|
|
Post by sonic on Oct 3, 2022 20:00:39 GMT
Mounted Infantry rules are spread around the rules This is the case for just about everything and one of the reasons I have soured on these rules as of late. It is ridiculous to have played as many games as I have and still have trouble finding stuff. I love these rules (and Phil) but it is an absolute disservice to torture those of us that are trying to promote them. What they really need is a good index. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 3, 2022 23:29:19 GMT
This is the case for just about everything and one of the reasons I have soured on these rules as of late. It is ridiculous to have played as many games as I have and still have trouble finding stuff. I love these rules (and Phil) but it is an absolute disservice to torture those of us that are trying to promote them. What they really need is a good index. What a good idea! It chills me to the bone to hear Tony say he is souring on DBA3 (though I am interested in what he's going to do with the tanks he's painting...). But maybe an Index could be written by the community as a living document on Fanaticus? I think stevie is halfway there with his sectioned version of the rules. It would take a few drafts but eventually it would settle down. Are there people interested in this project? Together, the FAQ and the Index could do for DBA3 what WADBAG did for DBA2.2. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2022 6:57:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 4, 2022 7:42:02 GMT
That’s the beastie….useful when the memory fails to recollect a rule’s hiding place 😊👍🏼 |
|
|
|
Post by sonic on Oct 4, 2022 8:44:05 GMT
As an aside, and especially for our expert Tony A, which specific rules do you constantly need to look up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Oct 4, 2022 16:30:38 GMT
As an aside, and especially for our expert Tony A, which specific rules do you constantly need to look up? I guess you haven't been watching my videos as of late where it has come up. |
|
|
|
Post by sonic on Oct 5, 2022 5:45:55 GMT
As an aside, and especially for our expert Tony A, which specific rules do you constantly need to look up? I guess you haven't been watching my videos as of late where it has come up. I thought I had - I must have missed one or two ...... |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 5, 2022 17:00:56 GMT
Mounted Infantry rules are spread around the rules This is the case for just about everything and one of the reasons I have soured on these rules as of late. It is ridiculous to have played as many games as I have and still have trouble finding stuff. I love these rules (and Phil) but it is an absolute disservice to torture those of us that are trying to promote them. Its frustrating. Phil was a genius and indispensable to creating DBX...but it was almost impossible to get him to not use a stream of consciousness approach to rule writing when he thought of something - sometimes in mid-rule - he would just put it in at that point. Getting him to group similar concepts in one place seemed impossible. We did finally get him to create a "Fast" concept which brought together an ability undefined and scattered about the rule book. But we need to do a lot more and would probably have gotten him to give us more freedom to do so (he was coming around to some concepts I was promoting at the time) but unfortunately he is no longer able to deal with rule stuff. Obviously the word "Mounted" should refer to a specific set of troops of having a specific set of characteristics and not get tapped on to the concept of Foot who use horses for transport. Mounted Infantry were a late edition kicked around basically because people had figures for the troop type. Since its the 12 element game all troop types must have a benefit and a downfall to keep all elements balanced even if it makes little sense. So at the last minute we tossed in Destroyed in Bad Going and stuck in somewhere in the rules so they would have downside. This happened a lot and hence stuff is stuck in here and there. Had we thought more and had more time we would have simply said Foot w/horses move 4BW in Good Going and can March until they participate in Combat and thereafter move as Foot. English archers did occasionally remain on horseback while in reserve but after redeploying the horses were lead away. But we are very much aware that we have the greatest rule system and the worst presentation something we have worked diligently on and produced introductory versions of DBX to add in getting people started before the plunge in to the tournament oriented rule books. Many rule sets today use specific terms to refer to rule concepts. Then add a Glossary in alphabetical order which a gamer can look up the term and refresh themselves on its effects. So if any progress is going to be made on this problem we need to define concepts to have a universal language. So Destroyed on Equals becomes Cry Havoc, Destroyed on More becomes Shock, Recoiled on Equals becomes Drive Off, Front edge contacting preventing Recoil becomes Hard Flank, Side edge contact causing Overlap becomes Friction Contact, Side Support if Spear in side contact with either Blade or Spear OR Bow in side contact with Blade becomes either Sheildwall for Spear or Retinue for Blade/Bow. Once created you can construct a Glossary to allow easy look up. If we are going to compete in the open market and retain players we need to be moving in this direction. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 5, 2022 18:13:41 GMT
This is the case for just about everything and one of the reasons I have soured on these rules as of late. It is ridiculous to have played as many games as I have and still have trouble finding stuff. I love these rules (and Phil) but it is an absolute disservice to torture those of us that are trying to promote them. > > Many rule sets today use specific terms to refer to rule concepts. Then add a Glossary in alphabetical order which a gamer can look up the term and refresh themselves on its effects. So if any progress is going to be made on this problem we need to define concepts to have a universal language. So Destroyed on Equals becomes Cry Havoc, Destroyed on More becomes Shock, Recoiled on Equals becomes Drive Off, Front edge contacting preventing Recoil becomes Hard Flank, Side edge contact causing Overlap becomes Friction Contact, Side Support if Spear in side contact with either Blade or Spear OR Bow in side contact with Blade becomes either Sheildwall for Spear or Retinue for Blade/Bow. Once created you can construct a Glossary to allow easy look up. If we are going to compete in the open market and retain players we need to be moving in this direction. TomT Tell me WHY exactly, TomT, you believe the rest of the DBA community should be required to use YOUR terminology for any progress to be made. It gets really, REALLY annoying when you repeatedly post as if you own this set of rules and all concepts therein, and somehow believe what you write MUST be adopted by the rest of us…. And very much so when you drag in the terminology while addressing a query from a new joiner, thus confusing everyone and causing more uncertainty rather than clearing it up. Desist, please……… PS I tried to think of a nicer way to write this, but gave up…….. |
|
|
|
Post by WhitefieldTom on Oct 5, 2022 19:53:58 GMT
> > Many rule sets today use specific terms to refer to rule concepts. Then add a Glossary in alphabetical order which a gamer can look up the term and refresh themselves on its effects. So if any progress is going to be made on this problem we need to define concepts to have a universal language. So Destroyed on Equals becomes Cry Havoc, Destroyed on More becomes Shock, Recoiled on Equals becomes Drive Off, Front edge contacting preventing Recoil becomes Hard Flank, Side edge contact causing Overlap becomes Friction Contact, Side Support if Spear in side contact with either Blade or Spear OR Bow in side contact with Blade becomes either Sheildwall for Spear or Retinue for Blade/Bow. Once created you can construct a Glossary to allow easy look up. If we are going to compete in the open market and retain players we need to be moving in this direction. TomT Tell me WHY exactly, TomT, you believe the rest of the DBA community should be required to use YOUR terminology for any progress to be made. It gets really, REALLY annoying when you repeatedly post as if you own this set of rules and all concepts therein, and somehow believe what you write MUST be adopted by the rest of us…. And very much so when you drag in the terminology while addressing a query from a new joiner, thus confusing everyone and causing more uncertainty rather than clearing it up. Desist, please……… PS I tried to think of a nicer way to write this, but gave up…….. I do so agree with you Martin. 110% in fact (even though this is mathematically impossible). I never said anything as I thought I was the only one having this view. |
|
|
|
Post by sonic on Oct 7, 2022 11:56:56 GMT
As an aside, and especially for our expert Tony A, which specific rules do you constantly need to look up? I guess you haven't been watching my videos as of late where it has come up. Tony, I'm watching some of your older videos where you explain the rules (you're not the only one who can get confused!)
Have you thought of making a video of yourself and Mitch going through the areas of the rules where you find inconsistencies or confusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Oct 7, 2022 12:26:08 GMT
I guess you haven't been watching my videos as of late where it has come up. Tony, I'm watching some of your older videos where you explain the rules (you're not the only one who can get confused!)
Have you thought of making a video of yourself and Mitch going through the areas of the rules where you find inconsistencies or confusion?
Nope, DBA 3.0 videos are a thing of the past and not my responsibility to clear stuff up. I have done plenty (200+ videos) and achieved burn out on trying to get everyone to understand. I appreciate your support but this "you have done lots, but please do even more" has gotten old. This is especially true since there is no way to solve many of these issues and they will always creep up. It is a bit of like banging your head into a wall. I have fond memories of DBA 3.0 and have no hard feelings, but it is time to put my efforts into something I can control, solve and more forward with. Please enjoy those DBA 3.0 videos I have done as I will keep on my site indefinitely. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 7, 2022 13:09:09 GMT
If such a devoted player such as Tony is abandoning DBA, what does that say about the present situation?
We need DBA 4.0 NOW…not necessarily with any rule changes, just written in a clear coherent manor,
instead of the current confusing ramblings and the out of place last minute added-on afterthoughts.
I, like many others, love DBA…but we all instinctively know it could have been written sooooo much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonic on Oct 7, 2022 14:19:52 GMT
Tony, I'm watching some of your older videos where you explain the rules (you're not the only one who can get confused!)
Have you thought of making a video of yourself and Mitch going through the areas of the rules where you find inconsistencies or confusion?
Nope, DBA 3.0 videos are a thing of the past and not my responsibility to clear stuff up. I have done plenty (200+ videos) and achieved burn out on trying to get everyone to understand. I appreciate your support but this "you have done lots, but please do even more" has gotten old. This is especially true since there is no way to solve many of these issues and they will always creep up. It is a bit of like banging your head into a wall. I have fond memories of DBA 3.0 and have no hard feelings, but it is time to put my efforts into something I can control, solve and more forward with. Please enjoy those DBA 3.0 videos I have done as I will keep on my site indefinitely.
Having said that, I understand. Hopefully the urge will come back, but until then, good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 7, 2022 14:39:56 GMT
A thread about a rule question has taken a depressing turn. I must say, it has felt a bit stagnant of late. I guess all rulesets get played until they break or become repetitive. The beauty of DBA3 for me is the genius of the 12 elements and the enormous army lists that allow you to change period quickly with minimal outlay. It keeps the game fresh.
A rewrite/revision/review is very much dependant on if/when the rights are acquired. It will never be perfect but I hope that if it does change, it doesn't split the community. It is nice to know that across the globe adults a pushing toy soldiers around (in roughly) the same way. I hope we remain a tolerant group and accept each other's views without antagonism. No rule set will ever be all things to all people. But these few pages still seem to give a great game based on player decisions rather than special rules and buckets of dice.
I would love to see a DBA 3.0.5 produced, if not in book form, then as print on demand or PDF, rewriting the current rules in a more accessible way, hopefully with the WRG tick of approval.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
How will we survive? 