|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 7, 2017 22:47:56 GMT
The FAQ sheets have been a great way of updating errata,can something similar be put in place to speed acceptance of any mistakes or rule-fixes required in future rule updates?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 8, 2017 4:18:05 GMT
The FAQ sheets have been a great way of updating errata,can something similar be put in place to speed acceptance of any mistakes or rule-fixes required in future rule updates? The FAQ group is split on this. The group works on the basis of consensus. Phil's hard definition of "within" and inconsistent usage is unfortunate. We haven't heard from Phil or Sue in about a year, so getting a clarification from them is probably out of the picture. We will however be publishing a new FAQ soon. This will not be on it. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Jun 8, 2017 4:33:01 GMT
The FAQ group is split on this. The group works on the basis of consensus. Phil's hard definition of "within" and inconsistent usage is unfortunate. We haven't heard from Phil or Sue in about a year, so getting a clarification from them is probably out of the picture. We will however be publishing a new FAQ soon. This will not be on it. Joe Collins We'll have to wait for the unofficial DBA 3.1  |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 9, 2017 20:08:31 GMT
I hope there is never another unofficial Version of DBA! We've got some very good stability with DBA 3.0, people are playing it with very little if any trouble. We who like to discuss the minuscule issues can have at it, but we don't need a new version, no DBA 3+. These are Phil Barker's rules, they work very well. I think the lesson has been learned if you have your own ideas then write your own rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 10, 2017 1:05:31 GMT
I hope there is never another unofficial Version of DBA! We've got some very good stability with DBA 3.0, people are playing it with very little if any trouble. We who like to discuss the minuscule issues can have at it, but we don't need a new version, no DBA 3+. These are Phil Barker's rules, they work very well. I think the lesson has been learned if you have your own ideas then write your own rules. I concur Bob... No new unauthorized versions of DBA 3.0... only a new authorized version called DBA 3.1 that furthers DBA 3.0s success. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 26, 2017 0:36:25 GMT
The FAQ group is split on this. The group works on the basis of consensus. Phil's hard definition of "within" and inconsistent usage is unfortunate. We haven't heard from Phil or Sue in about a year, so getting a clarification from them is probably out of the picture. Joe Collins While unfortunately is an outstanding issues of the FAQ team, it is in my view, an issue that needs to be resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 26, 2017 7:09:25 GMT
What is the issue that relates to "within" that cannot be resolved?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 26, 2017 15:32:57 GMT
What is the issue that relates to "within" that cannot be resolved? We have discussed this previously. An element whose side it touching the side of an enemy's threat zone is "within" that threat zone and limited in its movement. This is RAW. No one plays that way in any version of DBX. This is a result of the hard definition of "within" that was inserted into the rules... and a last minute change in the threat zone text before publishing. Memory serves (and a check of the email chain I think will verify) that Tom and I bitterly complained... but no change back was forthcoming. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 6, 2017 21:28:40 GMT
In a nutshell the issue:
If your side edge is touching the side edge of a TZ you are not "within the TZ" even though the rules say you are.
If your side edge is touching the shooting "arc" then you are "within the shooting arc" even though this thwarts the rule intent (I think) and over expands the shooting arc (I think) and makes the rule inconsistent with the unwritten TZ rule.
I think it would be better for both simulation and playability reasons to make the rule consistent (touch front in; touch side out) and that's the way I wrote it in Knights and Knaves even though I try to be mechanically consistent with DBA 3.0 where ever possible. But this is not the rule in DBA 3.0 and I don't think there is any hope of an offical DBA 3.1. Hence we either have to not rule or rule that the rules don't mean what they say (which I think they don't). So you see the problem.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Sept 6, 2017 22:09:52 GMT
In my view it remains an ideal item for the FAQ.
|
|
