PDA

View Full Version : DBA 3.0 Question - Valid Battlefield


john meunier
12-10-2011, 07:36 PM
I see on page 8 a reference to "valid battlefield," but I do not see the definition of a valid battlefield.

This came up because I was wondering what happened if random terrain placement (which I like) led to having no bad going or all of it in one quarter.

Is the "at least quarters" rule for bad going not in 3.0?

Bobgnar
12-10-2011, 11:08 PM
A valid battlefield is one that you get by following the creation rules :)

It's possible but not likely there is no bad going at all.

I did a recent game where defender put down a road and had 3 arable optional ones. He rolled a 2 and put gentle hill down in the center of the quarter. Next a 6 for a rough. I said to put it in same quarter. But did not fit. Next roll also 6 so I picked the same one again and no fit. Thus we ended up with a road and gentle hill. It takes multiple rolls of same number and big terrain in center of quarter to end with limited pieces on board.

Remember on a 6 The invader picks the quarter but the defender gets to place it, if there is room.

john meunier
12-10-2011, 11:17 PM
A valid battlefield is one that you get by following the creation rules :)

It's possible but not likely there is no bad going at all.



But, I don't see where a defender is required to even pick bad going as a type of terrain he dices to place. I may just be reading past it.

It looks to me like I could as the defender with an Arable army choose a Road and two gentle hills and not even dice for bad going. (On the good side, this gets rid of the silliness of the postage stamp terrain feature stuck in the corner.)

Or a Littoral defender could choose a Waterway and two roads.

I'm just trying to understand the differences.

Bobgnar
12-11-2011, 01:18 AM
Yes, defender can pick all not bad going. Arable could be three roads. Littoral could do a WW and 2 roads. Roads cannot end in WW, so if the quarter with WW comes up for both, you get two roads running parallel to WW.

Steppe gets Gentle Hill mandatory, and could pick River and BUA. If the hill is big and the BUA gets in the same quarter, then just Hill and River. If River in same quadrant as Hill, then cannot be placed either.

Other types have mandatory bad going so those would get in. I think the least possible terrain is one gentle hill for Steppe. It might be possible to have just one Bad Going with other types, if the same quarter comes up for all items.

It is still possible to have Bad Going, 1.5 BW square. Still quite small.

john meunier
12-11-2011, 01:58 PM
Yes, defender can pick all not bad going. Arable could be three roads. Littoral could do a WW and 2 roads. Roads cannot end in WW, so if the quarter with WW comes up for both, you get two roads running parallel to river.



Thank you for helping me. I thought I was reading it correctly, but you never know, especially since I'm reading it with 2.2 in my head.

Si2
12-11-2011, 08:12 PM
A valid battlefield is one that you get by following the creation rules :)

It's possible but not likely there is no bad going at all.

I did a recent game where defender put down a road and had 3 arable optional ones. He rolled a 2 and put gentle hill down in the center of the quarter. Next a 6 for a rough. I said to put it in same quarter. But did not fit. Next roll also 6 so I picked the same one again and no fit. Thus we ended up with a road and gentle hill. It takes multiple rolls of same number and big terrain in center of quarter to end with limited pieces on board.

Remember on a 6 The invader picks the quarter but the defender gets to place it, if there is room.

Bob
Why did you try the terrain again if it didn't fit the first time?

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 02:34 AM
By "same one" I meant the same quarter. The defender picks the actual terrain pieces and then one at a time rolls to see where they go.

I did not want much terrain, I had lots of mounted so when the roll was a 6 for for the 3rd piece of terrain -rough (first 3 were road, hill) I picked the same quarter as the hill. As the defender picks the actual piece to place on the table, I knew it would not fit where the hill was so I picked that quarter. Next roll was a 6 too, so for the woods I picked the same quarter. Board ended up with a road, and a gentle hill. It was valid.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 02:47 AM
Followed this discussion and also the discussion on terrain sizes. It strongly implies that optimal sizes are somewhere between 3 and 9 rather than 9.

Quartering the table at 300x300 and working with BW of 40 L+W=9 and L<=2W produces terrain with maximum size of 120x240. That seems obviously risky with the current rule as there is a high chance that at least one piece of terrain will not be placed.

It would appear that choosing mid-sized terrain is better in most cases if a player actually wants a lot of terrain on the board and that using all 5 terrain choices is better than using only 3 in that case. Choosing 5 large pieces seems likely to result in several being discarded.

Is that what others are getting?

Doug
12-12-2011, 08:53 AM
It would appear that choosing mid-sized terrain is better in most cases if a player actually wants a lot of terrain on the board and that using all 5 terrain choices is better than using only 3 in that case. Choosing 5 large pieces seems likely to result in several being discarded.

Is that what others are getting?

Yep - good spot Larry - people will pick it up but I expect there will be moans and confusion till people figure out some more optimal choices that aren't the same as 2.2.

Martin Smith
12-12-2011, 11:17 AM
On the Yahoo list, Si2 noted that the current wording of terrain size for area features has the smallest size being 'to fit INSIDE a 3 BW rectangle', which would still permit the 1BW circle. I assume this is an oversight / mis-wording, and the intent might be to specify a minimum area?
Maybe Bob could note this one for Mr B.?
Martin

larryessick
12-12-2011, 11:49 AM
On the Yahoo list, Si2 noted that the current wording of terrain size for area features has the smallest size being 'to fit INSIDE a 3 BW rectangle', which would still permit the 1BW circle. I assume this is an oversight / mis-wording, and the intent might be to specify a minimum area?
Maybe Bob could note this one for Mr B.?
Martin

Si is wrong.

The wording requires a L+W between 3 and 9. A 1BW circle has a L+W of 2. 2 is not between 3 and 9.

The smallest allowable terrain is a circle 1.5BW in diameter (L+W=3) and the largest is a rectangle 3BWx6BW (with marsh able to be 1x8).

Si fails to use the whole rule and to apply the word BETWEEN.

Edit:

Here is the thing with terrain, it must do two things. First, it must fit inside a rectangle of a defined size. Second, that defined size is a range of numbers.

Does a 1BW circle fit inside the rectangle? Yes is does.

Is the rectangle that defines a 1BW circle between 3 and 9 when L+W is calculated? No it isn't.

So, terrain smaller than 1.5BW circles is illegal with the rules as written because, even though they fit inside rectangles their L+W measure is not BETWEEN 3 and 9.

Both criteria have to be met, not just one of them.

Other examples include oval or rounded or rectangular terrain that is 1BW wide but less than 2BW long. Although they too fit within the rectangle the sums of their L+W is less than 3.

Martyn
12-12-2011, 12:44 PM
Si is wrong.

The wording requires a L+W between 3 and 9. A 1BW circle has a L+W of 2. 2 is not between 3 and 9.

The smallest allowable terrain is a circle 1.5BW in diameter (L+W=3) and the largest is a rectangle 3BWx6BW (with marsh able to be 1x8).

Si fails to use the whole rule and to apply the word BETWEEN.

Edit:

Here is the thing with terrain, it must do two things. First, it must fit inside a rectangle of a defined size. Second, that defined size is a range of numbers.

Does a 1BW circle fit inside the rectangle? Yes is does.

Is the rectangle that defines a 1BW circle between 3 and 9 when L+W is calculated? No it isn't.

So, terrain smaller than 1.5BW circles is illegal with the rules as written because, even though they fit inside rectangles their L+W measure is not BETWEEN 3 and 9.

Both criteria have to be met, not just one of them.

Other examples include oval or rounded or rectangular terrain that is 1BW wide but less than 2BW long. Although they too fit within the rectangle the sums of their L+W is less than 3.

For area terrain features the wording is

“They should vary in size, but each must each fit inside a rectangle, the length plus width of which totals between 3 and 9 element base widths.”

So does 1BW circle fit into a 9BW rectangle, yes.
Does it fit into a 3BW rectangle, yes.
The rule is not specific enough, we know what it means but that is not what it states. Perhaps a redraft that the terrain feature has to fit into a rectangle L+W = 9BW but it must not be too large to fit into a similar rectangle with a L+W = 3BW.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 01:48 PM
For area terrain features the wording is

“They should vary in size, but each must each fit inside a rectangle, the length plus width of which totals between 3 and 9 element base widths.”

So does 1BW circle fit into a 9BW rectangle, yes.
Does it fit into a 3BW rectangle, yes.
The rule is not specific enough, we know what it means but that is not what it states. Perhaps a redraft that the terrain feature has to fit into a rectangle L+W = 9BW but it must not be too large to fit into a similar rectangle with a L+W = 3BW.

Does its sum of L+W fall between 3 and 9? No.

Phil writes from a technical writing background. This means that the terrain must fit ALL criteria and not just some of it.

It isn't 3BW and 9BW. It is the sum of L+W must be between 3 and 9.

Look at the smallest rectangle able to contain the terrain piece. Sum its L and W. If the number is <3 or >9 then the terrain is illegal.

The rule is perfectly clear and specific enough.

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 01:56 PM
On the Yahoo list, Si2 noted that the current wording of terrain size for area features has the smallest size being 'to fit INSIDE a 3 BW rectangle', which would still permit the 1BW circle. I assume this is an oversight / mis-wording, and the intent might be to specify a minimum area?
Maybe Bob could note this one for Mr B.?
Martin

Martin, good observation. i had not read closely enough the 3 to 9 BW rectangle rule. I have not compared the 2.2 text with 3 and now see 2.2 was just a 9BW rectangle -- 4.5 by 4.5 perimeter.

I am confused by the circle. Do you mean a circle that is 1BW in diameter? That would have a perimeter of about 3.4BW. One half of the perimeter is only 1.7BW. I think the rule is to get terrain that has 1/2 perimeter (one Length + one Width) of at least 3BW.

But the question seems to be, why not just state the dimensions of the terrain piece instead of putting it in a rectangle. One half of the perimeter must be between 3BW and 9BW.

Am I missing something?

larryessick
12-12-2011, 02:20 PM
Martin, good observation. i had not read closely enough the 3 to 9 BW rectangle rule. I have not compared the 2.2 text with 3 and now see 2.2 was just a 9BW rectangle -- 4.5 by 4.5 perimeter.

I am confused by the circle. Do you mean a circle that is 1BW in diameter? That would have a perimeter of about 3.4BW. One half of the perimeter is only 1.7BW. I think the rule is to get terrain that has 1/2 perimeter (one Length + one Width) of at least 3BW.

But the question seems to be, why not just state the dimensions of the terrain piece instead of putting it in a rectangle. One half of the perimeter must be between 3BW and 9BW.

Am I missing something?

I think you are missing something, yes.

It isn't about perimeter. It is about size.

The 9>=L+W>=3 rule is designed to create a size (the space within those limits) that a terrain piece has to fill.

Again, and I really do not know how else to say this, you take the terrain piece and you draw the smallest possible rectangle that can contain it. Now you measure the length and width. If L+W is less than 3 or more than 9 then the terrain is illegal.

So, a 1BW circle is illegal but a 1.5BW circle is not.

Now, there are two added restrictions for all terrain. 1) No terrain can be narrower than 1BW. 2) Unless marsh no terrain can have L>2W.

So, if the smallest rectangle drawn around a woods is 1.7BW by 5.3BW then the terrain is illegal. 1.7+5.3=8 and 8 is between 3 and 9. But, 1.7*2=3.4 and 5.3 is bigger than 3.4. So the woods meets the rectangle size standard of between 3 and 9 but fails because L>2W.

You've indicated math and geometry aren't your strongest suit (when you posted that one quarter of a 2'x2' square was 6"x6") but this is still fairly basic math. I'm sure you actually do understand it.

john meunier
12-12-2011, 02:47 PM
Does its sum of L+W fall between 3 and 9? No.

Phil writes from a technical writing background. This means that the terrain must fit ALL criteria and not just some of it.

It isn't 3BW and 9BW. It is the sum of L+W must be between 3 and 9.

Look at the smallest rectangle able to contain the terrain piece. Sum its L and W. If the number is <3 or >9 then the terrain is illegal.

The rule is perfectly clear and specific enough.

But the plain language is that it must "fit inside" a rectangle.

It does not say the feature must itself have a L+W = 3 BW. It says it must fit inside a rectangle.

My shoe fits inside a box that is 3 feet long by 3 feet wide. It has lots of extra space around it, but it fits inside.

If Phil means that the terrain feature must itself measure 3 BW, he should rephrase the sentence.

Si2
12-12-2011, 02:51 PM
Si is wrong.

The wording requires a L+W between 3 and 9. A 1BW circle has a L+W of 2. 2 is not between 3 and 9.

The smallest allowable terrain is a circle 1.5BW in diameter (L+W=3) and the largest is a rectangle 3BWx6BW (with marsh able to be 1x8).

Si fails to use the whole rule and to apply the word BETWEEN.

Edit:

Here is the thing with terrain, it must do two things. First, it must fit inside a rectangle of a defined size. Second, that defined size is a range of numbers.
L
Does a 1BW circle fit inside the rectangle? Yes is does.

Is the rectangle that defines a 1BW circle between 3 and 9 when L+W is calculated? No it isn't.

So, terrain smaller than 1.5BW circles is illegal with the rules as written because, even though they fit inside rectangles their L+W measure is not BETWEEN 3 and 9.

Both criteria have to be met, not just one of them.

Other examples include oval or rounded or rectangular terrain that is 1BW wide but less than 2BW long. Although they too fit within the rectangle the sums of their L+W is less than 3.

Larry
You inferring a meaning that isn't there. The BW statement in this case refers specifically to a box the terrain piece must fit inside, not the terrain feature.
Bobs request was for illustrations where rules were unclear. Here's one.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 03:13 PM
Larry
You inferring a meaning that isn't there. The BW statement in this case refers specifically to a box the terrain piece must fit inside, not the terrain feature.
Bobs request was for illustrations where rules were unclear. Here's one.

Simon,

I think that the meaning is there and that you and others are inferring a meaning that isn't. Let's agree that I've been a bit overly antagonistic to opposing views and that our readings of it are different.

Bob's request is for illustrations and this is probably the best solution to this, particularly since words and explanations don't seem to be getting the job done.

I'm not sure that I can formulate a good drawing and also upload it so that it is viewed on the forums. That is why I've previously resorted to ASCII in efforts to draw things.

But, I don't think ASCII pictures will suffice.

I am confident that how I am presenting the rule is how Phil intends it. Let me see first if I can create a drawing to convey what I am trying to say and then if I can figure how to load it to the ether and display it here.

Larry

Si2
12-12-2011, 04:05 PM
My thoughts are that Phil is trying to define a smallest feature size.
He hasn't managed that yet. Using a maximum area to define a minimum size is not a good way to do that.
But I think as these are draft rules, that these additions are more note form than released prose.
Often the difficulty is trying to piece together what Phil wants and what would be obvious if he was sitting there telling you the correct form.

I'm going to go with pretty much what has been deduced here - that an ellipse of minor axis 1BW and major axis 2BW is what Phil is setting as the smallest non-marsh area terrain feature.
I'm sure he'll find a way to express that come publication if that is the case. If not then I'll cut some more carpet.

I think the 'curved edges' wording is possibly going to create a loophole for C shaped artillery redoubts made from Rough. Park one of these up against a board edge and pop artillery in it and you've got a veritable Atlantic wall.
I was a fan of the old 'roughly oval' myself...
I couldn't see why anyone would put up with a sausage shaped marsh on a board. The rough oval gave them a contention point, now it's gone.

With regard to responses, one should not always assume the calibre of your readers intellect, or judge them by it. Playing wargames is not the exclusive preserve of the intellectually elite. Designing a game with that in mind will naturally broaden it's appeal.

I will be parking the '3BW' debate until after I post the games report on Thursday.

I'm going to see if I can make my armies match the V3 lists now - thanks to those who assisted me!


Si2

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 07:16 PM
I did not mean to ask for Illustrations in the sense of pictures. I wanted examples of things that are unclear. This is a good one that I will report on.

Strange all through playing 12 years of Version 2 I thought the requirement was about Length plus Width of pieces, not size. Is size the same as area if it is not 1/2 of the perimeter (L +W )?

Martyn
12-12-2011, 07:16 PM
Does its sum of L+W fall between 3 and 9? No.

Phil writes from a technical writing background. This means that the terrain must fit ALL criteria and not just some of it.

It isn't 3BW and 9BW. It is the sum of L+W must be between 3 and 9.

Look at the smallest rectangle able to contain the terrain piece. Sum its L and W. If the number is <3 or >9 then the terrain is illegal.

The rule is perfectly clear and specific enough.

The problem is that the rule identifies the size of the rectangle not the terrain. The terrain is identified as needing to fit in that rectangle, what ever the size of the rectangle the terrain needs to fit within it.

Therefore it identifies a maximum size of terrain but not a minimum.

An experienced player may know what the rule is trying to say but for a newbie it is not clear. The rule needs to be made more specific, this is a case of un-necessary brevity creating an imprecise rule. It won't take much to be more specific if only the word/page count limitation is lifted.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 07:59 PM
I did not mean to ask for Illustrations in the sense of pictures. I wanted examples of things that are unclear. This is a good one that I will report on.

Strange all through playing 12 years of Version 2 I thought the requirement was about Length plus Width of pieces, not size. Is size the same as area if it is not 1/2 of the perimeter (L +W )?

Good because I'm really struggling with trying to draw a picture to illustrate what I've tried to explain.

I'm also struggling to find words to express my thoughts that convey my meaning without introducing added confusion.

I chose the word "size" because "area" gives the wrong idea. It isn't about defining terrain as occupying square centimeters of space. And, the L+W notation actually gets at what I think Phil is meaning best.

Unfortunately, it is math that best states what I think Phil's meaning is. And moving from that math to words is proving difficult.

Again, bullet points seems the best way to handle this (just as I think is best with the 0 PIPs first movement). I was under the impression that Phil was intent on avoiding bullet lists. So I expect that even though this is probably the best way to resolve the obvious issues it is not likely.

Area terrain must conform to all of the following:
It can be no smaller than 1BW wide and 2BW long.
If not marsh it can be no larger than 3BW wide and 6BW long.
If marsh it can be no longer than 8BW long.
It can at no point be narrower than 1BW wide.
If ploughed fields its shape must be square or rectangular.
If BUA its shape may by polygonal..If neither ploughed field nor BUA its shape must be roughly rectangular but with curved edges.

Please note that "square or rectangular" isn't really needed since all squares are rectangles -- rectangular would suffice. Also note that "roughly rectangular but with curved edges" is a wordy way of saying "oval."

larryessick
12-12-2011, 08:05 PM
Area terrain must conform to all of the following:
It can be no smaller than 1BW wide and 2BW long.

One more point.

As written now I think that Phil intends to allow a 1.5 diameter circle. So maybe the first bullet should actually read:

It can be no smaller than a square 1.5BW to a side or a rectangle 1BW wide and 2BW long

Similarly in the maximum size it might better read:

If not marsh it can be no larger than a square 4.5BW to a side or a rectangle 3BW wide and 6BW long

john meunier
12-12-2011, 08:14 PM
Larry, your bullet list is more clear than Phil's sentence. If he wants to say what you are saying, then I hope he adopts a similar manner of saying it.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 08:22 PM
Larry, your bullet list is more clear than Phil's sentence. If he wants to say what you are saying, then I hope he adopts a similar manner of saying it.

Thanks, but it still has issues.

The bullet on marsh isn't exactly accurate. It presumes 1BW wide. And I can't find an easy way to express all the options among 1.5x1.5, 1x up to 8, 3x6 and all the other permutations for marshes with starting widths between 1 and 3.

It also leaves out 4x5 which is permitted now for area features.

This is why I think Phil's current wording is actually best and what is incumbent on us is to decipher his meaning. And, it is why I keep mentioning the need for the L+W to be BETWEEN 3 and 9.

Alan Saunders
12-12-2011, 08:39 PM
Again, bullet points seems the best way to handle this (just as I think is best with the 0 PIPs first movement). I was under the impression that Phil was intent on avoiding bullet lists.

Which is a shame, as I think it's bulleted lists that have made HOTT 2.0 the model of relative clarity it is.

Wargames rules shouldn't be an exercise in reading skills. They are a computer program designed to be run through a human brain in order generate a tabletop game. Being concise should always take a back seat to clarity.

(To continue the program analogy, Phil's wording is a design specification. Larry's bullet-points are the implementation in code form. I'll take the latter over the former any day.)

Doug
12-13-2011, 12:06 AM
Larry, your bullet list is more clear than Phil's sentence. If he wants to say what you are saying, then I hope he adopts a similar manner of saying it.

Actually - I don't believe it is.. from that bulleted list.. what is the maximum size of a marsh?

larryessick
12-13-2011, 12:27 AM
Actually - I don't believe it is.. from that bulleted list.. what is the maximum size of a marsh?

Exactly my point a couple of posts up Doug. On the surface it seems clearer but it really does have issues.

I really don't see a better way to convey what Phil has written in a very concise, typically Phil Barker, way. It seems so absolutely clear and intuitive to me that I have had a hard time understanding how anyone can not understand it.

But, obviously they do.

What I am certain Phil means us to understand is that you take any piece of terrain. You measure its maximum length and maximum width. You add those. The total must be between 3 and 9 base widths in length.

I also think that Phil means us to understand that the ratio between length and width cannot be more that 2 to 1 unless the terrain is marsh.

While this is descriptive, I don't know how to write it as a rule.

Maybe,

An area feature is first measured on its length and width at their greatest points. The length and width are summed and must be between 3 and 9 base widths in total. It next compares the length to the width. Unless marsh the length cannot be more that double the width. It is lastly measured on its length and width at their narrowest points. At no point can either be less than 1 base width across except as made necessary by curved edges used to create a realistic appearance.

john meunier
12-13-2011, 12:29 AM
Actually - I don't believe it is.. from that bulleted list.. what is the maximum size of a marsh?

Don't you just need a bullet that says the length plus width of an area feature cannot exceed 9 BW?

larryessick
12-13-2011, 12:41 AM
An area feature is first measured on its length and width at their greatest points. The length and width are summed and must be between 3 and 9 base widths in total. It next compares the length to the width. Unless marsh the length cannot be more that double the width. It is lastly measured on its length and width at their narrowest points. At no point can either be less than 1 base width across except as made necessary by curved edges used to create a realistic appearance.

Note that other things about square/rectangular fields, polygonal BUAs and curved edges for remaining terrain can be left as they are -- although personally I'd prefer the curved edges thingy to go back to roughly oval as I agree some fiddly terrain will show at comps.

OTOH, instead of organizers doing away with DBEs and similar maybe they could just address the fiddly terrain.... :D

larryessick
12-13-2011, 12:44 AM
Don't you just need a bullet that says the length plus width of an area feature cannot exceed 9 BW?

If I had thought that would fix it I would have included it. But see my post about 3 or 4 up from this. There are other size issues that should be allowed but wouldn't with the bullet list I initially put out there.

I guess I'm trying to illustrate that writing a rule that is clear in every possible way is darned hard to do.

I do sort of like my latest suggestion though as I think it captures what Phil was trying to convey and doesn't leave anything out.

Of course, that means I'm entirely wrong.... :)

Doug
12-13-2011, 01:11 AM
I believe the intention was:

Shape
All area terrain other than BUA should be 'realistically' shaped with curved rather than straight edges. Umpires should remove or replace any terrain that is clearly designed to confer some advantage by reason of an unusual shape, such as a 'U' shaped patch of bad going, or an exceptionally, long and narrow marsh.

Size
Terrain is measured in base widths, (BW) and the total of width added to length must not be less than 3 BW or greater than 9 BW. All area terrain other than marsh must be at least 1 BW wide for its entire length. In practice this means the smallest area terrain piece would be just over 1.5 by 1.5 BW in size, the largest, just under 3 x 3 BW. (The approximation is to allow for the curves).

larryessick
12-13-2011, 01:14 AM
I believe the intention was:

Shape
All area terrain other than BUA should be 'realistically' shaped with curved rather than straight edges. Umpires should remove or replace any terrain that is clearly designed to confer some advantage by reason of an unusual shape, such as a 'U' shaped patch of bad going, or an exceptionally, long and narrow marsh.

Size
Terrain is measured in base widths, (BW) and the total of width added to length must not be less than 3 BW or greater than 9 BW. All area terrain other than marsh must be at least 1 BW wide for its entire length. In practice this means the smallest area terrain piece would be just over 1.5 by 1.5 BW in size, the largest, just under 3 x 3 BW. (The approximation is to allow for the curves).

You mean "just under 3 x 6 BW" don't you?

And, marsh can be 1 x 8 as the L<=2W rule doesn't apply. ;)

Doug
12-13-2011, 01:32 AM
You mean "just under 3 x 6 BW" don't you?

And, marsh can be 1 x 8 as the L<=2W rule doesn't apply. ;)

Actually, 4.5 x 4.5 is (If I recall my high school geometry) the largest area. And I need to go back to the text to paraphrase it.

Martyn
12-13-2011, 04:59 AM
I don’t have a problem with the general wording of the area terrain feature size rules, it is just the lack of clarity. Certainly bullet points would help in that.

Having had the night to mull this over the thought occurred that to describe the terrain as follows;

“They should vary in size, but each must inscribe a rectangle, the length plus width of which totals between 3 and 9 element base widths.”

(my alteration highlighted) should solve the problem.

This would mean that the oval terrain has to be contained within but must touch all four sides of the rectangle, therefore this identifies a minimum size as well as the maximum. I am not a fan of using more technical phrases, rules work best in every day language, but it does give a definitive meaning.

Doug
12-13-2011, 05:57 AM
I don’t have a problem with the general wording of the area terrain feature size rules, it is just the lack of clarity. Certainly bullet points would help in that.

Having had the night to mull this over the thought occurred that to describe the terrain as follows;

“They should vary in size, but each must inscribe a rectangle, the length plus width of which totals between 3 and 9 element base widths.”

(my alteration highlighted) should solve the problem.

This would mean that the oval terrain has to be contained within but must touch all four sides of the rectangle, therefore this identifies a minimum size as well as the maximum. I am not a fan of using more technical phrases, rules work best in every day language, but it does give a definitive meaning.

Sorry, but Inscribe for me means 'limn', 'outline', 'carve in an unyielding surface' - doesn't help with clarity for me.

Martyn
12-13-2011, 06:23 AM
Sorry, but Inscribe for me means 'limn', 'outline', 'carve in an unyielding surface' - doesn't help with clarity for me.

Yes it does, but it also has a geometric meaning.

Therein lies my concern about using a phrase that is not in common usage. It may be precise but is self defeating if nobody understands it without reference to a dictionary.

larryessick
12-13-2011, 08:39 AM
Yes it does, but it also has a geometric meaning.

Therein lies my concern about using a phrase that is not in common usage. It may be precise but is self defeating if nobody understands it without reference to a dictionary.

Martyn,

Your solution would work for me. Obviously it has problems for the reasons identified. OTOH, Phil's current wording is so similar to usage where I am that it had no lack of clarity as it is.

At some point we need to ask if it is really necessary to write so that anyone can understand. It might be a lofty goal but it is unlikely to be realized. Consequently, using geometric terminology to describe a geometry issue seems appropriate.

kontos
12-13-2011, 08:48 AM
Martyn,

Your solution would work for me. Obviously it has problems for the reasons identified. OTOH, Phil's current wording is so similar to usage where I am that it had no lack of clarity as it is.

At some point we need to ask if it is really necessary to write so that anyone can understand. It might be a lofty goal but it is unlikely to be realized. Consequently, using geometric terminology to describe a geometry issue seems appropriate.

Since DBA has been touted as an introductory game, or a simple game, one would think younger players would be the emerging market and future of DBA. Do you think the average 14 year old could decipher these rules as written? Personally I think they would not and ask for a refund.

larryessick
12-13-2011, 08:50 AM
Actually, 4.5 x 4.5 is (If I recall my high school geometry) the largest area. And I need to go back to the text to paraphrase it.

Well, I think this illustrates a common problem in trying to understand the terrain rules.

From a math stand point the 3x6 rectangle has 18 square base-widths area. The 4.5x4.5 square has 20.25 square base-widths area. And, the 1x8 rectangle has 8 square base-widths area.

But, the rule isn't about how much area is permitted. It is about how much perimeter is permitted. And, in all of these examples the perimeter is the same -- 18 base widths total.

To describe this mathematically it is only necessary to describe one width and one length measurement. Thus, length plus width between 3 and 9 base widths is sufficient.

Any suggested rewording in an attempt at improved clarity must fit this very basic way of describing the rectangle's perimeter.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 09:00 PM
Seems to me that Phil has split his two paragraphs in the wrong place. But WHAT it says seems perfectly clear to me. Why do people demand that it be expressed in terms of maximum & minimum sizes or perimeters? The "equations" aren't really so hard, are they? Isn't it actually that the poor formatting makes it hard to glean all the information needed?


DRAFT PG 6

AREA TERRAIN FEATURES include Difficult (steep and/or rocky, thickly scrubbed or wooded) Hills, Gentle Hills, Woods, Marsh, Rough, Dunes, Oasis, and also BUA. They should vary in size, but each must each fit inside a rectangle, the length plus width of which totals between 3 and 9 element base widths.


Unless the feature is Marsh, the rectangle’s length must not exceed twice the width. Features cannot be less than 1 element base width across in any direction measured through the centre. BUA can be polygonal and ploughed fields must be square or rectangular; otherwise all features must have curved edges. There must be a gap of at least 1 BW between area features and between an area feature other than a BUA and a battlefield edge.

***

SHOULD BE:

AREA TERRAIN FEATURES include Difficult (steep and/or rocky, thickly scrubbed or wooded) Hills, Gentle Hills, Woods, Marsh, Rough, Dunes, Oasis, and also BUA.

They should vary in size, but each must each fit inside a rectangle, the length plus width of which totals between 3 and 9 element base widths. Unless the feature is Marsh, the rectangle’s length must not exceed twice the width. Features cannot be less than 1 element base width across in any direction measured through the centre.

SHAPE: BUA can be polygonal and ploughed fields must be square or rectangular; otherwise all features must have curved edges.

There must be a gap of at least 1 BW between area features and between an area feature other than a BUA and a battlefield edge.

Doug
12-25-2011, 09:19 PM
SHOULD BE:

AREA TERRAIN FEATURES include Difficult (steep and/or rocky, thickly scrubbed or wooded) Hills, Gentle Hills, Woods, Marsh, Rough, Dunes, Oasis, and also BUA.

They should vary in size, but each must each fit inside a rectangle, the length plus width of which totals between 3 and 9 element base widths. Unless the feature is Marsh, the rectangle’s length must not exceed twice the width. Features cannot be less than 1 element base width across in any direction measured through the centre.

SHAPE: BUA can be polygonal and ploughed fields must be square or rectangular; otherwise all features must have curved edges.

There must be a gap of at least 1 BW between area features and between an area feature other than a BUA and a battlefield edge.

Except the intent was to make the smallest piece be at least three base widths L & W. But it doesn't. Under this, the smallest piece is 1 BW x 1 BW.

larryessick
12-25-2011, 09:33 PM
SHOULD BE:

Except that it should NOT be as what you've written is not the intent of the rule nor even what the rule means as presently written. You've conveniently avoided quoting relevant parts of the rule. And, I notice you have failed to reference DBMM where it must be more clearly written, if only we'd read it. :rotfl

Pillager
12-25-2011, 10:40 PM
>Except the intent was to make the smallest piece be at least three base widths L & W. But it doesn't. Under this, the smallest piece is 1 BW x 1 BW.
>

Fine; as you are one of the UnHoly Dozen you can reveal that intention with authority. OTOH I haven't found anyplace where you have done so previously.

Isn't the fix simply to say:

Features cannot be less than 3 element base widths across in each of length & width measured through the centre.

***

DBMM does terrain differently. I didn't say DBA was a miniature carbon copy.

Doug
12-25-2011, 11:14 PM
>Except the intent was to make the smallest piece be at least three base widths L & W. But it doesn't. Under this, the smallest piece is 1 BW x 1 BW.
>

Fine; as you are one of the UnHoly Dozen you can reveal that intention with authority. OTOH I haven't found anyplace where you have done so previously.

Isn't the fix simply to say:

Features cannot be less than 3 element base widths across in each of length & width measured through the centre.

***

DBMM does terrain differently. I didn't say DBA was a miniature carbon copy.

I revealed it several times. You clearly just haven't looked. And aren't you contradicting yourself? According to you, to understand DBA you have to read DBMM.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 11:38 PM
> You clearly just haven't looked.

Well Exuuuuuzzzz me for not wading thru every single megabyte of ****e on the site to find a kernal of useful information.

You have also added to the bytes of [DELETED] by trolling instead of simply answering my rules question:

Isn't the fix simply to say:

Features cannot be less than 3 element base widths across in each of length & width measured through the centre.

Doug
12-26-2011, 12:16 AM
> You clearly just haven't looked.

Well Exuuuuuzzzz me for not wading thru every single megabyte of ****e on the site to find a kernal of useful information.

You have also added to the bytes of ****e by trolling instead of simply answering my rules question:

Isn't the fix simply to say:

Features cannot be less than 3 element base widths across in each of length & width measured through the centre.

No. Doesn't work, as what you have written is confusing and suggests the minimum size is 3 BW x 3 BW. Which is incorrect. And you are clearly the troll around here.. have a look at what motive anyone would have for starting a thread called:

"3.0 is a plot to sell copies of DBMM"

And of course you wouldn't use your real name.

Pillager
12-26-2011, 07:59 PM
I NEVER reveal my identity on the Net. I already have a special secret code for filing my taxes, and on paper, because of identity theft. It took a couple years to get straight.

Conceptually, there are many good reasons for privacy. Avoiding violent ex-spouses, or who want to steal the children in violation of a custody agreement. People who work for Government agencies in sensitive positions where foreign powers would like to create dossiers on them. Lots of military people are wargamers. Etc.

A significant number of people on Fanaticus really do seem to be angry paranoids & Luddites. I suppose they realize that they should have been involved in the multi-year development of DBMM in order to avoid having those concepts which they fear inserted into DBA, and need to take out their frustrations.

3.0 is evolving DBA into the better game mechanisms of DBMM.

The DBA arguments about whether Blades should have to pursue, or who does a QK to what stem from having to choose one style of fighting troop as the model. In DBMM some Blade pursue and some do not; depending on a more detailed historical recognition. If you don't want to deal with Superior, Ordinary, Inferior, etc classes than all that is left is to whine & moan about how DBA didn't pick the type of Blade you favor as its model. Pissing in the wind !!! Suck it up & get over it.

Doug
12-26-2011, 10:13 PM
I NEVER reveal my identity on the Net. I already have a special secret code for filing my taxes, and on paper, because of identity theft. It took a couple years to get straight.

Ha - you sound exactly like an extremely unpleasant character who showed up a couple of years back on various lists and insisted that they never revealed even a first name because of 'identity theft' and he was a complete idiot.

I still say you are a sock puppet who is deliberately stirring people up by trolling nonsense about DBMM. And now you are on my ignore list, so troll away.

dicemanrick
12-26-2011, 11:08 PM
I NEVER reveal my identity on the Net. I already have a special secret code for filing my taxes, and on paper, because of identity theft. It took a couple years to get straight.

Conceptually, there are many good reasons for privacy. Avoiding violent ex-spouses, or who want to steal the children in violation of a custody agreement. People who work for Government agencies in sensitive positions where foreign powers would like to create dossiers on them. Lots of military people are wargamers. Etc.

A significant number of people on Fanaticus really do seem to be angry paranoids & Luddites. I suppose they realize that they should have been involved in the multi-year development of DBMM in order to avoid having those concepts which they fear inserted into DBA, and need to take out their frustrations.

3.0 is evolving DBA into the better game mechanisms of DBMM.

The DBA arguments about whether Blades should have to pursue, or who does a QK to what stem from having to choose one style of fighting troop as the model. In DBMM some Blade pursue and some do not; depending on a more detailed historical recognition. If you don't want to deal with Superior, Ordinary, Inferior, etc classes than all that is left is to whine & moan about how DBA didn't pick the type of Blade you favor as its model. Pissing in the wind !!! Suck it up & get over it.

Wow, I just ignored some idiot who we don't know and is obsessed with DBMM (THAT NOONE IN THE US PLAYS!!!!!) bur persists in trolling on the DBA list......

Bye!!!:D

platypus01
12-27-2011, 02:27 AM
"is obsessed with DBMM"

We don't know that. IMO he doesn't play DBMM at all and is just making trouble. And with regard, people do play it in the USA. Just not a lot of people. No point dissing people just because they don't have the same tastes in rules.

And IMO, a "valid" battlefield is one where the rules have been followed. I think better wording may be "places terrain of those types allowed to its army as instructed on p6".

JohnG

dicemanrick
12-27-2011, 11:52 AM
Sorry, John...you are right. I was pissed at the idiot and it showed when I typed. DBMM has a small following in the US (actually I bought a copy recently and have actually played a few games with the local guys...and we like the rules!)

I should have said no one plays it in tournaments in the big East conventions.

Mea culpa, DBMMers....:D

Rong
12-27-2011, 02:09 PM
Heretic, jagoff, syncopath, oh it's you Rich. Never mind. :rotfl For a minute there, I was channeling Larry!!!:rotfl:rotfl

Doug
12-27-2011, 07:31 PM
Heretic, jagoff, syncopath, oh it's you Rich. Never mind. :rotfl For a minute there, I was channeling Larry!!!:rotfl:rotfl

I was sooo hoping he was unique!:D

Pillager
12-28-2011, 11:08 AM
Wow, I just ignored some idiot who we don't know


See a physician about your xenophobia. Or are you part of the Fanaticus Hooded Vigilante Brigade?

El' Jocko
12-28-2011, 12:11 PM
See a physician about your xenophobia. Or are you part of the Fanaticus Hooded Vigilante Brigade?

First rule of the Fanaticus Hooded Vigilante Brigade:

Never admit to membership in the Fanaticus Hooded Vigilante Brigade.

broadsword
01-04-2012, 10:16 PM
There's a Fanaticus Hooded Vigilante Brigade? Seriously? Damn, I gotta join me up with them ole boys! I'll bring the doughnuts and the kerosene!:silly

kontos
01-04-2012, 10:26 PM
There's a Fanaticus Hooded Vigilante Brigade? Seriously? Damn, I gotta join me up with them ole boys! I'll bring the doughnuts and the kerosene!:silly

Is that how bad your coffee is? :D