|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:32:23 GMT
Nothing to do with FAQ - just read the rules... 😎 P You did read my reply to your post didn't you? The "rules" include BOTH the text section and the diagrams section. One is more general and the other more specific, but they do not contradict each other. Hence basic logic is used to resolve the combination of a general constraint and a more specific constraint.
EDIT (about 20 times; sorry about that): To illustrate this specific case, both of the following are in "the rules". So we ask do they contradict each other? No. Well then what is the logical combination of constraints which they impose? Page 16 defines a subset of the configurations defined on page 8. Since both are in the rules, and don't contradict each other, logically the configurations described on page 16 must prevail. Think of it as sets of situations described by Venn diagrams. Using Venn diagrams, the circle defining the set of configurations specified on page 8 would entirely enclose the circle defining the set of configurations specified on page 16. (See here for more info on the relationship between Venn diagrams and logic: www.britannica.com/topic/Venn-diagram ).
Page 8 Tactical Moves: "A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another . . . "
Page 16, Figure 3a: ". . . These elements must all face in the same direction and . . . be in . . . side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact. . . ."
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:08:21 GMT
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
Yes it is a group. I can see your argument given the wording for Diagram 3a but FAQ says that the last line should read, “and at least one corner to corner contact.” So if you believe FAQ then it’s a group. I agree with you in that "if you believe FAQ then it's a group". However, it depends on whether the people you play with choose to use the FAQ or not.
As mentioned earlier in this thread I view the FAQ as a useful set of interpretations produced by some of our fellow players, but since I disagree with some of the interpretations, not as definitive as the rulebook. I would use the FAQ when playing with people who wanted to use it, and not use the FAQ otherwise. Hence my Mahjong analogy, where the rules differ from venue to venue.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 23:02:02 GMT
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
Nope, you’ve got that wrong. See p8, Tactical moves, paragraph 3. ‘A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner to corner contact with another...’ P To repeat my argument earlier in the thread, "... the 3.0 rules do say that in the text section, but they also modify what the text section says in the diagrams section. Logically, you have to go with the more restrictive case. It's like saying both of the following must be true, "a positive number" and "the number three". That constrains you to the number three." So you're entitled to play the way you want to, but in this case, you would be ignoring part of the rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 11, 2020 17:48:35 GMT
Interesting exchange on group alignments. I need to picture it to get a clear understanding.
Are you saying that both A and B below are groups?
As I always thought A is not a group, since front-corner-to-front corner contact is needed.
According to the DBA 3.0 rules as written, "B" is NOT a group.
The basis for saying that "B" is a group is the claim by some of our fellow players (including those who wrote the FAQ) that Figure 3a on page 16 is a mistake. As to why someone would want this, I assume there is some sort of additional rules interpretation which gives advantage to a group with an irregular frontage.
IMHO it's like Mahjong. One adjusts to accommodate the group of people one is playing with.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Feb 9, 2020 19:32:19 GMT
Suggestions:
1) Specify the scale of the minis.
2) You could improve the images. Firstly focus could be better. Also, you want more light shining on the portion of the subject facing the camera (i.e. don't backlight). Finally, for dark minis / bases, you want a dark background; otherwise the portion of the image showing the minis will be underexposed.
:-)
|
|
|
Scale
Feb 1, 2020 20:36:18 GMT
Post by markhinds on Feb 1, 2020 20:36:18 GMT
Go here: theminiaturespage.com/boards/index.mvSearch for the string "compatibility" under "titles"
Lots of relevant threads, some with images. However, note the search engine will list the oldest first, so you have to go the the bottom of the hits page and click on "search more" until you get some more recent threads.
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 30, 2020 20:04:01 GMT
medievalthomas Is that you in the picture, and if so, where did you get the chair? :-)
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 28, 2020 14:48:35 GMT
A word of warning on these (I have some of their Napoleonics). The metal is extremely (!!) hard and brittle, so any sort of modification or cleanup will be difficult.
For example, I mounted my Heroics and Ros 6mm (made from nice malleable lead allow) on thin plastic card, which involves clipping off the figures at the base, and glueing them to the card. Try this with 3mm Picoarmor, and if you aren't careful the figure will fly off at high velocity, bounce off the wall, and get lost. In another example, it proved to be impractical to file or clip off unwanted plumes from the shakos of some experimental infantry, whereas this would be a trivial thing with traditional cast figures.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 27, 2020 18:27:26 GMT
Your link takes me to a game entitled "Crown of Roses". I assume your OP contains a typo?
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 27, 2020 15:57:05 GMT
Yep; the softer alloys are better from a modelmaking perspective. Fortunately many companies still use them. The worst I've encountered is the alloy used by the 1/600 scale Picoarmor, which is both very hard and very brittle. :-(
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 10, 2020 22:21:58 GMT
(EDITED several times; sorry about that...)
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 10, 2020 22:12:32 GMT
What scale?
Donnington "New Era" looks promising for 15mm; examples are badly painted, but I assume the quality of castings is similar to the other "New Era" (meaning good). Here are some unpainted examples of Muslims: shop.ancient-modern.co.uk/armies-of-islam-175-c.asp
(EDITED)
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 10, 2020 20:06:03 GMT
LOL, Joe; I think the "discomfort" here is yours.
If you find it objectionable when someone in passing mentions "politics" in conjunction with the FAQ, insert an "interpretations" caveat the the top. To jog your memory, here is the first paragraph of the 1998 NASAMW Interps:
"This set of interpretations for WRG 7th edition . . . is a description of how the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers uses the WRG 7th edition rules in sponsored tournaments. Hopefully, it will also help you adjudicate games in a non-tournament setting should players be unable to agree on a suitable solution. It is our attempt to bring a certain amount of uniformity as to how 7th Edition is played. The perception that 7th is played the same wherever you go is a myth. If that were the case, umpires would not exist and neither would this booklet."
I think that something similar would benefit your FAQ, emphasizing the tournament focus, and avoiding claims of official Barker sanction (as that sounds lame IMHO). MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jan 8, 2020 5:50:27 GMT
Ah, the FAQ ...
Although I don't agree with all the interpretations it contains, nor the politics behind it, it is a good way to avoid arguments so I'll live with it. Thanks for pointing that out.
MH
For my edification...with what 'politics' concerning the FAQ do you disagree? The people on the team (International representation and both from folks on the design team for DBA 3 and folks that are just supporters)? The decision making process (consensus)? The schedule (once a year now)? Our support from Phil and Sue? My constant teasing of Bob? (That would occur even if we weren't both on the FAQ team.) I am somewhat puzzled. Joe Collins Sorry; I missed this. IMHO, rules FAQs should either be written directly by the author, or should be logical consequences of the rules as written. By "politics" I refer to people claiming to have inside knowledge of Phil's intentions, using this claim to support rules interpretations other than the preceding. I have seen a lot of this in various forums (TMP etc.), and some of the results have shown up in the FAQ. Note that by saying this I do not intend to impugn the honesty of the individuals claiming this, but am just saying that it is a poor basis for supporting a position, as it is not independently verifiable. The FAQ referred to in these boards is useful, no question, and I believe that I indicated this in my comment. However, it contains some stuff which represents the personal opinions of a small subset of DBA players, and as such I see it as being more analogous to the NASAMW "Interps" of WRG-7th from several decades ago, and feel that this should be made clear. FWIW. MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Dec 9, 2019 21:07:07 GMT
I start with brass wire and anneal just the end which is to become the spear point by heating it quickly until it glows. I heat the end quickly to avoid also heating the spear shaft, which I do not want to anneal, for obvious reasons. I use resistance soldering tweezers, but a propane torch or gas stove flame works too. I later squash the annealed (softened) head using flat-jaw pliers, and file to the shape of the spearhead.
I used to think I needed to let the spearhead cool slowly to retain the annealing, and that quick cooling would harden the brass. Apparently that is not correct for most brass, however, which will remain annealed regardless of how quickly it is cooled. This is in contrast to ferrous alloys.
MH
|
|