PDA

View Full Version : Shooting.... eerrr.... what?


Xavi
12-13-2011, 06:51 AM
In Spain nobody is able to understand how shooting works. At all. We are just puzzled by that paragraph. We do not understand the potential targets, the width of the shooting range, what part of the enemy target you have to see... It is just gibberish.

Could someone be so kind as to explain the shooting phase to us? Thanks :)

As a related note we are quite sad that the "no page limit" announcement has been totally disregarded and that the rulebook is as hermetic as it used to be. Some people is already starting to say that an Unofficial guide is a "must have" to move from 2.2 to 3.0

Xavi

Filippo S.
12-13-2011, 07:49 AM
Not only shooting.
I don't know if it's my bad knowldege of the language, lack of neurons, or if just hermetic as usual, but when finally I could understand some passages I found them terrible.

What does it means: "A Psiloi element (but not other elements) that provided ANY rear support to a destroyed element is also destroyed."
A Ps supporting 3xSp is lost if any supported element is losts? EH? Tell me I'm wrong.

OR in "pursuing" something like : "(or that could provide rear support to any element of these even if not providing such support against current opponents) "
Supporting elements the are not really supporting in that CC, must advance? It's not true, isn't it?

I'm hoping it's a raw draft.

Martyn
12-13-2011, 07:59 AM
Not only shooting.
I don't know if it's my bad knowldege of the language, lack of neurons, or if just hermetic as usual, but when finally I could understand some passages I found them terrible.

What does it means: "A Psiloi element (but not other elements) that provided ANY rear support to a destroyed element is also destroyed."
A Ps supporting 3xSp is lost if any supported element is losts? EH? Tell me I'm wrong.

OR in "pursuing" something like : "(or that could provide rear support to any element of these even if not providing such support against current opponents) "
Supporting elements the are not really supporting in that CC, must advance? It's not true, isn't it?

I'm hoping it's a raw draft.

There is a current discussion on the Yahoo group about Ps support and pursuit.
Probably needs a new thread to keep topics separate.

snowcat
12-13-2011, 08:07 AM
Yes, it's the "Bd vs. Wb" thread.

:)

Martyn
12-13-2011, 08:15 AM
In Spain nobody is able to understand how shooting works. At all. We are just puzzled by that paragraph. We do not understand the potential targets, the width of the shooting range, what part of the enemy target you have to see... It is just gibberish.

Could someone be so kind as to explain the shooting phase to us? Thanks :)

As a related note we are quite sad that the "no page limit" announcement has been totally disregarded and that the rulebook is as hermetic as it used to be. Some people is already starting to say that an Unofficial guide is a "must have" to move from 2.2 to 3.0

Xavi

Here is my take on the Distant Shooting section

‘Distant shooting is limited to Artillery up to 500 paces (5 BW) and Bows and War-Wagons up to 200 paces (2 BW), measured between the closest points of the shooting edge (any edge of a War Wagon or the front edge of Bows or Artillery) ‘

Basic range

‘and of any 1 enemy element edge (the target edge) that is within 50 paces (½ BW) of directly in front, except that shooting at or from a BUA or camp is between its nearest point and the shooter or target.’

Target must be in firing arc which extends ½ BW beyond each flank of the firing element (diagram would be useful)

‘If not, Bows and WWg must shoot at a target in their DZ or, if not, shooting at them, otherwise choose any eligible target. Artillery always chooses its target and can shoot through enemy Psiloi.’

Target priority:
1. Enemy in DZ
2. Enemy shooting at element
3. any other target

‘Shooting is not possible if either shooters or target are in close combat or in rear support, but is possible at or by an overlap.’

Eligible target can be an overlap, shooter can be an overlap

‘A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge that do not cross each other or the target element. Artillery shoot only in their own bound.’

Extent of target that must be visible, ½ the front edge or the whole side edge

‘Artillery, War Wagons and mounted infantry cannot both move and shoot.’

OK, I think that is clear

‘A Hill’s crest or a half BW depth of difficult hills, woods, oasis or dunes blocks shooting from and at an element base edge entirely beyond that crest or that depth.’

No shooting over a crest, no shooting if target or firer is beyond the first ½ BW into the terrain as listed

‘An element that is at least partly in a river or entirely in a marsh cannot shoot.’

OK, I think that is clear

‘A 2nd or 3rd element shooting at the same target aids the shooting of the closest shooter by providing a tactical factor instead of being treated separately. Any more elements shooting at that target this bound have no effect. If a shooter whose target cannot shoot back is shot at by a third party, this is resolved first using the same dice score.’

OK, I think that is clear

Hope that help, hope I am right:o

maerk
12-13-2011, 08:20 AM
In Spain nobody is able to understand how shooting works. At all. We are just puzzled by that paragraph. We do not understand the potential targets, the width of the shooting range, what part of the enemy target you have to see... It is just gibberish.

Could someone be so kind as to explain the shooting phase to us? Thanks :)
(...)
Xavi

Being no native english speaker, I don't want to go out on a limb with my interpretation:

I read the first paragraph of distant shooting this way: For an ordinary Bw Element the target choosing process has three steps:

1) If there is an enemy element's edge that is within 50p and directly in front of the shooting element it is has to be chosen as a first priority target.
2) If there is no target of first priority, then any enemy element's edge within the shooting element's danger zone (DZ) has to be chosen as a second priority target.
3) If there are no second priority targets, then any other eligible (shooting range, visibility) enemy element becomes a target of third priority.

my two cents,
Maerk

(sorry for repeating what has been said before, these answers were faster than mine)

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 09:56 AM
Some people is already starting to say that an Unofficial guide is a "must have" to move from 2.2 to 3.0


The Unofficial Guide to 2.2 has been cited by Phil as one of the reasons he created 3.0 in the first place, Xavi. I think he was just expressing his dislike of the Guide, rather than actually claiming he did it to make the Guide redundant, but it is quite clear that he finds the Guide offensive and unnecessary.

kontos
12-13-2011, 10:03 AM
‘A 2nd or 3rd element shooting at the same target aids the shooting of the closest shooter by providing a tactical factor instead of being treated separately. Any more elements shooting at that target this bound have no effect. If a shooter whose target cannot shoot back is shot at by a third party, this is resolved first using the same dice score.’

OK, I think that is clear

Hope that help, hope I am right:o

OK, I am an idiot. I have no idea what that last sentence means.

kontos
12-13-2011, 10:09 AM
The Unofficial Guide to 2.2 has been cited by Phil as one of the reasons he created 3.0 in the first place, Xavi. I think he was just expressing his dislike of the Guide, rather than actually claiming he did it to make the Guide redundant, but it is quite clear that he finds the Guide offensive and unnecessary.

Especially since this ruleset serves as an intro to wargaming and is a simpler version than its bigger family. Maybe we should get 8 year olds to be our guide to understanding?

Martyn
12-13-2011, 10:29 AM
OK, I am an idiot. I have no idea what that last sentence means.

Yes you do Frank, its basically the same as it is under v2.2.

The only difficult bit is the last bit which means that any element only uses one die for all distant shooting combats. So if you shoot at an element of Bd you throw your die and conclude that combat. If your element is subsequently shot at by an enemy Bw which is outside your firing arc you use the same die score used above. :up

winterbadger
12-13-2011, 10:40 AM
Not only shooting.
I don't know if it's my bad knowldege of the language, lack of neurons, or if just hermetic as usual, but when finally I could understand some passages I found them terrible.

It's what happens when an author is immovably fixed on the ideas (a) that more words won't make things clearer and (b) one must use as little space as possible to explain complex ideas.*

What does it means: "A Psiloi element (but not other elements) that provided ANY rear support to a destroyed element is also destroyed."
A Ps supporting 3xSp is lost if any supported element is losts? EH? Tell me I'm wrong.

Remember that the red type is not there for emphasis; it's there to indicate a change in wording from the previous edition. My understanding of this rule is that it's saying that Ps that lent rear support as per the second paragraph of "Rear Support Factors" are eliminated if any element they lent support to is destroyed. In the past, a Ps was only destroyed if the element it was *directly behind* was eliminated. Now it dies if an element it lent support to diagonally is destroyed.

It's also pointing out that these are the *only* elements that are destroyed for lending rear support. Except, of course, the 13th warriors of DBEs...

OR in "pursuing" something like : "(or that could provide rear support to any element of these even if not providing such support against current opponents) "
Supporting elements the are not really supporting in that CC, must advance? It's not true, isn't it?

My understanding is that this is intended to ensure the elimination of elements in a supporting position (like a second-rank Wb behind a Wb) that did not lend support in the combat because they or the element in front were in bad going. Same thing with pursuits--your second-rank Wb that happens to have one toe in BG and so did not support the front-rank Wb still gets to pursue when the front rank element does.

I'm hoping it's a raw draft.

It certainly reads like one, doesn't it? Sadly, many people have worked long and hard to get this draft where it is...





* I don't understand why, if the effort is to keep the page count low, one needs to take up four lines saying that destroyed elements are removed from the table, or expend ink explaining the microeconomic decisions of peasants, or spend a paragraph instructing players in the correct manner of basing 6mm figures or what type of dice they can use, I do not know. And as for the ballooning monstrosity that is the BUA rule, the less said the better...

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 10:47 AM
And as for the ballooning monstrosity that is the BUA rule, the less said the better...

MSWord says there are 6582 words in pages 6-12 (the heart of the rules, ignoring element type description text and Giant Battle at the end).

The BUA rules are more than 1000 of those words, counting the nearly full page on the BUA and all the places where BUA rules are imbedded.

winterbadger
12-13-2011, 10:47 AM
Yes you do Frank, its basically the same as it is under v2.2.

The only difficult bit is the last bit which means that any element only uses one die for all distant shooting combats. So if you shoot at an element of Bd you throw your die and conclude that combat. If your element is subsequently shot at by an enemy Bw which is outside your firing arc you use the same die score used above. :up

But another shooter shooting at that target should aid the first element's shooting, not make a separate roll. "A 2nd or 3rd element shooting at the same target aids the shooting of the closest shooter by providing a tactical factor instead of being treated separately. Any more elements shooting at that target this bound have no effect." So there can be no third party causing a separate die roll.

Even if we were to suppose that there were some way for a third element to shoot separately, how would we remember, possibly several combats later, what the original die roll for the target was? We can't leave the die standing by the element, after all, as we are required to use only one die for the entire game. :rolleyes

winterbadger
12-13-2011, 10:53 AM
MSWord says there are 6582 words in pages 6-12 (the heart of the rules, ignoring element type description text and Giant Battle at the end).

The BUA rules are more than 1000 of those words, counting the nearly full page on the BUA and all the places where BUA rules are imbedded.

I thought it couldn't get any sillier after the whole business of the denizens and puppet regimes and so on, but then the priceless bit about gates was added.

I'm still puzzling over why denizens can sally and return, but camp followers that sally from the camp can't get back in. Maybe it's because camps don't have gates? :silly

Martyn
12-13-2011, 11:01 AM
But another shooter shooting at that target should aid the first element's shooting, not make a separate roll. "A 2nd or 3rd element shooting at the same target aids the shooting of the closest shooter by providing a tactical factor instead of being treated separately. Any more elements shooting at that target this bound have no effect." So there can be no third party causing a separate die roll.

You misunderstand the example I gave. Bw1 (side A) shoots at a Bd1 and therefore a non shooter (side B). The subsequent combat is a third party Bw2 from side B shootiing at the original Bw1 from a position that Bw1 can not fire at it. So the original Bw1 is shot at only once by a single element and itself shoots only once.

Even if we were to suppose that there were some way for a third element to shoot separately, how would we remember, possibly several combats later, what the original die roll for the target was? We can't leave the die standing by the element, after all, as we are required to use only one die for the entire game. :rolleyes

That is a different problem which I am sure some one of your ingenuity can think of a solution. :silly

winterbadger
12-13-2011, 11:06 AM
You misunderstand the example I gave.

I did, and I also failed basic reading, "If a shooter whose target cannot shoot back is shot at by a third party,...." I failed to notice that critical element of the equation.

Thanks for the clarification! :up

David Schlanger
12-13-2011, 11:14 AM
The Unofficial Guide to 2.2 has been cited by Phil as one of the reasons he created 3.0 in the first place, Xavi. I think he was just expressing his dislike of the Guide, rather than actually claiming he did it to make the Guide redundant, but it is quite clear that he finds the Guide offensive and unnecessary.

It is also Phil's stated preference that there be no "Unofficial Guide" for 3.0.

DS

larryessick
12-13-2011, 11:17 AM
It is also Phil's stated preference that there be no "Unofficial Guide" for 3.0.

Wouldn't that be reasonable on many levels, not the least of which is that Sue is writing her own which, I would guess, would be an official guide?

David Schlanger
12-13-2011, 11:23 AM
Wouldn't that be reasonable on many levels, not the least of which is that Sue is writing her own which, I would guess, would be an official guide?

I suspect Sue's primer will be quite a different kind of resource. And I am not sure I would ever describe Phil as reasonable.

DS

Xavi
12-13-2011, 11:24 AM
So, shooting rules are the same, only that
- shooting area extends only half base on each side, not a full base on each side
- You must shot at someone in your ZOC
- If no vaslid target is in your ZOC, you shot at whatever target you want.

Usual shooting limits (shot at other shooters et al) apply as normal.

I would say 3.0 will not be played in Spain unless an unifficial guide is published. 2.2 is only played since there *is* an unofficial guide, after all. No unofficial would mean we would be playing other games instead.

The unofficial guide (with WADBAG permission) was translated by a group of people in laarmada.info forum. After that they translated the amry lists (with PB permission). B oth documents were uploaded to be downloaded free. This was the start call for DBA in Spain. As simple as that. I would say phil should have sold quite a few rulebooks in Spain in the last 4-5 years as a consequence of that. Without the Unofficial guide this wouldn't have happened. DBA is not an easy to understand game for people that is fluent in English (both foreigners and non foreigners), so put that in front of a dude that is not even fluent in normal English and see what rulebook he choses: DBA 3.0 or the last version of impetus translated into Spanish?


Xavi

kontos
12-13-2011, 11:27 AM
So, shooting rules are the same, only that
- shooting area extends only half base on each side, not a full base on each side
- You must shot at someone in your ZOC
- If no vaslid target is in your ZOC, you shot at whatever target you want.

Usual shooting limits (shot at other shooters et al) apply as normal.

And you only need one target edge in the open and you can fire or be fired upon from an overlap position and you don't get destroyed if fired upon the rear (you turn to face before you recoil/flee) and you can now fire up to 50p into/from certain terrain types and I'm sure there are more changes.

See? Bullets are better than run on sentences. :silly

Xavi
12-13-2011, 11:35 AM
See? Bullets are better than run on sentences. :silly

I would tend to agree, yup :rotfl:2up

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 11:44 AM
I would say 3.0 will not be played in Spain unless an unifficial guide is published. 2.2 is only played since there *is* an unofficial guide, after all. No unofficial would mean we would be playing other games instead.

The unofficial guide (with WADBAG permission) was translated by a group of people in laarmada.info forum. After that they translated the amry lists (with PB permission). B oth documents were uploaded to be downloaded free. This was the start call for DBA in Spain. As simple as that. I would say phil should have sold quite a few rulebooks in Spain in the last 4-5 years as a consequence of that. Without the Unofficial guide this wouldn't have happened. DBA is not an easy to understand game for people that is fluent in English (both foreigners and non foreigners), so put that in front of a dude that is not even fluent in normal English and see what rulebook he choses: DBA 3.0 or the last version of impetus translated into Spanish?


Thanks, Xavi, we appreciate that.

Phil, however, sees things differently. I'm certain he does not want there to be an Unofficial Guide for 3.0.

Xavi
12-13-2011, 11:47 AM
Since it is not official, I fail to see what he can do about it, really. At least without investing quite a few bucks in lawyers, something I suppose he would not do.

kontos
12-13-2011, 11:54 AM
Since it is not official, I fail to see what he can do about it, really. At least without investing quite a few bucks in lawyers, something I suppose he would not do.

He'll make 4.0 in protest against the guide so the guide now becomes a useful tactic for getting rid of the abomination called 3.0. :up

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 12:07 PM
Since it is not official, I fail to see what he can do about it, really. At least without investing quite a few bucks in lawyers, something I suppose he would not do.

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but the legal threat isn't the only complication. I can tell you one thing for sure -- if 3.0 isn't better than 2.2, it is unlikely that WADBAG is going to be interested in putting in the amount of effort required to create an Unofficial Guide. Translating Barker-->English and creating it as clear, readable rules is a significant effort. Further, some of the issues resolved by the Guide were in places where the rules were unclear; when possible that meant going with the communal interpretation (i.e., how the majority of people played it). A communal interpretation (a common understanding) won't exist until after three or four years of play.

So will we see a new Unofficial Guide for 3.0 in 3-4 years? I tend to doubt it. Phil's desires aren't the only reason why, and potential legal exposure also isn't the only thing.

Inari7
12-13-2011, 12:07 PM
He'll make 4.0 in protest against the guide so the guide now becomes a useful tactic for getting rid of the abomination called 3.0. :up

Highly unlikely, Phil is getting up in years this will probably be his last DBA update.

That begs to question what will happen to DBA when Phil is gone or unable to produce another rule set.

winterbadger
12-13-2011, 12:23 PM
PB has far too many other fish to fry. This edition of DBA is supposed to settle it down for good and all, as I understand comments I've read here.

Look at the laundry list of other rules he wants to publish next. HFG, plus three (3) period-specific spin-offs of HFG; DBV; and four modern/semi-modern games--Subs and SAMs, Sharp End, a rewrite of the old armour game, and something else called Arrows & Goose Eggs (!)

PB stashes rules projects the way most of us stash figures. :) He can never die, because he will never be finished with all his projects.

ferrency
12-13-2011, 12:26 PM
It is also Phil's stated preference that there be no "Unofficial Guide" for 3.0.

I hereby officially state my preference that there be no DBA 3.0. Fat lot of good it'll do, though...

Alan

kontos
12-13-2011, 12:43 PM
Highly unlikely, Phil is getting up in years this will probably be his last DBA update.

That begs to question what will happen to DBA when Phil is gone or unable to produce another rule set.

Maybe someone with a clue will get the rights and update it to an enjoyable, long lasting, living document to be enjoyed by all. One can dream, right? :D

PubliusTerentius
12-13-2011, 01:14 PM
DBR permits shooting from and to overlap as DBA 3 now does in draft. It has a substantial effect on the game since careful calculation of eventual combat strengths by the bounding player may be upset by the results of shooting. It is a change, but no one has died of apoplexy from it (that I know of.)

DBR permits many more elements to shoot (Psiloi/Skirmishers, Light Horse, Pistol Cavalry) and hence there are many more weird shooting situations that arise. Phil appears to be addressing the "keyhole shooting problem" from DBR in the following sentence.

A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge that do not cross each other or the target element.


My parsing of this phrase is:
[Select a target in range, within arc, and according to target priority]

1) Draw a line from each corner of the shooting edge to a corner of the target edge of the target element.

2) These lines must not cross each other and they may not cross the shooting element or the target element. If the lines cross each other or one of the elements, you may not shoot at that target edge.

3) If the distance between these lines is ever less than 1/2BW, you may not shoot at that target edge unless you are shooting at the target's flank edge.

http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k571/PubliusTerentius/Keyhole5.jpg
In this picture, Blue's Bows are positioned facing the bottom of the image with Blue's Warband in front of them. Red's Psiloi is within range and arc and Blue's bow has no other potential targets.

Blue draws lines between his shooting edge (front edge) and Red's target edge (also front edge.) These lines are not blocked by Blue's warband. They do not cross each other, nor do they cross Blue's Bow or Red's Psiloi. Condition #2 has been met.

But, the distance between the lines is less than 1/2BW so shooting from this shooting edge to the target edge is not allowed. The rule prevents "shooting through a keyhole" to get to the Red Psiloi.

Shooting at Red's left flank edge also fails since Blue's warband blocks the lines. Shooting at Red's right flank or rear edge crosses the Psiloi itself and so is not allowed. Blue may not shoot at Red at all.

IIRC this shooting was permitted in DBA2.2

Xavi
12-13-2011, 01:17 PM
Funnily enough, psiloi CANNOT die from shooting in DBA 3.0.

In 2.2 the shooting situation you mark is perfectly possible. Except that the Ps would not shot back ;)

Cheers,
Xavi

David Schlanger
12-13-2011, 01:19 PM
Highly unlikely, Phil is getting up in years this will probably be his last DBA update.

That begs to question what will happen to DBA when Phil is gone or unable to produce another rule set.

Phil stated recently: "If I dropped dead tomorrow (and I am pushing 80), Chris would take over as WRG’s rules editor."

That's not Chris Brantley of course, but one of the current participants in the DBA 3.0 development group - Chris Hanley.

DS

Xavi
12-13-2011, 01:21 PM
And your impression of that change would be....?

Bobgnar
12-13-2011, 01:36 PM
This is excellent, thanks Martyn. Note that there will be diagrams in final version.

I still do not think the "third party" rule is clear.

Here is my take on the Distant Shooting section

‘Distant shooting is limited to Artillery up to 500 paces (5 BW) and Bows and War-Wagons up to 200 paces (2 BW), measured between the closest points of the shooting edge (any edge of a War Wagon or the front edge of Bows or Artillery) ‘

Basic range

‘and of any 1 enemy element edge (the target edge) that is within 50 paces (½ BW) of directly in front, except that shooting at or from a BUA or camp is between its nearest point and the shooter or target.’

Target must be in firing arc which extends ½ BW beyond each flank of the firing element (diagram would be useful)

‘If not, Bows and WWg must shoot at a target in their DZ or, if not, shooting at them, otherwise choose any eligible target. Artillery always chooses its target and can shoot through enemy Psiloi.’

Target priority:
1. Enemy in DZ
2. Enemy shooting at element
3. any other target

‘Shooting is not possible if either shooters or target are in close combat or in rear support, but is possible at or by an overlap.’

Eligible target can be an overlap, shooter can be an overlap

‘A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge that do not cross each other or the target element. Artillery shoot only in their own bound.’

Extent of target that must be visible, ½ the front edge or the whole side edge

‘Artillery, War Wagons and mounted infantry cannot both move and shoot.’

OK, I think that is clear

‘A Hill’s crest or a half BW depth of difficult hills, woods, oasis or dunes blocks shooting from and at an element base edge entirely beyond that crest or that depth.’

No shooting over a crest, no shooting if target or firer is beyond the first ½ BW into the terrain as listed

‘An element that is at least partly in a river or entirely in a marsh cannot shoot.’

OK, I think that is clear

‘A 2nd or 3rd element shooting at the same target aids the shooting of the closest shooter by providing a tactical factor instead of being treated separately. Any more elements shooting at that target this bound have no effect. If a shooter whose target cannot shoot back is shot at by a third party, this is resolved first using the same dice score.’

OK, I think that is clear

Hope that help, hope I am right:o

Bobgnar
12-13-2011, 01:42 PM
At least the new rules will have diagrams. That is finally a reasonable decision.

I suspect Sue's primer will be quite a different kind of resource. And I am not sure I would ever describe Phil as reasonable.

DS

David Schlanger
12-13-2011, 01:49 PM
And your impression of that change would be....?

I don't know Chris Hanley personally.
Phil said "...he is the author of an exceptionally good WW1 air warfare game that has been a runaway convention success for players otherwise normally involved in many historical periods."
I do know he was heavily involved in the development of DBMM.
He is now primarily a DBMM player.
He used to take part in a DBA competition called the Plum Cup.

DS

Bobgnar
12-13-2011, 01:51 PM
Dave, thanks for that comment. Perhaps Chris could write here about his views on DBA. Actually I have yet to see any comments from him here or at Yahoo or anywhere. Hopefully WRG will not need another DBA editor.

Phil stated recently: "If I dropped dead tomorrow (and I am pushing 80), Chris would take over as WRG’s rules editor."

That's not Chris Brantley of course, but one of the current participants in the DBA 3.0 development group - Chris Hanley.

DS

David Schlanger
12-13-2011, 02:03 PM
Dave, thanks for that comment. Perhaps Chris could write here about his views on DBA. Actually I have yet to see any comments from him here or at Yahoo or anywhere. Hopefully WRG will not need another DBA editor.

Thanks for your comment too, Bob. After supporting DBA for more than a decade, it is worrisome that Phil's successor would not be primarily focused on DBA.

DS

winterbadger
12-13-2011, 02:11 PM
Thanks for your comment too, Bob. After supporting DBA for more than a decade, it is worrisome that Phil's successor would not be primarily focused on DBA.

Oh, David, that's an awful dangling participle! :eek

Would it be a change? Phil hasn't been primarily focused on DBA either. From what I gather, he rarely plays it, and he engages with it in a seemingly eccentric and irregular manner.

David Schlanger
12-13-2011, 02:28 PM
Would it be a change? Phil hasn't been primarily focused on DBA either. From what I gather, he rarely plays it, and he engages with it in a seemingly eccentric and irregular manner.

I didn't think this even needed to be said!

DS

kontos
12-13-2011, 03:23 PM
I didn't think this even needed to be said!

DS

A good friend of mine always said, "Don't you be thinkin'; you better be knowin'".

neldoreth
12-13-2011, 06:00 PM
It is just gibberish.

I'm truly glad to hear that some things never change.

n.

Si2
12-13-2011, 06:51 PM
The paragraph is very similar to that in HFG for shooting - especially that last sentence. I couldn't work out what it meant...

I did bullet point the HFG rules and the shooting priority.


Dicing using the same score just means a draw doesn't it??

daft.

Lobotomy
12-13-2011, 10:46 PM
So, shooting rules are the same, only that
- shooting area extends only half base on each side, not a full base on each side
- You must shot at someone in your ZOC
- If no vaslid target is in your ZOC, you shot at whatever target you want.

Usual shooting limits (shot at other shooters et al) apply as normal.

Xavi

Xavi - I believe there is no requirement that shooters shoot at each other, as you imply. They only have to shoot at each other IF the person who's bound it is decides to shoot at the other shooters. So, as otherwise pointed out, Player 1 shooter shoots at something else, then Player 2 shoots at the shooter, the Player 2 shooter will not suffer an adverse result.

mdsanderson
12-13-2011, 11:11 PM
I would hope we can at least say that a group is working on "Unofficial Guide to 3.0" just to piss Phil B off. Currently I do not believe that a new gamer could pick up the test version of 3.0 and understand how to play unless he had a fully licensed professional DBA player available to help him.

Mike Sanderson

kontos
12-13-2011, 11:20 PM
I would hope we can at least say that a group is working on "Unofficial Guide to 3.0" just to piss Phil B off. Currently I do not believe that a new gamer could pick up the test version of 3.0 and understand how to play unless he had a fully licensed professional DBA player available to help him.

Mike Sanderson

Don't get your hopes up, Mike. Such a group, if it existed, would be making a massive investment in personal time to support a rules system they liked. I doubt that investment would have a rate of return for a system they don't appear to support and suffer attacks from the very author they once tried to assist making his brainchild readable and playable. :up

Mark Davies
12-14-2011, 04:50 AM
Currently I do not believe that a new gamer could pick up the test version of 3.0 and understand how to play unless he had a fully licensed professional DBA player available to help him.

Mike Sanderson
I couldn't agree more. I found 2.2 impenetrable without The Unofficial Guide; and I suspect I'll make sense of 3.0 only inasmuch as I understand 2.2. All the things that would make 3.0 easy to understand, a glossary of definitions, an index, bullet points, are not there; and we are expected to get the proposed Introduction to Wargaming to help get up to speed!

Alan Saunders
12-14-2011, 07:56 AM
and we are expected to get the proposed Introduction to Wargaming to help get up to speed!

I like the idea that experienced wargamers are considering buying a book called 'Introduction To Wargaming' in order to help them understand a set of rules described by the author as "the simplest possible set of wargames rules that retain the feel and generalship requirements of ancient or medieval battle"* :-)

*To be fair I lopped off the beginning of that line, which said "Our original intent was to provide ...".

michael guth
12-15-2011, 01:11 AM
In DBA 2.2, 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0:


Pike
bowAbowBbowC

Here the pike can be shot at by bowB in the middle with support from BowA and BowC.

But in DBa 3.0 the pike is not within a half BW of bowA or bowC so only bowB can shot at the pike, unsupported

Tactically then you are better off in 3.0 playing cleverly to misalign your bow with the enemy....

Pike
bowAbowBbowC so that now bowB can shoot at the pike with support of bow A.

Well, Macedonian players will like this....

michael guth
12-15-2011, 01:12 AM
xxxxxPikexxxx
bowABowBBowC

Where the x;s are just placeholding, the pike are aligned with BowB front corner to front corner as it were....

winterbadger
12-15-2011, 01:23 AM
Bwuh? How is the pike not within half a base width of directly in front of A and C? Are you interpreting it to mean that the entire edge being shot at has to be in that 1/2BW? I don't think that's a requirement. That's never been the way that very similar phrasing in 2.2 has been interpreted, that I've seen.

platypus01
12-15-2011, 05:46 AM
Bow B can shoot at the Pike with support from A and C.

A target edge is within 1/2 BW of A and C, it is within range of A and C and a full side edge is available to be shot at.

I can't see why you think otherwise.

Cheers,
JohnG

Filippo S.
12-15-2011, 07:52 AM
Remember that the red type is not there for emphasis; it's there to indicate a change in wording from the previous edition.
I notice that (red) "ANY" in a green sentence. That's the reason of my doubts, I just want to be sure; I read that sentence in the same way, it's a BIG modification to 2.2 as the PS support to side elements was from v.1.

I would say 3.0 will not be played in Spain unless an unifficial guide is published. 2.2 is only played since there *is* an unofficial guide, after all. No unofficial would mean we would be playing other games instead.

Here in Italy we play 2.x since 2002/2003 (personally 2004). Good old "Bob's DBA commentaries" was the only aid together with the words of the wisdoms :D. Without it, I remember it was very difficult to understand most of the rules.
2012 championship will surely start with 2.2 rules, even if they will be released before 31/12/2011. We'll organize some test-matches when 3.0 will be available, after the results we'll decide.

Ciao

michael guth
12-15-2011, 09:16 PM
I'm missing either the phrase 'entire', or 'any part of' before 'target base edge'. I know how we play it in 2.2. But I don't know if 3.0 is supposed to be the same or different.

Mike Guth

Dangun
12-17-2011, 10:28 AM
I'm missing either the phrase 'entire', or 'any part of' before 'target base edge'. I know how we play it in 2.2. But I don't know if 3.0 is supposed to be the same or different.

Mike Guth

That's very metagame Michael.
If we didn't know what Barker meant in 2.2, we can't even use a comparison of the text to figure out what he means in 3.0.

Cheers
Dangun

Wm.E.Reseigh
12-18-2011, 01:24 AM
Ok, I'm not sure about the "keyhole shooting" problem, but I'm thinking that the Bows would have to shoot at the Warband in P. Terentius' example because the Warband is in the Bows DZ. If the Warband were not in the DZ the Psiloi would be a fair target; in range, within 1/2 BW to the side, plenty of Barker Marker space to shoot through.

winterbadger
12-18-2011, 01:27 AM
I confess to being more interested in keyhole necklines than keyhole shooting, which sounds like something Robin Hood would to to show off at cocktail parties.

It's late; I'll get my coat... :silly

PubliusTerentius
12-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Ok, I'm not sure about the "keyhole shooting" problem, but I'm thinking that the Bows would have to shoot at the Warband in P. Terentius' example because the Warband is in the Bows DZ. If the Warband were not in the DZ the Psiloi would be a fair target; in range, within 1/2 BW to the side, plenty of Barker Marker space to shoot through.

In my example the Warband and the Bow are in the same army. The friendly element blocks/affects the drawing of the corner lines.

The key sticky point is that, at first reading, it sounds like the rules say you can shoot at someone if you can see a half BW worth of their front edge. Unfortunately the rules actually say something else -- that the space between the lines drawn to the target edge can't be smaller than a half BW (unless you are shooting at a flank edge.)

I understand that Phil is trying to close a loophole that would otherwise allow some pretty sketchy sideways shooting problems. Here though the cure is worse than the disease.

david kuijt
12-18-2011, 12:02 PM
I understand that Phil is trying to close a loophole that would otherwise allow some pretty sketchy sideways shooting problems. Here though the cure is worse than the disease.


I spent about 50 emails to the commentary group 8-10 months ago on this issue, without much result. Well, not completely without result -- I think it is no longer possible to do X-ray shooting (firing at a target completely obscured, but by two separate elements with neither blocking with more than a 1/2 BW part of themselves).

Martyn
12-18-2011, 06:51 PM
In my example the Warband and the Bow are in the same army. The friendly element blocks/affects the drawing of the corner lines.

The key sticky point is that, at first reading, it sounds like the rules say you can shoot at someone if you can see a half BW worth of their front edge. Unfortunately the rules actually say something else -- that the space between the lines drawn to the target edge can't be smaller than a half BW (unless you are shooting at a flank edge.)

I understand that Phil is trying to close a loophole that would otherwise allow some pretty sketchy sideways shooting problems. Here though the cure is worse than the disease.

I can't see where the measurement of the space between the lines comes from?

‘A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge that do not cross each other or the target element.’

This identifies the extent of the target that must be available but does not specify that this applies to the lines. If that is the intent the rule would also need to specify how the distance is measured between those lines. Is it perpendicular to the two lines, perpendicular to one of the lines (in which case which), parallel to the taget edge or parallel to the shooting edge. The selection of the criteria for measurement can have a major effect.

Alan Saunders
12-18-2011, 07:02 PM
I confess to being more interested in keyhole necklines than keyhole shooting,

So am I, but I just don't have the boobs to do them justice :)

winterbadger
12-18-2011, 08:45 PM
So am I, but I just don't have the boobs to do them justice :)

Hence my preference for seeing them on other people. :D

PubliusTerentius
12-19-2011, 08:56 PM
‘A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge that do not cross each other or the target element.’

Let's parse that out operationally:

1) ...between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge... Draw lines from the corners of the shooting edge to the corners of the target edge. (Note that there is no mid-edge corners of course, so the only possible set of lines are from corners to corners)

2) ...that do not cross each other or the target element. Check to see that the lines don't cross each other or the target element. Or presumably any other elements.

3) A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between [the] lines... -- One of two conditions must apply:
a) the shooter is shooting at the full side edge of the target as the "target edge" (...the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between [the] lines...)
OR
b) the shooter is shooting such that the space between the lines is 1/2 BW (A ½ BW ... must be available to be shot at between [the] lines... ) How one might measure that distance is beyond me, but I posted a diagram of a hostile case.

Some might argue that the lines only have be drawn to a gap 1/2BW somewhere on the target edge. While that might be desirable, there are no corners to draw the lines to so that interpretation is not possible.

Even if the rule were rewritten such that one could highlight "virtual corners" somewhere along the target edge, it strikes me that interpretation of that space might be more than slightly contentious.

Cue sad trombone (http://www.sadtrombone.com)...

Rich Gause
12-19-2011, 09:46 PM
This rule is not as good as the current 2.2 rule as explained in the unofficial guide. Drawing lines from the shooting edge corners to the target edge corner and making sure no other elements is there is very easily done and fairly precise, not perfect, but so what easy simple and works. Measuring a 1/2 basewidth somewhere between the lines not so good, imprecise and when it is really close I can see lots of room for disagreement. I am not sure any value gained is going to be worth the extra trouble when it is close.

Lobotomy
12-19-2011, 10:23 PM
The purpose of this rule, as I understand it, is to eliminate the lines to corners, WHICH IS NOT IN 2.2. It is a pet peeve of Diceman this drawing of lines, and I agree with him. As long as there is a 20mm gap, you can shoot, is the way I read it.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 12:22 AM
Played Medieval German against Later Hungarian today.

We had this exact situation come up in our game.

Lines drawn from the Bw to my Kn connecting front corners without crossing one another. It was easy to judge where the lines were. One crossed another element on its way in. This does not seem to be prohibited by the rule. The line crossed another element but not the target element.

There was more than .5 BW of my Kn exposed as we took the shadow of the intervening element into account. That meant my Kn was a legitimate target.

The wording seemed cryptic but when we did what was described we found it easy to see that the Kn was a legitimate target.

Martyn
12-20-2011, 05:12 PM
‘A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge that do not cross each other or the target element.’

Let's parse that out operationally:

1) ...between lines connecting corners of the shooting and target edge... Draw lines from the corners of the shooting edge to the corners of the target edge. (Note that there is no mid-edge corners of course, so the only possible set of lines are from corners to corners)

2) ...that do not cross each other or the target element. Check to see that the lines don't cross each other or the target element. Or presumably any other elements.

3) A ½ BW or the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between [the] lines... -- One of two conditions must apply:
a) the shooter is shooting at the full side edge of the target as the "target edge" (...the full side edge of a target element must be available to be shot at between [the] lines...)
OR
b) the shooter is shooting such that the space between the lines is 1/2 BW (A ½ BW ... must be available to be shot at between [the] lines... ) How one might measure that distance is beyond me, but I posted a diagram of a hostile case.

Some might argue that the lines only have be drawn to a gap 1/2BW somewhere on the target edge. While that might be desirable, there are no corners to draw the lines to so that interpretation is not possible.

Even if the rule were rewritten such that one could highlight "virtual corners" somewhere along the target edge, it strikes me that interpretation of that space might be more than slightly contentious.

Cue sad trombone (http://www.sadtrombone.com)...

But there is still nothing to say that the distance between the lines must be measured, and no mechanism for measuring.

Larry's post immediately above seems to summerise this rule nicely, with the rule used in a game which makes sense, whereas just reading does not always help.