PDA

View Full Version : DBA Glossary ?


Susan Laflin-Barker
10-11-2010, 11:30 AM
HOTT has a glossary of terms.

Does DBA need one?

Sue Laflin-Barker

Bob. (and his dog)
10-11-2010, 12:15 PM
Yes, a great idea, there are a number of terms that are in need of specific definition
"within"
"partially/partly between"
Crossing the Front
"no other element even partially between"
Shooting
"if any element is even partly between the shooting edge and the target edge "

Also useful to define "target edge" and "shooting edge"

Crossing Front
"to" as in "An element directly in front of any part of an enemy element's front edge... can move only to contact"

Does "to" mean "toward" or does it mean "into?" Perhaps the next edition can just give a much better explanation of this most difficult rule of the game.

Contacting
"ends" Does it mean the initial contact must end as such, or can the element contact and then slide to end in contact.
". Other troops can move into contact with enemy elements only if a single element or at least one element of a group ends in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge, contact with an enemy element or overlaps enemy already in close combat. "

Specific definition for camp size, at least minimum.

"Astride" as in Road "troops moving astride rather than on them. "

"place" as in "If any side's home topography is LITTORAL, it can reserve 0-4 elements to be placed together anywhere on an existing waterway edge (at least 2 touching it) as a 1 PIP group move in its 1st bound."

Can elements so "placed" also move after being placed for the original PiP or only if allowed subsequent moves?

"shoot" as in Sequence, is this "must" or "may" shoot?
"(3) Any Artillery, War Wagons or Bows elements of both sides that are eligible to do so, shoot once each in the order it decides and make or inflict outcome moves."

"hold" as in Big Battle, d
Demoralization. Can a line group be held for a single PIP, or does it need a PIP per element?

"Camelry" Is this include all camels? As in
"Psiloi. Destroyed by Knights, Cavalry or Camelry in going these count as good. If not, recoil."


"otherwise move across a battlefield edge " Does this include a pushed back element? Good to define "push back."

Define what happens when Elephant recoils into a Friendly elephant.

"its own original rear" As in
"A fleeing element recoils its own base depth, then turns 180 degrees and moves an additional full tactical move distance towards its original rear. "

Is this in the direction of the element's rear, or toward its original battlefield edge.

"ZOC"

That's a start

Jeff Franz
10-11-2010, 03:09 PM
Darn Bob, you have the whole book ready for cut and paste? I would be useful to have this digitally so I could quote as proficiently.

Cheers
Jeff

Susan Laflin-Barker
10-12-2010, 02:26 PM
I see I have at least one enthusiastic taker for the idea of a Glossary.

However space is limited - the best place is probably the inside back cover - and that will limit the number of items which can be included.

If the glossary were to be limited to about 12 definitions, which are the most important ones?

I think I might start with defining an ELEMENT BASE with its FRONT EDGE, BACK EDGE, SIDE EDGES and CENTRE/CENTER and then using these terms to define STRAIGHT FORWARD and STRAIGHT BACK.

e.g STRAIGHT FORWARD is the direction perpendicular to the front edge and away from the centre. (Think about it as a unit vector giving the direction).

How many people are interested in this idea ?

Sue.

Tony Aguilar
10-12-2010, 02:31 PM
As limited space seems to be an issue in maintaining a small rulebook, how about putting a link to where these definitions can be made available on the web...possibly say on the WRG site. In that way, any new ones can be added easily and more space can be added for army description and the like? I have managed to survive for 6 years of playing this game without a glossary, so I just don't see a need for it, especially when it would be very abbreviated if included.

Nik Gaukroger
10-12-2010, 03:00 PM
I will just post what I posted on the DBAlist.

"I think you would be better served by adding a few pages and doing it
properly - if anything a badly implemented glossary would be more annoying
than none at all. Is the book going to be so big that a few pages more can't
be added?"

David Schlanger
10-12-2010, 03:27 PM
I would love to see a glossary. However, I agree with Nik. Do it properly, or not at all. Please consider adding a few pages to allow it.

It would also be nice to see an index.

Thanks,
David Schlanger

Bob. (and his dog)
10-12-2010, 03:43 PM
Sue, excellent point about limited space. Better to have the text fully explained, with diagrams. Many words, and so pages, saved by pictures/diagrams. Please do not look to page limits as a reason to short change the players. People will pay for a complete set of rules, however many pages it takes. Use as many pages as necessary to make the glossary. Or put it on line, with permission to print it.

In the many thousands of posting on this site, there has not been one where people had trouble understanding the edges of an element. Yet there have been dozens of comments about the meaning of "to" in the rule
"An element directly in front of any part of an enemy element's front edge... can move only to contact."

The term "directly" is also confusing as how can an element be in front, if not directly in front. What does "directly" mean in this context.

Most items for a glossary can be dealt with, in the context of the rules themselves with
1. a full explanation of the terms
2. an example of the situation
3. a diagram showing the situation.

Of course, much of our discussion on a new edition is not directed at current players, but at the many new ones we hope to draw into the game. It would be great if new players did not have to look at a 70 page handbook to understand the 8 or so pages in the book.

I should mention that there has been confusion over one aspect of direction.
In the interpenetration rule, there is the phrase
"facing in exactly the same or exactly the opposite direction "
This has led some people to think that if two elements are side by side, one can pass through the other, because they are both facing in the same direction.

Pthomas
10-12-2010, 04:24 PM
As limited space seems to be an issue in maintaining a small rulebook, how about putting a link to where these definitions can be made available on the web...possibly say on the WRG site. In that way, any new ones can be added easily and more space can be added for army description and the like? I have managed to survive for 6 years of playing this game without a glossary, so I just don't see a need for it, especially when it would be very abbreviated if included.

Tony,

What an excellent suggestion! Such things as army descriptions, diagrams, expanded discussions of rules, strategies, etc. could all be put on the web, saving printing costs, but greatly expanding the value of the product.

To make it worthwhile to the authors, maybe an extra charge of $5 could be added to the book (or an up charge to get access to the site). The game is playable without the site, but there is a value add for getting access. The authors could then collect marketing information from registrants and start building a marketing database around their product(s).

Tom

Tony Aguilar
10-12-2010, 04:44 PM
Tony,

What an excellent suggestion! Such things as army descriptions, diagrams, expanded discussions of rules, strategies, etc. could all be put on the web, saving printing costs, but greatly expanding the value of the product.

Especially since there will be some unforeseen questions/diagrams that will be omitted and will cause further confusion as soon as the rules are published. Some questions still come up after playing the game 300+ times. Having it "online" would allow further clarification without the unnecessary publishing costs.

The Last Conformist
10-12-2010, 04:50 PM
A glossary couldn't hurt, but I don't find myself refering to the HOTT one with any frequency. If Phil is going to insist on minimizing the pagecount, more diagrams might be a better use of the page space.

(And I do think the rulebook should include explanatory diagrams. Webpages are all well and good, but I shouldn't need to carry a bunch of printouts for basic examples.)

pawsBill
10-12-2010, 05:49 PM
Yet there have been dozens of comments about the meaning of "to" in the rule
"An element directly in front of any part of an enemy element's front edge... can move only to contact."

"To contact" is the infinitive of the verb. How can the meaning be ambiguous?

Maharajah
10-12-2010, 06:22 PM
"To contact" is the infinitive of the verb. How can the meaning be ambiguous?
Your argument is conclusive for those who know infinitives (and verbs!). But the vast majority of rules arguments happen with people who will say things like, "But the laundromat is on the way to the mall", and can't see the difference.

Rich Gause
10-12-2010, 06:39 PM
The problem with "to contact" meaning "into contact" and not "towards contact" are the silly things that result from that interpretation much more so than what somebody thinks the words do or do not mean.

winterbadger
10-12-2010, 06:51 PM
"To contact" is the infinitive of the verb. How can the meaning be ambiguous?

"To contact" can be an infinitive. It can also be a prepositional phrase.

winterbadger
10-12-2010, 06:52 PM
The problem with "to contact" meaning "into contact" and not "towards contact" are the silly things that result from that interpretation much more so than what somebody thinks the words do or do not mean.

:??? Erm, "interpretation" is precisely "what somebody thinks the words do or do not mean".

Lobotomy
10-12-2010, 09:31 PM
"I don’t know what you mean by "glory,’" said Alice.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!"
"But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master – that’s all."
– Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass

Martyn
10-13-2010, 06:05 AM
Getting back to the original question.

I think that the aim should be to make the DBA book as clear and as understandable as reasonably possible. Include a glossary and diagrams. If there is a need for a few extra pages or if this increases the price by a few Pounds, Dollars or Euros so be it. People (even me) will be prepared to pay for a game that has greater clarity without having to refer to additional web sites or help lines.

After all the HoTT rule book runs to 80 pages including 30+ of rules, 30 of lists, 10 of diagrams, a glossary and an index. At what differnece in cost?

Tony Aguilar
10-13-2010, 08:11 AM
After all the HoTT rule book runs to 80 pages including 30+ of rules, 30 of lists, 10 of diagrams, a glossary and an index. At what differnece in cost?

You have a very good point there, Martyn.

ZenBoy
10-13-2010, 12:32 PM
If there is a need for a few extra pages or if this increases the price by a few Pounds, Dollars or Euros so be it. People (even me) will be prepared to pay for a game that has greater clarity without having to refer to additional web sites or help lines.



I would go so far as to say that nearly everyone that considers themselves an active DBA player would be willing to pay more for a rule set that had additional content and clarity

Richard Lee
10-14-2010, 04:15 AM
A glossary couldn't hurt, but I don't find myself refering to the HOTT one with any frequency.

Wow! You are right. HotT v2 has a glossary (page 4). I have had the the book and used it for years but never noticed it.

Lobotomy
10-14-2010, 07:16 PM
As opposed to a glossary, an alphabetical list of all the armies, with reference to the army number would be extremely helpful. Not everyone knows all the names and numbers as does DK.

Obadiah
12-21-2010, 07:03 AM
I just want to add my agreeance that a glossary would be helpful, especially to the new players.

I personally think a lot can be learnt from the HoTT rulebook.

Also I wanted to say "thanks for asking". :)

Bob. (and his dog)
12-21-2010, 11:38 AM
As opposed to a glossary, an alphabetical list of all the armies, with reference to the army number would be extremely helpful. Not everyone knows all the names and numbers as does DK.


Hey Lobo, here is a key word index of all armies. Almost an alphabetic list. If you know a word in the name, you can look up the full name and number

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/names.html

Redwilde
12-21-2010, 12:11 PM
The glossary is a a great idea.

Please do not limit the page count, explain everything as clearly as you can in as much space as is required.

Explaining everything fully rather than with as much brevity as possible is the biggest improvement that could be made to help new players, and veterans!

winterbadger
12-21-2010, 12:17 PM
A glossary might clarify the rules by spelling out some of the things that currently have to be deduced by textual analysis. That would be a good thing.

It could also, if not written carefully, contradict the rules themselves, or just add confusion. That would be a bad thing.

codekeyguy
12-21-2010, 03:00 PM
All this knowledgible talk of "to", "edge", infinitives, verbs, etc.
I STILL don't know what's wrong with "It was a dark and stormy night"...

Pthomas
12-22-2010, 10:18 AM
I STILL don't know what's wrong with "It was a dark and stormy night"...

Funny! I start all my books with: "It was a light and sunny day..."

Redwilde
12-22-2010, 11:15 AM
Actually, a lot of the problems with words like 'to' and 'towards' would be more easily fixed with more text in the actual rules. Which comes back to the basic structural issue -- please do not limit the page count for brevity's sake.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-22-2010, 11:22 AM
Actually, a lot of the problems with words like 'to' and 'towards' would be more easily fixed with more text in the actual rules. Which comes back to the basic structural issue -- please do not limit the page count for brevity's sake.


mega dittos on that! Imagine all the time saved over the years if we had either

"An element directly in front of any part enemy element's front edge or enemy-controlled BUA or camp at or closer than 1 base width distance with no other element even partially between, can move only INTO contact ..."

or

"An element directly in front of any part enemy element's front edge or enemy-controlled BUA or camp at or closer than 1 base width distance with no other element even partially between, can move only TOWARD contact ..."

And a diagram would really be nice.

El' Jocko
12-22-2010, 04:02 PM
mega dittos on that! Imagine all the time saved over the years if we had either

"An element directly in front of any part enemy element's front edge or enemy-controlled BUA or camp at or closer than 1 base width distance with no other element even partially between, can move only INTO contact ..."

or

"An element directly in front of any part enemy element's front edge or enemy-controlled BUA or camp at or closer than 1 base width distance with no other element even partially between, can move only TOWARD contact ..."

And a diagram would really be nice.

If only it were that easy. Everytime you nail down one rule, another clarification is required. In this case, if you go with the "INTO contact" wording, you have to decide what happens when a moving element first encounters an enemy ZOC, but doesn't have enought movement distance to complete the move into contact. Does it stop at the edge of ZOC? Or does it continue until the end of its movement distance and only fall under the "INTO contact" provision on its next move? Either of those are reasonable, but which will it be? Even small changes to the wording can open up all sorts of new questions.

- Jack

winterbadger
12-22-2010, 04:19 PM
Either of those are reasonable, but which will it be? Even small changes to the wording can open up all sorts of new questions.

Well, true, but we would be at least one step closer than we are now, given that some people still insist that "to" means "into".

Kontos
12-22-2010, 07:56 PM
Make it all simple. Allow a "charge" when in enemy ZOC. Problem solved. I think? :???

Frank

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 12:22 AM
Make it all simple. Allow a "charge" when in enemy ZOC. Problem solved. I think? :???



Solves nothing, Frank. Adds more complexity. Sorry.

Adding rules is rarely a path to simplifying things -- just as adding more rules is never a path towards reducing rules-lawyering.

Tony Aguilar
12-23-2010, 12:47 AM
Solves nothing, Frank. Adds more complexity. Sorry.

Adding rules is rarely a path to simplifying things -- just as adding more rules is never a path towards reducing rules-lawyering.

Hanging the lawyers IS a step in the right direction, however.

winterbadger
12-23-2010, 01:29 AM
Hanging the lawyers IS a step in the right direction, however.

Only if we can arrive at a definition of "rules lawyer" so we know who to hang. :rolleyes

The Last Conformist
12-23-2010, 02:20 AM
Hang 'em all! Phil will know his own. :silly

Kontos
12-23-2010, 09:41 AM
Only if we can arrive at a definition of "rules lawyer" so we know who to hang. :rolleyes
http://fanaticus.org/discussion/image.php?u=961&dateline=1291418570


:D

Frank

winterbadger
12-23-2010, 10:08 AM
http://fanaticus.org/discussion/image.php?u=961&dateline=1291418570


:D

Frank


I should have seen *that* coming! :D

El' Jocko
12-23-2010, 10:41 AM
http://fanaticus.org/discussion/image.php?u=961&dateline=1291418570


:D

Frank

Arghhh! It's like being rick-rolled, only worse!

Adamantius
12-31-2010, 05:51 PM
As opposed to a glossary, an alphabetical list of all the armies, with reference to the army number would be extremely helpful. Not everyone knows all the names and numbers as does DK.

I couldn't agree more. Finding an army by the year that it came into existence demands a level of historical knowledge that far exceeds the common man. An alphabetical list would be extremely helpful, starting with the most common name then broken out further (e.g. Roman, followed by a broken out list: Early Imperial, Late Imperial, Patrician, etc.). This would go a long way in helping new people.

Adamantius
12-31-2010, 06:00 PM
A glossary couldn't hurt, but I don't find myself refering to the HOTT one with any frequency. If Phil is going to insist on minimizing the pagecount, more diagrams might be a better use of the page space.

(And I do think the rulebook should include explanatory diagrams. Webpages are all well and good, but I shouldn't need to carry a bunch of printouts for basic examples.)

I agree. Websites have their place, but basic information that is necessary to playing the game correctly should be included in the book. There is a need for some diagrams and some terms in a glossary. Probably the biggest misunderstandings have already been identified in this forum. A word or two to clear those up, is enough.