|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2017 13:17:33 GMT
Ah, it's Punic Treachery. Well then...
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 10, 2017 21:11:32 GMT
It all comes down to "towards contact" which might better have been worded "more aligned and towards contact". The intent was to allow a partial move to line up but not force a full move into contact.
Given the potential loop hole: can you instead pivot in such a way that you get a bit closer to one element inflicting a TZ but manage to get your own TZ on another element?
Diagram 7a seems to answer the question in insisting you can only move straight forward - but this begs the question what if Warband A enters Spear X's TZ and chooses NOT to align? Can it continue to move straight forward and put its TZ on both Spear X & Y? In other words NOT pivot to line line up with Spear X?
Diagram 7b again seems to say that you must pivot/slide to line up and then move straight forward.
So its seems the meaning of "towards contact" is to first line up and then move straight forward.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 11, 2017 8:49:38 GMT
It all comes down to "towards contact" which might better have been worded "more aligned and towards contact". The intent was to allow a partial move to line up but not force a full move into contact. Given the potential loop hole: can you instead pivot in such a way that you get a bit closer to one element inflicting a TZ but manage to get your own TZ on another element? Diagram 7a seems to answer the question in insisting you can only move straight forward - but this begs the question what if Warband A enters Spear X's TZ and chooses NOT to align? Can it continue to move straight forward and put its TZ on both Spear X & Y? In other words NOT pivot to line line up with Spear X? Diagram 7b again seems to say that you must pivot/slide to line up and then move straight forward. So its seems the meaning of "towards contact" is to first line up and then move straight forward. TomT Tom, I am absolutely sure that that is what is intended. That is certainly the way I would like to play it. But that is not what it says. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 14, 2017 17:08:06 GMT
Scott:
I understand the rule is unclear. But as a game master I've got to have a final ruling which with the help of the diagrams, I think I can. (I can't just tell players 'well there are many schools of thought re what the rule permits'.) So this is how I'm going to rule in tournaments that I run and games that I put on.
The second issue is D3H2 and A Game of Fire and Ice. In the former I can clarify to some extent thought I have to remain strictly with Phil's intent (when I can figure it out which here I think I can). In the latter I can just rewrite the rule so every one can understand it as the whole purpose of A Game of Fire and Ice is to introduce DBX mechanics to new players without having to learn a new language. (Also provides medieval speicfic rules, fantistorical rules and a great campaign system.) Both are "living" rule sets int that I can review and fix problems so players have some final answer. As to DBA 3.0 we just have to do the best we can as game masters to be consistent with rulings and try and make players aware before hand how we are going to rule - no way to actually get a final fix on anything (I doubt we will ever see a DBA 3.1 - at least not an offical one).
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 15, 2017 5:08:12 GMT
Scott: I understand the rule is unclear. But as a game master I've got to have a final ruling which with the help of the diagrams, I think I can. (I can't just tell players 'well there are many schools of thought re what the rule permits'.) So this is how I'm going to rule in tournaments that I run and games that I put on. And we can all call that DBA 3.0 +  Just don't write it down anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 16, 2017 15:53:06 GMT
My impression of the "+" games from reading the rules and playing a few games was that they intended to create a variant of DBX with some old 2.2 rules retained with some new stuff.
The goal here is just to figure out what the DBA 3.0 rules intend to accomplish. If I can puzzle it out and it seems the general consensus, I'll tweek the D3H2 rules so they reflect the accepted interp.
As to inovation I reserve that for A Game of Fire and Ice where I can deal with bigger picture issues with DBX and add period specific rules while also introducing DBX to the masses.
An obvious improvement in presentation is to incorperate the diagrams into the text so they work together rather than seem to exist in two different rule relms. Feedback from Fire and Ice players indicates this technique alone has helped to illuminate long murkey basic DBX concepts for causal players.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 17, 2017 6:23:07 GMT
My impression of the "+" games from reading the rules and playing a few games was that they intended to create a variant of DBX with some old 2.2 rules retained with some new stuff. The goal here is just to figure out what the DBA 3.0 rules intend to accomplish. If I can puzzle it out and it seems the general consensus, I'll tweek the D3H2 rules so they reflect the accepted interp. As to inovation I reserve that for A Game of Fire and Ice where I can deal with bigger picture issues with DBX and add period specific rules while also introducing DBX to the masses. An obvious improvement in presentation is to incorperate the diagrams into the text so they work together rather than seem to exist in two different rule relms. Feedback from Fire and Ice players indicates this technique alone has helped to illuminate long murkey basic DBX concepts for causal players. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games Its just ironic. 2.2+ was an attempt to achieve a common understanding of the rules for the practical purpose of running tournaments. And here we are again, 10 years later, trying to achieve a common understanding of the rules for the purposes of running tournaments. Whether we imagine a link to the unknowable intent of the author, or not, doesn't change what is happening - the FAQ = DBA 3.0+ |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 17, 2017 13:28:33 GMT
Oh, I’m not sure that the FAQ = DBA 3.0+. In the old days there was DBA 2.2, which was good, but it had some flaws and some of the rules were not clear. Then came the WADBAG Guide, which attempted to make DBA 2.2 easier to understand and clear up some of those flaws, such as the ZOC ‘rolling carpet’ vs ‘flashlight’ controversy. It was this that “attempted to achieve a common understanding of the rules for the practical purpose of running tournaments”. Phil Barker didn’t like some of the rule interpretations of the WADBAG Guide (especially the ZOC controversy...although if he had made the DBA 2.2 rules clearer and easier to understand in the first place, there wouldn’t have been a controversy). So he decided to completely overhaul the whole DBA system and eventually came up with DBA 3.0, with brand new concepts and new ways of doing things. Now some of the old school players didn’t like these brand new concepts and new ways of doing things. They wanted to keep to the original DBA 2.2 system. So they corrected some of the flaws, added some new concepts of their own, and DBA 2.2+ was born. However, DBA 3.0 as we now have it is not perfect, and still has some murky, unclear, confusing items, and even a few (dare I say it?) missing rules. For example, can you deploy in a river? The rules don’t say you can’t, but they don’t say you can either. This where the FAQ comes in. It tries to clarify and fill in the missing rules, just like the WADBAG Guide did for DBA 2.2. To use a computer analogy, DBA 3.0 is a piece of software, and the FAQ is a ‘patch’ to fix the ‘bugs’ in the DBA 3.0 program. But I do understand your concerns. When players come across some of these DBA 3.0 ‘bugs’, they have to make their own interpretation of how to deal with the situation, which may or may not coincide with other players interpretation. They may find a solution that seems satisfying, and which they have been using for some time, but when the FAQ then says “no, you should play it like this”, they may well feel that DBA 3.0 is moving in a different direction. In a perfect world the author would step in and give us an official ruling. But he won’t. So the next best thing we have is a semi-official ruling from the FAQ. Of course there are always House Rules (which in effect is what DBA 2.2+ actually is). But whether the FAQ should be considered as a list of House Rules or be seen as semi-official is a moot point, and one best for individual players and tournament organizers to decide. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 17, 2017 19:18:45 GMT
Stevie:
Thanks for the clarfications. 2.2+ did not appear ten years ago but was a reaction to DBA 3.0 and had its own set of new rules including new element types etc. It was a variant not a clarification.
The FAQ committee trys to clarify DBA 3.0 which like all tournament games comes under some rule stress. Like all committees it moves at two speeds: slowly and not at all.
Since I run tournaments, and monthly DBX games as well as maintain D3H2, I need answers to questions not schools of thought. So I answer them - at least players know how I'm going to rule and I can tweek the lanaguge of D3H2 so the meaning is clear - not to mention A Game of Fire and Ice where I can just write the whole rule and add a diagram to remove any (well most) ambiguity.
For whatever reason Phil does not intervene in rule interp issues very often or at all even when WADBAG put out a guide that he in places disagreed with (esp it seems re Zone of Control rules).
So you can take my interps and run with them or use your own. Mine will evenually at least appear in D3H2 (which many use as the base rule set anyway so they can get HOTT and DBX elements) and even more clearly in Fire and Ice.
Keep those rule bugs and balance issues coming, we are listenting and even attempting solutions.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 17, 2017 23:43:14 GMT
My impression of the "+" games from reading the rules and playing a few games was that they intended to create a variant of DBX with some old 2.2 rules retained with some new stuff. The goal here is just to figure out what the DBA 3.0 rules intend to accomplish. If I can puzzle it out and it seems the general consensus, I'll tweek the D3H2 rules so they reflect the accepted interp. As to inovation I reserve that for A Game of Fire and Ice where I can deal with bigger picture issues with DBX and add period specific rules while also introducing DBX to the masses. An obvious improvement in presentation is to incorperate the diagrams into the text so they work together rather than seem to exist in two different rule relms. Feedback from Fire and Ice players indicates this technique alone has helped to illuminate long murkey basic DBX concepts for causal players. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games Its just ironic. 2.2+ was an attempt to achieve a common understanding of the rules for the practical purpose of running tournaments. And here we are again, 10 years later, trying to achieve a common understanding of the rules for the purposes of running tournaments. Whether we imagine a link to the unknowable intent of the author, or not, doesn't change what is happening - the FAQ = DBA 3.0+ Dangun, Hmmm... I disagree with almost everything said here. The FAQ certainly isn't associated with any of the items you mention in form or intent. The FAQ also has the blessing of the authors of the rules. The FAQ was actually designed not be like the products you mentioned. It was designed to answer frequently asked questions. We have been disciplined with this. Further, many on the FAQ team do have knowledge of the intent of the authors. We speak to them on occasion. On occasion they have answered our queries. We also spent 4 years developing the game and have a database of over 10K emails to draw from. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 19, 2017 6:53:06 GMT
For whatever reason Phil does not intervene in rule interp issues very often or at all even when WADBAG put out a guide that he in places disagreed with (esp it seems re Zone of Control rules). That was a doozy. We discovered that no one really knew what the author had intended with his ZOC rules. Well I look forward to Barker mailing me a free replacement copy once all the editing has been finished. PS: Any interest in fixing the historical content of the army lists? Or is the best we can hope for internal consistency? |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 19, 2017 9:16:50 GMT
I suspect Mr Barker got sick of the "I have a letter from Phil" days.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 19, 2017 18:01:51 GMT
Its just ironic. 2.2+ was an attempt to achieve a common understanding of the rules for the practical purpose of running tournaments. And here we are again, 10 years later, trying to achieve a common understanding of the rules for the purposes of running tournaments. Whether we imagine a link to the unknowable intent of the author, or not, doesn't change what is happening - the FAQ = DBA 3.0+ There are quite a few statements being made that I can't recall resonating with the facts. The unofficial guide to DBA was not simply a clarification of certain points, but was a complete rewrite of the original rules; a person could play the game with this document without purchase the actual rules. It was of course true that there were No army lists included nor were the big battle rules there. I am going over much of my email from that time and I can find no statement by Phil where he disagreed with the base width distance interpretation. Nevertheless, this was a very useful document for helping people understand DBA. Phil could not have been very distressed with the authors of the guide as he asked the primary author to participate in the development of DBA three. This person made a number of suggestions that Phil did not agree to, so that person dropped out. Instead of helping, he decided he would just make up his own rules but still call them DBA. Phil then asked another guide author to participate but he dropped out after a few weeks. Of course everyone made suggestions that Phil did not like but nobody else dropped out.
2.2+ was the original game with some changes made by those who didn't want to help Phil create a new set. As they were the ones running the events at the eastern conventions, their are rules had to be used. One complaint that those folks had was the base width moves, but they did not keep the original movement instead went to half base width moves. There was an insistence that the game be played on bigger battlefields. At first Phil declined this change. But after the dropouts, there was further discussion and I convinced him what difference does it make what size is played on, let people do what they want. Now he allows a range of sizes. Phil does not respond well to brow beating, but is open to compromise.
The current FAQ is in no way either a restatement of the original rules nor an addition of personal rules. I have no idea why someone would say they are! The FAQ is merely a statement of consensus by a number of people who were involved in the development. Indeed, there is no requirement for anybody to accept these views -- by individual players or tournament organizers. It should be the case, however, that all players in the tournament accept what the tournament director states. The FAQ provides an easy way to resolve potential questions for a tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Feb 19, 2017 19:04:11 GMT
In the board game world they have gone to living rules and these are mostly available for free on line. I would argue that this is the BEST result. But board games also have boards and game pieces that you need for the game, so they are safer having these on line.
Commands & Colors Ancients had a 30 page FAQ that was over time reissued into what is now the 4th version of the basic rules. (The time frame was about 5 years to build up the FAQ and then 7 years of updatres to the living rules.) There are still rules questions on their forums.
Future versions seem unaviodable for a rules set that covers so much of history and generates this many questions.
These types of discussiona and 10,000 emails that could be looked at to derive oringal intent are sadly not the types of attributes that will be helpful to DBA in a very comeptitive gsme market place. It makes it harder to use DBA as a recruiting tool into miniature wargaming.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 20, 2017 19:59:46 GMT
It should be noted that the 10,000 emails that Joe refers to are those generated during four years of DBA three development among some 20 people. Almost every sentence of the rules resulted in 10 messages as each person made a comment. There might well be a dozen messages regarding what "it "would mean in a sentence.
Nevertheless Bill's comments are well taken regarding The current state of DBA as an intro to gaming.
|
|
