trying to open up as a hater, but the writing in DBA 3 is terrible. It's like a 8th grader wrote it. The illustrations are pretty straight forward, but holy hell! Is there a rule book without run-on sentences out there somewhere? It like it was translated from Chinese or Mayan or something. /rant. Whew. Ok. That said. I am really looking forward to starting. Army primed. Working on terrain now. Looking forward to joining y'all. If you think DBA 3.0 is badly written you obviously have not read any of my home grown rule sets! |
|
|
|
Post by mark leslie on Mar 9, 2019 9:13:21 GMT
I think when it's intentional it's called a feature.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 9, 2019 20:40:08 GMT
Salutations, gentlefolk, If I may add my $0.02 here: First, it seems that 'sentence diagramming' is an unknown art in England (see Dr. Lynne Murphy's new book, _The Prodigial Tongue_, for details.). I have tried diagramming a couple of the 80-word sentences in the DBA rules, concluded that my 7th grade was too long ago.* I would love to see an 80 word sentence. I have read the text but never counted the words. Can you tell us where one of those sentences is. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 9, 2019 23:35:28 GMT
I haven’t found an 80 word sentence Bob (at least, not yet), but I have found a 46 word sentence... ...so we are half-way there. Page 10, paragraph 8, very last sentence:- “An element in good going other than Light Horse or Cavalry and which did not move this bound and has any front corner less than 1 BW from a battlefield edge counts as overlapped on that corner unless this is in contact with a friendly element.” This could make a good competition...who can find the longest sentence in DBA 3.0?  Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Mar 9, 2019 23:45:02 GMT
I haven’t found an 80 word sentence Bob (at least, not yet), but I have found a 46 word sentence... ...so we are half-way there. Page 10, paragraph 8, very last sentence:- “An element in good going other than Light Horse or Cavalry and which did not move this bound and has any front corner less than 1 BW from a battlefield edge counts as overlapped on that corner unless this is in contact with a friendly element.” This could make a good competition...who can find the longest sentence in DBA 3.0? Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
There lies the problem...40+ words and not a single comma or period between the beginning or the end. For the record, I think that Phil is quite the genius due the nuances of his rules, but so much of it is lost on/missed by many players due to the lack of punctuation. |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 9, 2019 23:45:15 GMT
I haven’t found an 80 word sentence Bob (at least, not yet), but I have found a 46 word sentence... ...so we are half-way there. Page 10, paragraph 8, very last sentence:- “An element in good going other than Light Horse or Cavalry and which did not move this bound and has any front corner less than 1 BW from a battlefield edge counts as overlapped on that corner unless this is in contact with a friendly element.” This could make a good competition...who can find the longest sentence in DBA 3.0? Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Is this the phantom overlap that I have seen people mention? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 10, 2019 0:05:28 GMT
...and the record has already been broken!  (assuming that you count ‘right-to-right’ as three separate words)... Page 10, paragraph 8, very first sentence:- “An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any enemy element except Psiloi or Scythed Chariots overlaps this; even if it is exposed by a frontal opponent having recoiled, fled or been destroyed that bound.” 48 words is the the new bar to reach.... Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Mar 10, 2019 18:52:57 GMT
...and the record has already been broken! (assuming that you count ‘right-to-right’ as three separate words)... Page 10, paragraph 8, very first sentence:- “An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any enemy element except Psiloi or Scythed Chariots overlaps this; even if it is exposed by a frontal opponent having recoiled, fled or been destroyed that bound.” 48 words is the the new bar to reach.... Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Must admit I have doubts about the semicolon. Surely just a comma is correct? Scott |
|
|
|
Post by jdesmond on Mar 11, 2019 8:24:34 GMT
Salutations, gentlefolk !
By my count the second sentence, of the first paragraph, of "Moving Into Contact With Enemy" - "At the end of the bound's... but in overlap (see p.10)" is 79 words - 80 if you count 'lined-up' as two words.
ISTR there was an 80-word sentence in the version 2 rules, but I don't have them here to check. I have been wrong before, I shall be wrong again. "Often wrong, but never in doubt"*
Say hello if you see me at Cold Wars, and have a safe trip if you're going there.
*Tag line from comedian of teh early '60's - can you tell me who it was ?
|
|
(assuming that you count ‘right-to-right’ as three separate words)...