PDA

View Full Version : 0 PIP first movement outside a road?


Xavi
12-12-2011, 04:21 PM
Hi there!

This sentence is causing some division of opinions in Laarmada.info

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction. Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP.

Does this mean that
a) the first movement by a single element is free, regardless of what it does
b) it is only free if the single element moves along the road.

It is clear to everybody that the 0pip move by the column must be along the road.

Which option is correct?


Cheers,
Xavi

kontos
12-12-2011, 04:23 PM
Many have tried.
Tried and failed?
Tried and died...

...understanding Barkerese. MY, and only my, interpretation of the sentence structure is that it applies to road movement only. ;)

larryessick
12-12-2011, 05:22 PM
Here is a good example of where my reading comprehension could easily be called into question.

There are two ways to read the sentence. One is that the parts on each side of the OR are separate entirely. The other is that they are each connected to the part starting with "the leading element".

My American English tells me that it should be the first of these. My experience with Phil Barker tells me it is probably the second and that this is probably his intent.

It would be better written using bullet points.

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if both of the following apply:
It is by a single element only or by a single element wide column.
The move is the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction.


Edit: Note that single element wide column is necessary and presently inferred because roads are, by definition, less than a base width wide and capable of supporting only single wide columns or single elements.

winterbadger
12-12-2011, 05:57 PM
I think it means that if the first move of a bound is an element or column moving forward on and only on a road as far as it is allowed to go, that move costs 0 pips.

Chris Brantley
12-12-2011, 06:52 PM
I agree with WB's reading...you can only do it once per bound..and it has to be your first tactical move (to get the 0 PIP dispensation).

One other little tricky bit...the single element (or the lead element) pretty much has to start on the road in order for the "leading element" to move "entirely by road"...whereas trailing elements in a kinked column could start off-road with the rule as drafted. Not sure if that was Phil's intent..but that's how I would read it.

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 07:04 PM
The "single element" was added since Fall in. Prior to that it was
"The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a group in a single element wide column and its leading element moves the full distance possible and entirely by road. Each other single element or group tactical move uses up 1 PIP. "

This was changed just a couple of weeks ago, at request of some of the Stalwarts to be
"The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction. Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP. "

So not much time for anyone to discuss this, but I am sure the intent was to allow a single element on a road to get the PIP free move. Now that no element gets a bonus for a road move, this was a good change.

Excellent question to ask is if this new rule means the whole column moves on the road. It is not crystal clear to me and I want everything to be Waterford :)

The "as far as it can go" was added when I asked what happens if the column runs into an enemy .

Xavi
12-12-2011, 07:08 PM
Bob, this would be a perfect example of what you asked for: a case where the rule is not clear and could be better written. :) The whole rulebook could be better written, but I guess we can only hope for a few conjunctions to be added sparsely. ;)

Cheers,
Xavi

Lydia
12-14-2011, 07:41 AM
Bob, this would be a perfect example of what you asked for: a case where the rule is not clear and could be better written. :) The whole rulebook could be better written, but I guess we can only hope for a few conjunctions to be added sparsely. ;)

Cheers,
Xavi

It is clear Xavi. It clearly states that the first tactical move of a bound would cost 0 PIPs for a single element, (with no conditions), or for a column if it meets various conditions. It's just that PB was trying to impose the conditions on single elements and columns, it seems!

Xavi
12-14-2011, 07:50 AM
I suppose you are being cheeky, Stephen? :)

But yes, the sentence is really badly worded since it can be interpreted both ways depending on what meaning you give to the "or" word.

Xavi

winterbadger
12-14-2011, 09:06 AM
It is clear Xavi.

Yes, indeed. Clear as mud. :D

Rich Gause
12-14-2011, 11:53 AM
It is clear Xavi. It clearly states that the first tactical move of a bound would cost 0 PIPs for a single element, (with no conditions), or for a column if it meets various conditions. It's just that PB was trying to impose the conditions on single elements and columns, it seems!

I agree. As written the first move of a single element is 0 pips on a road or off. That could be to make sure that a player who lost his general gets to make at least one move or it could be because it is poorly written and doesn't match the authors intent.

bobbarnetson
12-14-2011, 12:00 PM
This was my first interpretation as well (no restriction on the single element) but I think the more sensible interpretation is that the road movement condition ought to apply in both cases. A simple bit of rewording could clarify. Hopefully this pre-release will identify the majority of these issues and result in clarification before publication.

pozanias
12-14-2011, 01:38 PM
This was my first interpretation as well (no restriction on the single element) but I think the more sensible interpretation is that the road movement condition ought to apply in both cases. A simple bit of rewording could clarify. Hopefully this pre-release will identify the majority of these issues and result in clarification before publication.

I agree with this.

If I were reading this rule in a vaccum, I would interpret that the single element could make any type of move for free. But I also accept that the sentence could be interpreted to mean the single element move must be on a road -- and my guess is that this latter interpretation is the author's intent.

larryessick
12-14-2011, 02:31 PM
There is a problem if the first move by single elements off road is zero PIPs.

We never, ever, need PIPs for anything in the game unless an element moves less than the greatest distance available to it or makes a second or subsequent move.

Every group is formed ad hoc and exists only for the moment and is defined by the bounding player. Even elements that look like a group are not a group unless the bounding player causes them to be a group.

A player could just make 12 separate moves for 0 PIPs each.

Rich Gause
12-14-2011, 02:53 PM
There is a problem if the first move by single elements off road is zero PIPs.

We never, ever, need PIPs for anything in the game unless an element moves less than the greatest distance available to it or makes a second or subsequent move.

Every group is formed ad hoc and exists only for the moment and is defined by the bounding player. Even elements that look like a group are not a group unless the bounding player causes them to be a group.

A player could just make 12 separate moves for 0 PIPs each.

The rule is "The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column the leading element of which
moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction. Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP."

It clearly does not allow every element to make its first move for free and nobody was suggesting that it did as far as I know. It also is very poorly written if the intent is that the 0 pip single element move must be on a road.

If the intent was that the single element is restricted to road why not use a sentence that more clearly expresses that intent like this for example:

"The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if the single element or element leading a single element wide column moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction. Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP"

When reading game rules I prefer to interpret them that the author means excatly what he wrote, he does have complete control of what is printed on the paper.

elsyr
12-14-2011, 03:13 PM
This is, I think, a classic example of why Barker-ese is difficult; he often writes in what might as well be computer code, but he's far too chincy with his parens. ;) As a result, following a strict logical interpretation, you get a result that is almost certainly NOT what was intended.

Doug

pozanias
12-14-2011, 03:35 PM
There is a problem if the first move by single elements off road is zero PIPs.

We never, ever, need PIPs for anything in the game unless an element moves less than the greatest distance available to it or makes a second or subsequent move.

Every group is formed ad hoc and exists only for the moment and is defined by the bounding player. Even elements that look like a group are not a group unless the bounding player causes them to be a group.

A player could just make 12 separate moves for 0 PIPs each.

I would take "the first move" as meaning the first element moved. Not the first move of each element that bound. So at most, only one element (or one column) would get the benefit each bound.

larryessick
12-14-2011, 04:29 PM
I would take "the first move" as meaning the first element moved. Not the first move of each element that bound. So at most, only one element (or one column) would get the benefit each bound.

That is a good interpretation.

I had read it as applying separately to each element rather than cumulatively to all moves in a bound.

If it is as you read it then it is somewhat of a moot point whether the single element move is on or off road. The impact on the game is minimal and it just enables a reduced cost move somewhere on the board.

If it is as I read it then it is a nightmare if any movement by single elements anywhere is what is being allowed.

pozanias
12-14-2011, 04:41 PM
Well, to be clear, I think the intent of the rule is to allow the first move on a road for each element or column to be free.

But, if the intent of the rule is to allow a single element to get a free move anywhere on the board (not just a road), then the "first" move must apply to the first element moved --- or else, as you say, the rule would be broken.

The bottom line, though, is that this rule is terribly worded and full of possible misinterpreations. Ironically, though, I actually like the idea of one free road move.

kontos
12-14-2011, 04:45 PM
Well, to be clear, I think the intent of the rule is to allow the first move on a road for each element or column to be free.

But, if the intent of the rule is to allow a single element to get a free move anywhere on the board (not just a road), then the "first" move must apply to the first element moved --- or else, as you say, the rule would be broken.

The bottom line, though, is that this rule is terribly worded and full of possible misinterpreations. Ironically, though, I actually like the idea of one free road move.

I'm amazed that all of us have higher education and the author, as it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, has a high degree of education and the simplest of rules cannot be communicated or understood as written. It shows there is a difference between education and intelligence. An intelligent person would write something so as to be clear to the majority of those intended to read it. Its called effective communication and requires education and intelligence. ;)

larryessick
12-14-2011, 05:04 PM
I'm amazed that all of us have higher education and the author, as it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, has a high degree of education and the simplest of rules cannot be communicated or understood as written.

Frank,

I think you understate the generational differences and the resulting differences in expectations and world views. Understate is my effort to politely say that you ignore them entirely. ;)

Part of understanding Phil Barker is to understand that he is a product of his times. All of us are. But what was considered the norm in each era is a constantly changing thing. And, the influences of our environments are also vastly different.

Having the same expectations of a person born in the 1930's as we do of one born in the 1950's -- or 60's or 70's or 90's -- may seem fair and equitable but it doesn't work in the real world. At least it doesn't work in the world I live in. (I find it hard to resist the DBM list references to LarryWorld....)

Larry

Xavi
12-14-2011, 05:15 PM
FYI, I gave the document to my cousin. He is 12. His mother is English. he knows how to play DBA but has never read the official rulebook.

He could not understand the new version of the rulebook

Xavi

pozanias
12-14-2011, 05:26 PM
I'm amazed that all of us have higher education and the author, as it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, has a high degree of education and the simplest of rules cannot be communicated or understood as written. It shows there is a difference between education and intelligence. An intelligent person would write something so as to be clear to the majority of those intended to read it. Its called effective communication and requires education and intelligence. ;)

I would not call Phil unintelligent. Many bright people are not effective communicators. IMO, he is a very smart guy that writes in a way that he thinks is clear. He either doesn't care that the rest of us disagree, or he's incapable of writing any clearer. I'm not sure which it is.

kontos
12-14-2011, 05:29 PM
Frank,

I think you understate the generational differences and the resulting differences in expectations and world views. Understate is my effort to politely say that you ignore them entirely. ;)

Part of understanding Phil Barker is to understand that he is a product of his times. All of us are. But what was considered the norm in each era is a constantly changing thing. And, the influences of our environments are also vastly different.

Having the same expectations of a person born in the 1930's as we do of one born in the 1950's -- or 60's or 70's or 90's -- may seem fair and equitable but it doesn't work in the real world. At least it doesn't work in the world I live in. (I find it hard to resist the DBM list references to LarryWorld....)

Larry

As usual, Larry, you are going off on a tangent. We have come from Phil having such a high degree of education and it is the lack of reading comprehension by his audience that is the problem, not the writing style, to this statement which now infers the audience is insensitive? I have gotten older too. We all do. We have all asked that Phil write in a style for the contemporary audience and he refuses. An intelligent person would consider this or send his draft to an editor who is in touch with modern times and communicate his ideas effectively. And in some cases, DRAW A DIAGRAM!

Please do not get insulted but I find your manner of communication tiresome. I don't come here to play mind games. I don't come here to debate the ills of the world or how the lack of an immigration policy has adversely affected the reading comprehesion levels in the U.S. I come here to share primarily DBA related ideas, experiences, modelling, painting, etc. I also ask questions. Most posters actually attempt to answer those questions to the best of their ability. I try to return that favor. You, in my opinion, not so much.

No Response Required or solicited.

kontos
12-14-2011, 06:44 PM
Frank,

I think you understate the generational differences and the resulting differences in expectations and world views. Understate is my effort to politely say that you ignore them entirely. ;)

Larry

And don't think I've forgotten about this insult. I chose to ignore it up to now but your confrontational, bossy, opinionated, full of your usual hot air PM made me think otherwise. My usual response to people like you is to carry a lot of pain killers. A big head causes severe neck strain.

(You can ban me now, Chris.) ;)

Lobotomy
12-14-2011, 09:35 PM
And don't think I've forgotten about this insult. I chose to ignore it up to now but your confrontational, bossy, opinionated, full of your usual hot air PM made me think otherwise. My usual response to people like you is to carry a lot of pain killers. A big head causes severe neck strain.

(You can ban me now, Chris.) ;)

And I always thought it was you who provided the neck strain for the rest of us. :silly Or is that in our ass? :D

Gascap
12-14-2011, 09:53 PM
And I always thought it was you who provided the neck strain for the rest of us. :silly Or is that in our ass? :D

Wait. ... ... What?

I knew you and Frank were buds, but why is he causing you strain in your ass?

I think you may have played one too many games with Greeks... ;)

http://larry5154.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jerry-and-george.jpg

JM

Dangun
12-15-2011, 01:03 AM
The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction. Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP

This sentence clearly fails mathematically.

Its basically a simple example of Boolean algebra.
He has written "if A OR B AND C," and so he just failed maths.

The sentence we want is an follows axiomatically (distributivity) IF barker put in the correct commas or brackets.
If he had written "if (A OR B) AND C," it naturally expands to "if (A AND C) or (B AND C)."

So he NEEDS a comma or bracket after the "if" and after the "possible."

Cheers
Dangun

Lobotomy
12-15-2011, 08:45 PM
Wait. ... ... What?

I knew you and Frank were buds, but why is he causing you strain in your ass?

I think you may have played one too many games with Greeks... ;)

JM

Subtlety was always lost on you. :cool

Bob Santamaria
12-17-2011, 12:47 AM
As written presently the requirement that it be on a road does not govern the whole thing. If the requirement is that it be on a road, the rule needs to be recast entirely.

larryessick
12-17-2011, 01:17 AM
The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction. Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP

This sentence clearly fails mathematically.

Its basically a simple example of Boolean algebra.
He has written "if A OR B AND C," and so he just failed maths.

The sentence we want is an follows axiomatically (distributivity) IF barker put in the correct commas or brackets.
If he had written "if (A OR B) AND C," it naturally expands to "if (A AND C) or (B AND C)."

So he NEEDS a comma or bracket after the "if" and after the "possible."

Actually, no.

The way it is currently written is ambiguous to a certain degree. However, placing commas as indicated would not help as, while that is a math solution, it isn't the best grammar solution.

The rule currently reads:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction.

If the sentence is meant to restrict movement by single elements to road moves it would be better if it read:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element, or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible, and entirely by road without reversing direction.

Alternatively, the sentence could be worded:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element (or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible) and entirely by road without reversing direction.

However, I just noticed something else in parsing the sentence. The move by single elements for 0 PIPs does not even require that they move the full distance possible under these two readings.

To achieve that the sentence should read:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element, or by a column, which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction.

Or possibly:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element (or by a column) which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction.

Note that these last two leave out the words the leading element of from the rule.

With those included the rule as it stands, without punctuation changes, most reasonably means that a single element move can be made as the first move of a bound for 0 PIPs regardless of its length and irrespective of whether it is on or off road.

The column bit is not in question I don't think and so needs no further comment.

I think the least writing needed that includes the idea that both single element moves and column moves must be the full distance possible and on road is:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or column and moves the full distance possible entirely by road without reversing direction.

larryessick
12-17-2011, 01:23 AM
It is worth noting that the rewrite I suggest above doesn't include the bit about the leading element of a column.

Why is the bit about the leading element mentioned rather than talking about the entire column? Isn't column speed already defined as limited by the speed of the leading element?

Is it possible for the leading element to move its full distance and other elements to move more than that distance?

I'm not sure why that caveat is in the present rule.

Note also that I'm not sure that rewording is what is needed. Maybe it is Phil Barker's intent that a single element be able to move for 0 PIPs entirely unrestricted as the first move of a bound. I can't imagine why that would be but it has all sorts of implications.

If that were the real intent why not just give +1 to the PIP roll every bound?

Dangun
12-17-2011, 04:24 AM
Still a bad idea to use AND and OR in the same sentence, even with brackets.

To be unambiguous you have to write it out long hand...

"The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if: 1) it is by a single element and entirely by road without reversing direction; or 2) by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction."

I of course could be mistaken as to what was intended...

Martyn
12-17-2011, 10:55 AM
I of course could be mistaken as to what was intended...

Before we start geting bogged down in rewriting this rule we need to be certain what was intended, otherwise we could just be wasting our time as we have to produce several versions to meet each of the possible interpretations.

Feed back from PB needed or his clarification, another for the list. ;)

Rich Gause
12-17-2011, 11:24 AM
I like something sort of like this:

"The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is entirely by road without reversing direction which moves the full distance possible and by either by a single element, or column."


If the road move and full distance provisions apply to both the single element and column then those should come first IMO. Bullet points would be good too.

winterbadger
12-17-2011, 11:57 AM
I like something sort of like this:

"The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is entirely by road without reversing direction which moves the full distance possible and by either by a single element, or column."

If the road move and full distance provisions apply to both the single element and column then those should come first IMO. Bullet points would be good too.

Just a point in passing; that comma is unnecessary and might cause confusion to those attempting at some future point to parse this run-on sentence.

I agree that bullet points would be the best way to address this, but it may be difficult to persuade the author to this way of thinking.

What about

"If the first tactical move of a bound if it is taken by an element or column moving entirely by road, the move costs 0 pips. In order to qualify for the free move, the element or column must move the full distance possible, and it may not reverse direction."

Not every complex rule has to be stated in one sentence. :rolleyes

Rich Gause
12-17-2011, 12:31 PM
Just a point in passing; that comma is unnecessary and might cause confusion to those attempting at some future point to parse this run-on sentence.

I agree that bullet points would be the best way to address this, but it may be difficult to persuade the author to this way of thinking.

What about

"If the first tactical move of a bound if it is taken by an element or column moving entirely by road, the move costs 0 pips. In order to qualify for the free move, the element or column must move the full distance possible, and it may not reverse direction."

Not every complex rule has to be stated in one sentence. :rolleyes

That is the best version I've seen if the intent is what we think it is.

kontos
12-17-2011, 01:09 PM
Even units along a road delayed following orders. Just asked Grouchy about Napoleon's mood when they last spoke. Get rid of the rule in its entirety. Problem solved. :up

winterbadger
12-17-2011, 01:13 PM
Even units along a road delayed following orders. Just asked Grouchy about Napoleon's mood when they last spoke. Get rid of the rule in its entirety. Problem solved. :up

Play nice, Wczele. No bomb-throwing! :beer

john meunier
12-17-2011, 02:44 PM
Not every complex rule has to be stated in one sentence. :rolleyes

I'd like to introduce your to a certain Mr. Barker.

winterbadger
12-17-2011, 03:03 PM
I'd like to introduce your to a certain Mr. Barker.

I know, I know, but I think the conversation was directed toward providing alternative wordings that might be suggested to The Master that would convey the same idea without using *many* more words but in a clearer fashion. Hence my humble submission. :silly

Alan Saunders
12-17-2011, 05:58 PM
It is worth noting that the rewrite I suggest above doesn't include the bit about the leading element of a column.

Why is the bit about the leading element mentioned rather than talking about the entire column? Isn't column speed already defined as limited by the speed of the leading element?



The rule says something about moving the maximum distance possible. If you keep it worded to column, some smartarse will point out that Cavalry in column behind a Blade aren't moving their maximum distance, therefore the move is illegal. By specifically defining the restriction as applying to the front element only you're forestalling this.

As you say, the column move is already restricted to the Blades 200 paces (or whatever). It's obvious. But one thing I've learned over the last few months is that even obvious things aren't if someone wants to be creative with their interpretation of bits of the rules :)

Bobgnar
12-18-2011, 01:22 AM
I read the rule to mean that the element/column moves as far as it is allowed by the rules.
"full distance possible " not its maximum move distance.
That was introduced to allow an element to make a 1mm move if it then encountered something to stop its move -- enemy or friend in the way. It moved as far as the rules allow. Likewise a fast mover behind a slower mover, moves "full distance possible " according to the rules.

If Cavalry are in front of or behind the Blade in a column, the column still has the allowed move of the Blade element, as that is the full distance possible allowed to a column with a Blade in the column.

The rule says something about moving the maximum distance possible. If you keep it worded to column, some smartarse will point out that Cavalry in column behind a Blade aren't moving their maximum distance, therefore the move is illegal. By specifically defining the restriction as applying to the front element only you're forestalling this.

As you say, the column move is already restricted to the Blades 200 paces (or whatever). It's obvious. But one thing I've learned over the last few months is that even obvious things aren't if someone wants to be creative with their interpretation of bits of the rules :)

Wm.E.Reseigh
12-18-2011, 07:25 PM
Maybe this:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column which moves the full distance possible to the leading element, and is entirely by road without reversing direction.

But I think it really needs two sentences:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column and is entirely by road. The single or leading element must move the full distance possible without reversing direction.

Alan Saunders
12-18-2011, 07:38 PM
The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column and is entirely by road. The single or leading element must move the full distance possible without reversing direction.

But that first bit could still be read as either:

Single Element OR (Column AND On Road)

or

(Single Element OR Column) AND On Road

Perhaps:

"The first tactical move of each bound, by either a single element or a column, uses 0 PIPs if the move is entirely by road. The single element, or leading element of a column, must move the full distance possible without reversing direction."

Rich Gause
12-18-2011, 07:40 PM
Maybe this:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column which moves the full distance possible to the leading element, and is entirely by road without reversing direction.

But I think it really needs two sentences:

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column and is entirely by road. The single or leading element must move the full distance possible without reversing direction.

That is still unclear whether single elements need to be on a road. The statement about 0 pips if on a road at a minimum needs to not have the single element/column stuff interjected between 0 pips and on a road. The previous posting by Winterbadger that did it that way in two sentences is way better.

Bobgnar
12-18-2011, 11:03 PM
For those who want to discuss other topics, the lack of clarity for this rule has been sent to Phil. You can move on to something else.

This rule for the single element was added in the Nov 30 edition so none of the development group had discussed it prior to public release. The addition of the single element move on the road was added after developers, at least me, asked why a single element cannot move on a road when a column can, for 0 PIPs. We knew this was supposed to be on a road. It just did not get written clear enough for most folks.

As soon as Phil fixes this, I or someone else in the group will report the new text.

Doug
12-19-2011, 05:39 PM
I have suggested:

"The first move of each bound by either a single element or by a column,
uses 0 PIPs if entirely by road, and moves the full distance possible
without reversing direction."

winterbadger
12-19-2011, 05:48 PM
I have suggested:

"The first move of each bound by either a single element or by a column,
uses 0 PIPs if entirely by road, and moves the full distance possible
without reversing direction."

1. There should not be a comma between the subject and verb in a sentence. "The first move of each bound...uses..."; no comma.

2. What is the subject of "moves"? What moves? the bound moves? If you're trying to associate "moves" with "a single element or coulmn", you need to recast the sentence.

I won't even go into the faulty parallelism.

What is the obsession with trying to do this all in one sentence?

Doug
12-19-2011, 08:03 PM
You want perfection in a first draught or are you just determined to find fault? Change moves to 'moving' - it was written about 1am.

And there is no absolute rule about the comma usage. In fact for clarity, and ease of reading I might even move another comma - although now I am toying with moving the comma from after column to after PIPS if I wasn't sure that people would then argue that 0 PIPS only applied to a column.

"The first move of each bound, by either a single element or by a column, uses 0 PIPs if entirely by road and moving the full distance possible without reversing direction."

I could even treat the much neglected semi-colon and replace the first comma with one of those. If you have a better version, please let me know, and I will suggest it to Phil.?

peleset
12-19-2011, 08:33 PM
I'm sure Dear Leader has perfection much in mind as he crafts his thoughts into little gems.
http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/kim-jong-il-in-team-america.jpg
Merry Christmas Brillant Comrades all:)

winterbadger
12-19-2011, 11:36 PM
You want perfection in a first draught or are you just determined to find fault? Change moves to 'moving' - it was written about 1am.

And there is no absolute rule about the comma usage. In fact for clarity, and ease of reading I might even move another comma - although now I am toying with moving the comma from after column to after PIPS if I wasn't sure that people would then argue that 0 PIPS only applied to a column.

"The first move of each bound, by either a single element or by a column, uses 0 PIPs if entirely by road and moving the full distance possible without reversing direction."

I could even treat the much neglected semi-colon and replace the first comma with one of those. If you have a better version, please let me know, and I will suggest it to Phil.?

I already posted my contribution several days ago.

And, yes, there are absolute rules about comma usage. For instance, the two you're using in your latest draft indicate that what lies between them is inessential to the meaning of the sentence and can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence. You may intend that, but I doubt it.

But don't let me stand in your way. You are writing excellent Barkerese; I anticipate your submissions will be accepted without question. ;)

Doug
12-20-2011, 12:43 AM
I already posted my contribution several days ago.

And, yes, there are absolute rules about comma usage. For instance, the two you're using in your latest draft indicate that what lies between them is inessential to the meaning of the sentence and can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence. You may intend that, but I doubt it.

But don't let me stand in your way. You are writing excellent Barkerese; I anticipate your submissions will be accepted without question. ;)

Where were you tauight that content between commas is inessential to the meaning of a sentence?

It's not a jibe, I am genuinely curious as I studied English Literature and Language (and Philosophy) at Edinburgh University in Scotland and was never taught that. (Apart from anything else it is there to give breathing pauses to break up a lengthy sentence when read aloud. :)

winterbadger
12-20-2011, 01:04 AM
Where were you tauight that content between commas is inessential to the meaning of a sentence?

It's not a jibe, I am genuinely curious as I studied English Literature and Language (and Philosophy) at Edinburgh University in Scotland and was never taught that. (Apart from anything else it is there to give breathing pauses to break up a lengthy sentence when read aloud. :)

Yeah, see, grammar and punctuation are rarely taught at university level. It's kind of assumed that students have picked them up before then. A degree in English literature has nothing at all to do with process--it's all about content.

It's late, and I'd like to get to bed, so I'll just refer you to the entry on commas in Fowler's Modern English Usage (OUP, 2004); the seventh section explains the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Those who prefer Chicago can find the same material in Section 6.31 of the CMoS (at least in the 15th edition--I haven't splurged on the 1th yet). It's also covered in Garner and in the NYPL Desk Reference. For those who love simplicity, page 4 in Strunk & White also addresses it succinctly.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 01:13 AM
YIt's late, and I'd like to get to bed, so I'll just refer you to the entry on commas

Would it be accurate to note that there are many uses for commas and that the one you cite is among them?

I find the discussion on proper use of commas interesting. Almost entirely irrelevant to DBA, but interesting.

Does that last sentence contain a comma fault? Or, does it intentionally introduce a soft rather than hard stop as I intended it to do? :)

Doug
12-20-2011, 03:09 AM
Yeah, see, grammar and punctuation are rarely taught at university level. It's kind of assumed that students have picked them up before then. A degree in English literature has nothing at all to do with process--it's all about content.

It's late, and I'd like to get to bed, so I'll just refer you to the entry on commas in Fowler's Modern English Usage (OUP, 2004); the seventh section explains the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Those who prefer Chicago can find the same material in Section 6.31 of the CMoS (at least in the 15th edition--I haven't splurged on the 1th yet). It's also covered in Garner and in the NYPL Desk Reference. For those who love simplicity, page 4 in Strunk & White also addresses it succinctly.

I refer you to http://www.lexscripta.com/pdf/fowler.pdf

Which correctly identifies Fowler (1926) as being outdated and archaic in many respects, and chiefly used to justify prejudice among pedants.

The use of the term 'Modern' in the title must be regarded in the same light as P.G. Wodehouse being described as an observation of contemporary society.

Doug
12-20-2011, 03:17 AM
I refer you to http://www.lexscripta.com/pdf/fowler.pdf

Which correctly identifies Fowler (1926) as being outdated and archaic in many respects, and chiefly used to justify prejudice among pedants.

The use of the term 'Modern' in the title must be regarded in the same light as P.G. Wodehouse being described as an observation of contemporary society.

And I can't resist Stein on Commas:

"And what does a comma do, a comma does nothing but make easy a thing that if you like it enough is easy enough without the comma. A long complicated sentence should force itself upon you, make you know yourself knowing it and the comma, well at the most a comma is a poor period that lets you stop and take a breath but if you want to take a breath you ought to know yourself that you want to take a breath. It is not like stopping altogether has something to do with going on, but taking a breath well you are always taking a breath and why emphasize one breath rather than another breath. Anyway that is the way I felt about it and I felt that about it very very strongly. And so I almost never used a comma. The longer, the more complicated the sentence the greater the number of the same kinds of words I had following one after another, the more the very more I had of them the more I felt the passionate need of their taking care of themselves by themselves and not helping them, and thereby enfeebling them by putting in a comma.
So that is the way I felt about punctuation in prose, in poetry it is a little different but more so
Gertrude Stein
from Lectures in America"

Bob Santamaria
12-20-2011, 05:26 AM
The use of the term 'Modern' in the title must be regarded in the same light as P.G. Wodehouse being described as an observation of contemporary society.

I don't understand. Wodehouse is a sharp and witty observer of contemporary society.

Doug
12-20-2011, 05:40 AM
I don't understand. Wodehouse is a sharp and witty observer of contemporary society.

Provided you consider Contemporary to be 80 years ago.

winterbadger
12-20-2011, 10:21 AM
I refer you to http://www.lexscripta.com/pdf/fowler.pdf

Which correctly identifies Fowler (1926) as being outdated and archaic in many respects, and chiefly used to justify prejudice among pedants.

The use of the term 'Modern' in the title must be regarded in the same light as P.G. Wodehouse being described as an observation of contemporary society.

If you regard 2004 (the latest edition of Fowler) to be outdated and archaic, you must live in a very edgy world.

Thank you for giving me a new name to add to my "ignore" list.

Doug
12-20-2011, 05:07 PM
If you regard 2004 (the latest edition of Fowler) to be outdated and archaic, you must live in a very edgy world.

Thank you for giving me a new name to add to my "ignore" list.

Hmm.. so you ignore anyone that doesn't immediately agree with your (very restrictive) use of commas? You must lead a lonely life. All the best.

Kingo
12-22-2011, 03:18 AM
I have suggested:

"The first move of each bound by either a single element or by a column,
uses 0 PIPs if entirely by road, and moves the full distance possible
without reversing direction."

This changes the meaning, why not email God and see what he says he intended.

Kingo
12-22-2011, 03:20 AM
We have played our games allowing a single element a free first move of each bound, its great.

Kingo

Doug
12-22-2011, 03:31 AM
This changes the meaning, why not email God and see what he says he intended.

No, it doesn't change the intended meaning, which as Phil has confirmed, the intent was initially to allow a road move to be pip free. Initially it was written only for a group till the playtesters pointed out that it was inherently strange a single element wouldn't be as mobile.

The rewrite to add in a single element accidentally confused the meaning. I am 100% confident the pip free extra move for any element wasn't intended.

If people have been playing with 2-7 pips per bound no wonder games are faster :)

Alan Saunders
12-22-2011, 08:11 AM
The rewrite to add in a single element accidentally confused the meaning. I am 100% confident the pip free extra move for any element wasn't intended.



Give people any rule with a slight ambiguity, and they'll pick the interpretation that favours rather than limits. Even if it flies in the face of common sense.

I agree with you - that section refers to movement on roads, and nothing but movement on roads. To suggest that it has a wider implication says more about the players than it does about any shortcomings of the author.

kontos
12-22-2011, 08:35 AM
Give people any rule with a slight ambiguity, and they'll pick the interpretation that favours rather than limits. Even if it flies in the face of common sense.

I agree with you - that section refers to movement on roads, and nothing but movement on roads. To suggest that it has a wider implication says more about the players than it does about any shortcomings of the author.

Well for an author that feels it necessary to dictate only one die be used in the game to avoid cheating, his rules should remove any ambiguity to prevent abuse. :up

Doug
12-22-2011, 09:04 AM
Well for an author that feels it necessary to dictate only one die be used in the game to avoid cheating, his rules should remove any ambiguity to prevent abuse. :up

He actually says "to avoid suspicion of malpractice." Not, 'to avoid malpractice.' And this is the reason that we (the organisers of Cancon) purchased hundreds of dice some years back and made it compulsory to use them in our DBM games. To avoid any suspicion, or hint. Not that we thought anyone was, or would cheat, but completely remove any chance they could.

pozanias
12-22-2011, 11:45 AM
Give people any rule with a slight ambiguity, and they'll pick the interpretation that favours rather than limits. Even if it flies in the face of common sense.

I agree with you - that section refers to movement on roads, and nothing but movement on roads. To suggest that it has a wider implication says more about the players than it does about any shortcomings of the author.

Although I agree with your interpretation of the rule, I disagree with your conclusion that any misreading of the rule is more the fault of the reader than the author. Many people have read the rule as Kingo has, and I think very few of them made their conclusion (of how it should be played) after any sort of conscious debate. They read it and understood it to mean something. That's it. And I might add that, as far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with Kingo's understanding of the rule (from a grammatical point of view).

When I first read the rule, I read it just as Kingo did. When I finally saw the alternate way (or at least one of the alternate ways) to read the rule, I quickly realized my error. Of course the free moves are only meant to apply to road movements. But it could easily have been months or years before I realized this.

The best comparision to what I am trying to say would be the rules governing the formation of columns in 2.0 - 2.2. For years, everyone (or everyone I knew anyway) believed that forming a column could only be done under very restrictive circumstances. And then one day, someone that I had never seen before indicated that columns could be formed anytime, it was the reduction in frontage of a line that was restricted. Now everyone plays it this "new" way. And the "new" way is the favorable way.

What I think we will find is that there are 20+ different versions of this debate that are going to happen over the next 2 - 4 years. We just don't know which rules are subject to multiple interpretations yet. Right now, everyone is sitting down and playing 3.0 as they understand it. And perhaps it seems clear to them. But each of these little regional groups may have different interpretations than the next group (and not have a clue that they are all playing the game differently). When inter-regional games start to happen, I think there will be a lot of debates triggered about "the right way" to interpret the rules. I think the obvious candidate is the conforming rule. I can almost guarantee you 10 different interpretations of that rule will evolve. Imagine the old ZOC debate (which lasted for years) on steroids.

Anyway, all rule sets have some allowance for multiple interpretations. We are all flawed people writing and reading a flawed language. But Phil, in particular, doesn't help the cause. His writing and his presentation are far more to blame for most of these interpretation issues than we readers. The reasons for this have been discussed ad naseum. I'm not trying to bash Phil.

david kuijt
12-22-2011, 12:01 PM
What I think we will find is that there are 20+ different versions of this debate that are going to happen over the next 2 - 4 years. We just don't know which rules are subject to multiple interpretations yet. Right now, everyone is sitting down and playing 3.0 as they understand it. And it seems clear to them. But each of these little regional groups may have different interpretations than the next group (and not have a clue that they are all playing the game differently). When inter-regional games start to happen, I think there will be a lot of debates triggered about "the right way" to interpret the rules. I think the obvious candidate is the conforming rule. I can almost guarantee you 10 different interpretations of that rule will evolve. Imagine the old ZOC debate (which lasted for years) on steroids.


It took four or five years for 2.0/2.1/2.2 to stabilize sufficiently for a common understanding of the rules to bubble up to the top.

Several people have asked for WADBAG to produce a guide to v3.0. Even if we wanted to do that, it would be nearly impossible to do so until a common understanding existed. When we wrote the Unofficial Guide to DBA, the objectives were to give a clear, readable version of the rules, and where the rules weren't clear, to show the common understanding of how they were played. Without a common understanding, that isn't possible.

As Mark says, even if 3.0 is successful, it will take many years (more than two -- probably more than four or five) for a common understanding to shake out in the parts of the world that play it. And there are two complicating factors. First, last time, Bob was constantly bombarding Phil with queries to try and resolve issues, trying to create and maintain his Commentaries. Enough so that Phil eventually told Bob to take down his Commentaries and stop bothering him, that he (Phil) didn't value a common understanding. Phil is a decade older now, and by every evidence going to be much less interested in refining 3.0 after it is published and he moves on to HFG or other projects.

Second, there are some new issues, as Mark mentions, that may be more complicated than anything in v2.2. Conforming, especially. That's multiple A4 pages in DBMM, with diagrams, and still very difficult to figure out. The sketch of how to do it in DBA is more of a mission statement in generalities than a specific algorithm for resolving it in play.

So I think Mark is right.

Bobgnar
12-22-2011, 03:16 PM
I continue to be amazed by how seriously people take what Phil writes. Is he not entitled to include a little of his own humor. What he actually wrote is

"DICE
All dicing uses a single ordinary 1 to 6 dice, which should be used for the whole game to avoid suspicion of malpractice. However, as a concession for the superstitious, a dice that scores 1 in six successive throws may be junked and replaced. Dice with spots are more easily read across the table by an opponent than those with numbers."

I notice no dictates except for the part about using a 6-sided dice (he still calls a single die a "dice.)

Next I see "should" not "must" and then a humorous concession for the superstitious. Then a "may" not a "must." Lastly an observation about how to help an opponent read the die better.

For all this, such negative waves.


Well for an author that feels it necessary to dictate only one die be used in the game to avoid cheating, his rules should remove any ambiguity to prevent abuse. :up

winterbadger
12-22-2011, 03:19 PM
I continue to be amazed by how seriously people take what Phil writes. Is he not entitled to include a little of his own humor. What he actually wrote is

"DICE
All dicing uses a single ordinary 1 to 6 dice, which should be used for the whole game to avoid suspicion of malpractice. However, as a concession for the superstitious, a dice that scores 1 in six successive throws may be junked and replaced. Dice with spots are more easily read across the table by an opponent than those with numbers."

I notice no dictates except for the part about using a 6-sided dice (he still calls a single die a "dice.)

Next I see "should" not "must" and then a humorous concession for the superstitious. Then a "may" not a "must." Lastly an observation about how to help an opponent read the die better.

Yeah, if you don't get why that doesn't seem funny to some people, but instead just the opposite, I think no amount of explaining is going to help.

larryessick
12-22-2011, 03:42 PM
Yeah, if you don't get why that doesn't seem funny to some people, but instead just the opposite, I think no amount of explaining is going to help.

If you don't get why objecting seems pedantic to most people I know no amount of explaining is going to help. ;)

ted53
12-22-2011, 03:42 PM
My son and I tried our first playtest of 3.0 and muddled through with only a couple of WTF does this mean... The biggest one Sean came up with is"Why are Psiloi twice as fast in bad terrain v. good going"...Clearly,they would be faster than close order troops but as I read it ,they are twice as fast as themselves in clear terrain! What am I missing.

larryessick
12-22-2011, 04:27 PM
They are not faster in bad going than in the open. They are instead permitted a second PIP move if that second move ends in bad going.

I had not considered how that could be used to teleport thru terrain, but it is certainly possible and I did in fact use it in a game the other night against my own son.

But, it is not a basic movement difference. It is a PIP expenditure movement. So, asked as you have might be a bit misleading.

More to the point might be, why do Ps get a second PIP move if it would end them in bad going and, related, why would they be allowed a second move if it effectively moves them thru a large piece of terrain or among terrain pieces that are relatively close together.

This has obvious implications for contacting enemy with a second movement that maybe was not intended.

pozanias
12-22-2011, 04:28 PM
My son and I tried our first playtest of 3.0 and muddled through with only a couple of WTF does this mean... The biggest one Sean came up with is"Why are Psiloi twice as fast in bad terrain v. good going"...Clearly,they would be faster than close order troops but as I read it ,they are twice as fast as themselves in clear terrain! What am I missing.

Ted,
In the version I have, here is the movement allowance:

250 paces (2 BW) If Knights or Elephants only in good going, or if Auxilia or Psiloi in good or bad going.

So, I think Ps move the same in good and bad going.

pozanias
12-22-2011, 04:44 PM
They are not faster in bad going than in the open. They are instead permitted a second PIP move if that second move ends in bad going.



Oooopss, I missed that part. Now I see what you are saying Ted. That's bizarre! I'd like to hear the rationale for that one.

Doug
12-22-2011, 05:11 PM
Oooopss, I missed that part. Now I see what you are saying Ted. That's bizarre! I'd like to hear the rationale for that one.

Well, in 2.2 at the start of the battle they could move up to 6 times as fast! (they were allowed to multiple moves as many times as you had PIPS).

This has now been removed, and there was some disquiet from some playtesters, who then envisioned that perhaps Psiloi could be depicted as moving rapidly from cover to cover.

I have concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this, and Phil has now asked whether it is necessary if Psiloi move 3 BW and can group move in bad going. There has been no clear consensus, but I suspect this will change in the final version.

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2011, 05:27 PM
Well, in 2.2 at the start of the battle they could move up to 6 times as fast! (they were allowed to multiple moves as many times as you had PIPS).


My understanding was that this represented a pre-arranged ambush, not skirmishers dashing at cheetah-like speed across the battlefield.

david kuijt
12-22-2011, 05:39 PM
My understanding was that this represented a pre-arranged ambush, not skirmishers dashing at cheetah-like speed across the battlefield.

Tis the season!

Dashing through the snow
In a one-horse open sleigh
O'er the fields they go
Laughing all the way (hahaha)

Bells on bobtails ring
Making spirits bright
What fun it is to sing
a Psiloi song tonight!

O! Jingle bleed, Cheetah speed, hopping skirmishers!
Oh what fun, it is to run, 8" every turn!

Bobgnar
12-22-2011, 09:12 PM
Ps are hardly moving twice as fast in bad going as in good. Their move in Bad Going is not 5BW, is it? It is still 2.5 BW Perhaps Sean sees something I am missing.

Rather the General is using command points to get the Ps to move an extra time. 1 PiP to move once and then another PIP to move again. The General exerts this extra command to get the Ps into or through cover.

How is it different from Wb taking a second move into contact. Are they moving faster or more often. Do elements move on a road faster:
"(d) Troops moving along a road if making a second or subsequent move that will not contact enemy."

Do elephants move faster on a road? Not really, they can just move more often, at the cost of the General using up PIPs.

I did not like the concept of extra moves in 2.0 but learned to live with it. 6 moves for Ps in the first bound was strange. They were not moving faster, just more often, were they stronger in at the beginning of a battle. Maybe all elements should get extra moves in the first bound while they are all still fresh.?

My son and I tried our first playtest of 3.0 and muddled through with only a couple of WTF does this mean... The biggest one Sean came up with is"Why are Psiloi twice as fast in bad terrain v. good going"...Clearly,they would be faster than close order troops but as I read it ,they are twice as fast as themselves in clear terrain! What am I missing.

Quasimodo

jcpotn
12-22-2011, 10:04 PM
Bob,

If some elements move twice or more in one bound than other elements are allowed to do, they are moving faster (covering more ground) within the time frame of that bound. :)

Or am I missing something? :???

Jeff

Alan Saunders
12-22-2011, 11:28 PM
Bob,

If some elements move twice or more in one bound than other elements are allowed to do, they are moving faster (covering more ground) within the time frame of that bound. :)

Or am I missing something? :???

Jeff

They're moving further, not necessarily faster. They only move faster if you assume that all elements that move are doing so continually throughout the whole length of the bound.

I have a set of rules for 18th/19th century warfare in India in which the move rate of a unit depends on a combination of its morale, cohesion and discipline. Regular trained infantry can move twice as far as irregular cavalry in a turn, not because they are faster but because there's less inertia or command and control required.

pozanias
12-22-2011, 11:41 PM
For me, its not so much that Ps can double move as it is that they can only double move into bad going. Huh?

Oh well, if Doug is right this may get removed anyway. I think the rules would be better without it at all.

winterbadger
12-23-2011, 01:11 PM
They're moving further, not necessarily faster.

They are moving farther in a specific period of time (however arbitrary and poorly defined that period is) than other troops in the same period of time. Distance over time, the definition of speed. Their speed *in terms of the game* is how fast they move per turn.

In answer to Bob's jibe, yes, Wb *do* move faster, when they are moving to contact--they're charging, and they do so faster than other heavy foot and consequently suffer disadvantages as well as gaining advantages thereby. And yes, troops moving on road *do* move faster than troops moving off road, because it's easier to move along a piece of ground that's been significantly flattened and smoothed. Those are design features that, I think, most of us can understand and accept.

What seems at best curious and at worst silly is having Ps able to move twice as fast (twice as far during a given period of time) through difficult terrain than the same element can move over open ground. Maybe there's a rationale for this, but if there is it's not very clear.

pozanias
12-23-2011, 01:58 PM
Rather the General is using command points to get the Ps to move an extra time. 1 PiP to move once and then another PIP to move again. The General exerts this extra command to get the Ps into or through cover.

But if Psiloi are capable of this in bad going, why aren't they capable of it in good going?

How is it different from Wb taking a second move into contact. Are they moving faster or more often.
But the Wb double move is meant to represent them moving faster. They are running/charging into contact. So, yes -- I get that technically the movement rate doesn't change. But the extra move is just a game mechanic used to implement a charge.

And speaking of the Wb charge, I actually like the new take on this rule that the charge can only be used to contact an element directly in front of the Wb. Unfortunately, it weakens one of my favorite elements (which wasn't all that strong to begin with) -- but the logic of the change makes perfect sense to me.

Do elements move on a road faster:
"(d) Troops moving along a road if making a second or subsequent move that will not contact enemy."

Do elephants move faster on a road? Not really, they can just move more often, at the cost of the General using up PIPs.

As with the Wb example above -- yes, they are moving faster on the road. Historically, troops could move faster on a road than on open ground. The game mechanic to depict this is the subsequent move.

By the way, am I missing something or did the road movement rate go away in 3.0. It used to be 4" for all elements (except LH). So now, presumably, the only movement advantage of a road is the subsequent move.


I did not like the concept of extra moves in 2.0 but learned to live with it. 6 moves for Ps in the first bound was strange. They were not moving faster, just more often, were they stronger in at the beginning of a battle. Maybe all elements should get extra moves in the first bound while they are all still fresh.?
Quasimodo

As was stated by Tony, the 1st bound multiple Ps move in 2.2 was meant to represent an ambush, not really fast moving troops.

I have no problem with you not liking the 2nd and subsequent moves in 2.0 - 2.2. Perhaps they are not good representations of historical reality. Perhaps they are unbalancing for game play. But at least there is some logic behind them. I happen to like the subsequent moves in 2.0 2.2. I could be persuaded to like this Ps double move in 3.0. But as of now, I don't like it because it doesn't make any sense to me. It seems very arbitrary.

Bobgnar
12-23-2011, 03:15 PM
When the general asks them (orders them) with PIPs, the Ps make the extra effort. Not wanting to tire them out for just any reason, the General saves his request for actions the Ps are good at, moving in bad going. This may be why they can move in a line in Bad Going.

I cannot find any reference in 2.0-2.2 that says the up to 6 moves by Ps in first bound represents an ambush. I thought it was a forced march when they were still fresh. They now just move up to 2 times in first bound. Is that an ambush or just force marching?

winterbadger
12-23-2011, 03:46 PM
When the general asks them (orders them) with PIPs, the Ps make the extra effort. Not wanting to tire them out for just any reason, the General saves his request for actions the Ps are good at, moving in bad going. This may be why they can move in a line in Bad Going.

That's quite an effort at post-hoc rationalisation, but not a terribly convincing one because it depends at root on the same irrationality as the rule itself. Why are the Ps better at moving in bad going than at moving in good going? Why would they be fatigued by moving in good going when they aren't fatigued by moving in bad going? Does the lack of underbrush to dodge around make them exhaust themselves? Does the absence of boulders and rubble cause them to trip and fall? If they are fatigued in either case, why is there no reflection of that in the rules (e.g., double-move one turn, can't move next turn; or even just double-move can't be into contact)?

I cannot find any reference in 2.0-2.2 that says the up to 6 moves by Ps in first bound represents an ambush. I thought it was a forced march when they were still fresh. They now just move up to 2 times in first bound. Is that an ambush or just force marching?

Presumably for whatever reason they can move twice in any bound; the double move in bad going is not limited to the first bound. Now, why they can double-move in good going in the first bound but not in others--that's yet another mystery.

pozanias
12-23-2011, 04:33 PM
When the general asks them (orders them) with PIPs, the Ps make the extra effort. Not wanting to tire them out for just any reason, the General saves his request for actions the Ps are good at, moving in bad going. This may be why they can move in a line in Bad Going.

Well, I guess I asked for it. :silly

If that is the rationale, then in my not so humble opinion, the 2nd move rule is stupid.

However, I like the Ps group move in Bgo.


I cannot find any reference in 2.0-2.2 that says the up to 6 moves by Ps in first bound represents an ambush. I thought it was a forced march when they were still fresh. They now just move up to 2 times in first bound. Is that an ambush or just force marching?

I can only tell you that was the rationale that was given when 2.0 first came out. And I thought it made sense.

Rich Gause
12-23-2011, 05:23 PM
I think it would make sense to either:
a) get rid of psiloi multi moves(don't really like this)
b) go back to the 2.2 rule
c) allow psiloi a second move regardless of whether it is good or bad going

Allowing them to move faster in bad going than good going is a bit silly.

Bob Santamaria
12-23-2011, 07:26 PM
I quite like the current draft for the second ps move into bad going - i see it that they are rushing into cover. I am pleased to see the end of the first turn "ambush"

Adrian

platypus01
12-23-2011, 09:56 PM
I also like the second move rush into cover. After all, it isn't some logical theory that Ps can move faster in bad going, just a plot device so that Ps can be dominant in bad going.

Because of the size of terrain, almost all of the uses of this rule will have the first move in good going, and the second into bad. You can rationalize it if you want, but is is simply a mechanism in DBA to make up for the lack of march moves that exist in DBMM. Instead of adding marches in DBA, Phil has been quite innovative IMO.

I can think of some sneaky tricks mind you. The rule does not exclude the Ps ending in combat, so I can think of very specific case where the Ps could make a first move from in front of an element to a flank, then use the second move to contact the flank (or rear!). But I doubt this is going to be common. I've done a few play tests with Nubians in the all Ps version and I've almost never had the PIPs to do anything sneaky. I've almost always used the double move to bad going, and then they have sat there while the Egyptians have pushed the battle elsewhere.

Cheers,
JohnG

winterbadger
12-23-2011, 10:11 PM
I also like the second move rush into cover.

Not quite sure why Bob Santamaria and platypus01 are referring to it as a move *into* BGo. Nothing about the rule suggests troops moving into BGo; it only says the second move must end in BGo, but that could mean those who are in BGo and not moving out just as much as those who aren't there already moving in. platypus says "Because of the size of terrain, almost all of the uses of this rule will have the first move in good going," but I would suggest that he has never seen any of the boards we play with in my local group, which frequently have considerable amounts of BGo; one memorable game I played in a local tournament against Mike Guth was almost entirely either BGo or WW!

As for it being a "plot device", that requires there to be a plot, and that's what seems to be absent IRT this 'double move in BGo only'. There needs to be, IMO, a rationale stronger than "hey, Stan Lee, why don't we give Ps another funky crime-fighting power?" to introduce a special ability. So far no one seems to be coming up with one; I'm curious as to what PB's might be.

You can rationalize it if you want, but is is simply a mechanism in DBA to make up for the lack of march moves that exist in DBMM. Instead of adding marches in DBA, Phil has been quite innovative IMO.

Huh? This isn't a march move. For one thing, marches don't take place in BGo. For another, it's restricted to Ps. The road move is DBA's march move. That's been pared down considerably by eliminating road speed.

Lobotomy
12-23-2011, 11:47 PM
I quite like the current draft for the second ps move into bad going - i see it that they are rushing into cover. I am pleased to see the end of the first turn "ambush"

Adrian

I'll miss it for one. I always loved the look on a player's face the first time it was used against him/her. As they say, "Priceless."

pozanias
12-24-2011, 12:26 PM
Well, I think the debate part of this discussion is over -- as we have now boiled it down to personal preference. But I feel as though the mechanics and rationale are all out there for everyone to see, with arguments for and against. Some people will like the rule, others won't.

Pillager
12-26-2011, 08:39 PM
How about declaring Strunk & White as the official grammar book of American DBA. The meaning of all sentences shall be determined by the preferred usage in the official grammar book.

Doug
12-26-2011, 10:14 PM
How about declaring Strunk & White as the official grammar book of American DBA. The meaning of all sentences shall be determined by the preferred usage in the official grammar book.

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.

Doug
12-26-2011, 10:16 PM
Well, I think the debate part of this discussion is over -- as we have now boiled it down to personal preference. But I feel as though the mechanics and rationale are all out there for everyone to see, with arguments for and against. Some people will like the rule, others won't.

And that's the most sensible position anyone can take. I am looking forward to the next draft to see what got in, and what went out.

Pillager
12-27-2011, 09:39 AM
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.

And yet he has the need to announce it in multiple threads.