|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 13, 2019 8:46:37 GMT
I’m sure that some other players have, like myself, found their brain hurting when trying to understand the “Phantom Overlap” rule...a long 46 word sentence with no commas or punctuation from beginning to end. 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.” So I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing and re-writing it using the simple method of laying out the rule first, then listing all the exceptions to that rule, like this:- Phantom Table Edge OverlapsTroops with any front-corner less than 1 BW from a table-edge are overlapped on that corner, unless:- (a) they are Cv-LCh or LH-LCm, (b) they moved this bound, (c) they are in Rough or Bad Going, (d) this corner is in contact with a friendly element, (e) they are assaulting or defending a City, Fort or Camp. (Note that (e) is not part of the original rule, but is mentioned in page 10 paragraph 9, and is necessary
otherwise the defender’s and assaulters of such places on a table-edge will suffer excessive penalties)I think the above re-written rule is much clearer and easier to understand...at least it is for me.  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 Haardrada on Jul 13, 2019 10:12:45 GMT
I’m sure that some other players have, like myself, found their brain hurting when trying to understand the “Phantom Overlap” rule...a long 46 word sentence with no commas or punctuation from beginning to end. 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.” So I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing and re-writing it using the simple method of laying out the rule first, then listing all the exceptions to that rule, like this:- Phantom Table Edge OverlapsTroops with any front-corner less than 1 BW from a table-edge are overlapped on that corner, unless:- (a) they are Cv-LCh or LH-LCm, (b) they moved this bound, (c) they are in Rough or Bad Going, (d) this corner is in contact with a friendly element, (e) they are assaulting or defending a City, Fort or Camp. (Note that (e) is not part of the original rule, but is mentioned in page 10 paragraph 9, and is necessary
otherwise the defender’s and assaulters of such places on a table-edge will suffer excessive penalties)I think the above re-written rule is much clearer and easier to understand...at least it is for me. 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
QUE? 🙂 A good effort Stevie... but it still is complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jul 13, 2019 10:17:02 GMT
Rarely remembered it in a game, then think it came up several times at Bakewell.
I thkught i could be overlapped by table and enemy on same side fortunately i couldnt.
Still got crushed.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jul 13, 2019 10:59:53 GMT
It’s a bullsh*t ruling and should be dropped like a stone in the next version of the rules
P
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 13, 2019 11:48:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 13, 2019 14:33:25 GMT
It’s a bullsh*t ruling and should be dropped like a stone in the next version of the rules P On a 30+" board, it is entirely unnecessary. On the regulation board, well Stevie and I have a fix that might tickle your fancy just a bit. A kind of abstraction of a bigger board, but on the smaller board. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 13, 2019 17:38:07 GMT
I voted against it  |
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Jul 13, 2019 20:40:34 GMT
Next version of the rules? Is that a real possibility? I thought Barker was done with new versions. Perhaps someone else will pick up the torch?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jul 13, 2019 21:18:00 GMT
Next version of the rules? Is that a real possibility? I thought Barker was done with new versions. Perhaps someone else will pick up the torch? Dont start it, you know not what you do. |
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Jul 13, 2019 21:37:56 GMT
Never mind, please ignore that. I am new to this forum, having been out out the DBA loop for at least 4 years. maybe more. I played a couple games when 3.0 came out and have been deep into powdered wigs and flintlock muskets since. OK, Needle guns, Chassepots and Krupp guns too.
Cease fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 13, 2019 22:19:20 GMT
No version uodates in the works as far as we know. Sets of FAQs have been compiled. Sets of house rules (not rules changes!) have also been compiled, to give people some ideas of they are having challenges reproducing historical outcomes. In addition there are a few different campaign systems people have designed that work really well.
Welcome back! You will find DBA v3 is alive and well, plays great, and is by far the best version to date! But it takes some adjusting to if you are used to previous versions.
😃
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 14, 2019 6:28:02 GMT
Mega dittos to primuspilus! Phil has stated Emphatically that this is the best edition he could possibly make and there will be no new versions. If anyone else makes changes it’s no longer DBA is it
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jul 14, 2019 8:16:22 GMT
Wargame rules are like cars and their drivers
Type 1 "It is working fine but I will take it apart to see why"
Type 2 "I think it has a glitch somewhere, I will tinker a bit."
Type 3 "I am sure I can soup this up a bit."
The result is invariably the same
"Car ain't the same now. Lets get a new one!"
And so the cycle starts again!
I stick with my old R.A.F philosophy. If it works, LEAVE IT ALONE!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 14, 2019 8:31:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jul 14, 2019 11:22:05 GMT
I suggest another thread is started to accommodate the "it's broke oh no it isn't oh yes it is" debate. This will protect innocents straying onto this thread after a simpe explanation of the phantom overlap and who then find they need therapy!!
Simon
|
|
