|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 31, 2019 16:18:43 GMT
Joe, While I sympathise with you that you are explaining what may have happened during development. Please understand that this is frustrating. You say - “Phil wasn't particularly careful with the language here. He wasn't as well in several other parts of the rules.” You say “Phil was dismissive of the questions.” You say “ I am sorry that we couldn't get Phil to further clarify this. But we couldn't.” Bob says “I put my faith in Phil Barker's model of ancient warfare as he expresses it in the rules he writes.“ We have already established that the play testing left rather large holes in places. And primusplius says “Phil's own insistence that the "the players need to use common sense". That was code-speak for "you guys go sort it out, and come to a consensus.” The bottom line is that without recourse to some sort of mechanism that can sort out these questions (which doesn’t exist) we can only go on the rules as they are written and translate them into plain English. In short “us guys need to sort it out.” Hence I can only support pawsbill’s comment of “Claptrap!“ when it comes to things like BUA and 3 plough or decorative hills under cities or forts when this is not what the words, as written say in English in the rules. If we are to hang on Phil’s every neuance in his written word when it comes to one rule then how come we ignore him wholesale in other areas? This makes no sense. My suggestion would be to either create an FAQ or clarification mechanism, preferably with Phil’s input, to keep the rules live and relevant OR update then to 3.1 addressing all the pints on this forum OR if all else fails create a voting site on this forum to create the consensus Phil desired. In the meantime I’ll go with umpires like pawsbill who seems to speak both English and Common Sense combined. Paddy:
I am the head of the FAQ team. So, your idea here is not misplaced...in fact it has already been implemented.
Look it really is simple. Phil has his own style. You can love it or hate it. That style can be exact in some areas and not in others. There are several areas in DBA 3 that aren't exact.
The FAQ team has found consensus on some of these. In other areas we have not. There are 4 other rule issues that I can recall upon which the FAQ team has not been able to reach consensus and that haven't been identified or mentioned on this board. I will not identify them. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Some were missed during development (Light Horse Flee), some were caused probably by error in layout (Threat Zone), others were clear to Phil, but not to everyone...
Finally, Phil has decided not to continue development of DBA, though in the distant past he did help with the FAQ team. That time is unfortunately over.
All the above leaves us to work this out on our own. Slavish devotion to his exact writing isn't necessarily helpful (please note that I write "necessarily").
Further Paddy, your sentiments concerning keeping the rules "live and relevant" or (inclusive or I think here) updating to DBA 3.1 are on target.
We need to keep the rules live and relevant. We need to produce a DBA 3.1.
This debate is part of that process.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 31, 2019 16:33:52 GMT
As for the larger hill that a fort or city can be on, does the whole BUA/hill combo have to be within the 9BW size restriction, or is it just for the BUA? That’s the way I read it. |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 31, 2019 16:39:14 GMT
Thanks Joe - good to know. I sympathise with the issues - DBA is like eating a fine steak, full of nutrition and covers in a delicious sauce - just sometimes you find a bit of gristle that the chef should really have cut away.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 31, 2019 16:55:16 GMT
Well stated joe - particularly where a strict adherence to the wording of a rule contradicts the real world or common sense.
On the proposed rewording to make the compulsories for arable - 2 plow or 1 BUA and a plow, I believe that even in arable there are instances where there could be a settlement/fort without adjacent fields. An exception, but would therefore add the third option of just a BUA to the list of compulsories.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 31, 2019 17:26:48 GMT
Hmmm, so, the statement "you must be a rugby fan or a cricket fan to be allowed at my dinner party" precludes people who are both? I doubt most people always apply "or" as the exclusive case in all situations all the time... Context is everything. If a menu offers a glass of wine or a beer in the price, I doubt the waiter would put up with a discussion on whether the or is inclusive or exclusive if you asked for both. I believe the terrain choices are a sort of menu. Simon My comment was directed at those who insist your example is the ONLY interpretation of "or" in common English parlance. My counterexample shows that, ... yes, ... wait for it, are we all aready? ... CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING! Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 1, 2019 9:25:18 GMT
Joe, While I sympathise with you that you are explaining what may have happened during development. Please understand that this is frustrating. You say - “Phil wasn't particularly careful with the language here. He wasn't as well in several other parts of the rules.” You say “Phil was dismissive of the questions.” You say “ I am sorry that we couldn't get Phil to further clarify this. But we couldn't.” Bob says “I put my faith in Phil Barker's model of ancient warfare as he expresses it in the rules he writes.“ We have already established that the play testing left rather large holes in places. And primusplius says “Phil's own insistence that the "the players need to use common sense". That was code-speak for "you guys go sort it out, and come to a consensus.” The bottom line is that without recourse to some sort of mechanism that can sort out these questions (which doesn’t exist) we can only go on the rules as they are written and translate them into plain English. In short “us guys need to sort it out.” Hence I can only support pawsbill’s comment of “Claptrap!“ when it comes to things like BUA and 3 plough or decorative hills under cities or forts when this is not what the words, as written say in English in the rules. If we are to hang on Phil’s every neuance in his written word when it comes to one rule then how come we ignore him wholesale in other areas? This makes no sense. My suggestion would be to either create an FAQ or clarification mechanism, preferably with Phil’s input, to keep the rules live and relevant OR update then to 3.1 addressing all the pints on this forum OR if all else fails create a voting site on this forum to create the consensus Phil desired. In the meantime I’ll go with umpires like pawsbill who seems to speak both English and Common Sense combined. Paddy:
I am the head of the FAQ team. So, your idea here is not misplaced...in fact it has already been implemented.
Look it really is simple. Phil has his own style. You can love it or hate it. That style can be exact in some areas and not in others. There are several areas in DBA 3 that aren't exact.
The FAQ team has found consensus on some of these. In other areas we have not. There are 4 other rule issues that I can recall upon which the FAQ team has not been able to reach consensus and that haven't been identified or mentioned on this board. I will not identify them. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Some were missed during development (Light Horse Flee), some were caused probably by error in layout (Threat Zone), others were clear to Phil, but not to everyone...
Finally, Phil has decided not to continue development of DBA, though in the distant past he did help with the FAQ team. That time is unfortunately over.
All the above leaves us to work this out on our own. Slavish devotion to his exact writing isn't necessarily helpful (please note that I write "necessarily").
Further Paddy, your sentiments concerning keeping the rules "live and relevant" or (inclusive or I think here) updating to DBA 3.1 are on target.
We need to keep the rules live and relevant. We need to produce a DBA 3.1.
This debate is part of that process.
Joe Collins
Joe You state the "idea has already been implemented". Which version? And after consultation with the whole development team? Martin |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 1, 2019 12:19:12 GMT
Paddy's idea of having a FAQ team has been implemented.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 1, 2019 13:31:18 GMT
The FAQs do an absolutely superb job of streamlining and clarifying critical points. I dare say "don't leave home without it"!
For me, I find having read them a few times (they are not by any means tough to read) really helps new players get the hang of tbe rules, and how PB writes and phrases things.
Read them thoroughly!
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 1, 2019 14:55:32 GMT
The FAQs do an absolutely superb job of streamlining and clarifying critical points. I dare say "don't leave home without it"! For me, I find having read them a few times (they are not by any means tough to read) really helps new players get the hang of tbe rules, and how PB writes and phrases things. Read them thoroughly! Good to know! Is the latest and greatest on the yahoo group or the wiki? |
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Apr 1, 2019 15:16:05 GMT
The FAQs do an absolutely superb job of streamlining and clarifying critical points. I dare say "don't leave home without it"! For me, I find having read them a few times (they are not by any means tough to read) really helps new players get the hang of tbe rules, and how PB writes and phrases things. Read them thoroughly! Good to know! Is the latest and greatest on the yahoo group or the wiki? |
|
|
|
Post by daveh on Apr 1, 2019 20:10:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Apr 1, 2019 20:21:57 GMT
|
|
mike
Munifex
Posts: 3 
|
Post by mike on Apr 1, 2019 21:08:14 GMT
Parallel to this discussion, we in Western New York had a problem reciently. Terrain items that were too large, as per the rules.
Such items can provide an unbeatable advantage to one side or another.
Just a reminder: so called “Club Terrain” (used by a group or at a specific hobby store) May not be DBA legal.
For fun Games (as in “not a tourney or for a prize) this May not matter. Otherwise, it does matter.
I will be re-reading the terrain rules tonight. Probably “correcting” some terrain pieces too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Apr 1, 2019 21:12:53 GMT
I got min and max size terrain for DBA and Lart depending on how much my chaps like to hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 2, 2019 14:44:26 GMT
Reverting briefly to the Hamlet without a Prince problem, given the rules on terrain placement, there must be a reasonable chance that the plough and the BUA would end up some distance from each other anyway, even allowing for the fact that the plough has to extend into an adjacent quarter.
I agree with Martin. If you want some plough near your hamlet, model it as part of the BUA. (That way it will count as ROUGH GOING no mater what the defender rolls for PIPs.)
|
|
