Sub-generals... +1 combat modifier?

[Ares]

In Big Battle, do sub-generals get the +1 combat modifier that normal generals get in regular DBA? I'm not referring to the once-per-game modifier that the CinC gets, but the standard general's modifier.

Eric

[Snowtiger]

Only the C-i-C gets the +1 modifier.

[Pozanias]

I disagree. I believe that all GENERALS (C-in-C, sub-generals, ally generals) get the +1 modifier in combat.

The actual language is:

"+1 If the general's element; and either in close combat or being shot at".

In other places, the rules distinguish things specifically applicable to the C-in-C, so I think using the term "general" refers to all generals.

[David Kuijt]

I'm with Mark -- all three generals get the +1 in usual combat (as compared to the "miracle-save" one-shot +1).

[xeswop]

There are no "sub-generals" in BBDBA. There are 2 generals and a CinC (some may be ally generals) . In standard DBA, all Generals get a +1, as noted below. There is no change from standard DBA to BBDBA on this rule.

[imported_Lee Shackelford]

I know that the wording can get quite tangled, but even then, SOME wording IS quite clear.... all Gen get the +1, in normal combat, no "think" about it smile.gif

Lee

[Ares]

That is what I assumed... but someone I played a game of Big Battle with was quite certain that the "non-CinC" generals did not get the +1 modifier...

Is it different in DBM? Is is possible that he's carrying something over from DBM?

Eric

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Ares:


Is it different in DBM? Is is possible that he's carrying something over from DBM?

Eric No, it's the same in DBM.

I suspect your opponent was confusing the normal +1 general bonus with the one time additional +1 for the CinC.

[Volund]

Originally posted by Ares:
That is what I assumed... but someone I played a game of Big Battle with was quite certain that the "non-CinC" generals did not get the +1 modifier...

Is it different in DBM? Is is possible that he's carrying something over from DBM?

Eric I may be wrong, but I believe that in DBAOL a programming omission means that only the C-in-C gets the +1. The other two generals (wrongly) get no modifier. So if your informant has played multi-general DBAOL this may be the source of the confusion.

Kim

[Snowtiger]

"+1 If the general's element; and either in close combat or being shot at".

This means THE general of the army, not some sub-general or allied-general, duke, marshall or whatever. Only THE army's general gets the +1 modifier. Else the rule would say "+1 If a general's element; and either in close combat or being shot at".

and it does not. So IMO only the C-i-C gets the +1.

But it doesn't really matter if sides agree beforehand to give the modifier to all generals or to THE general smile.gif

Cheers,

Anton

[Ares]

Anton,

I understand your point; but what do you make of the fact that in the Big Battle rules, all 3 commanders are referred to simply as "generals?"

In your quoted example, "'The' general" simply differentiates the general's element from other elements, not the CinC's element from other generals.

Eric

[xeswop]

Anton,
Consider the rules for big battle.
The first paragraph says, last sentence
"This differs from the standard version only as described below."

Where below does it even refer to the +1 given to generals? There is no mention of what factors generals get except that the CinC gets the extra +1 once in a game. If generals associated with each command were not to get the standard +1, then this would need to be in the text. Things not changed in the BB text are the same as in the standard game.

Can you point to the place in the BB text where the standard +1 for generals is taken away? The text refers to generals, not to
"some sub-general or allied-general, duke, marshall or whatever." A general is a general, and gets all the rights and privileges of such. The one change explicit for generals is to allow them to be other than the troop type given in the list. If Phil went to this extent, would he not also have noted if generals do not get the +1

Or just do as you want, after all, what are the rules for except to change. smile.gif

[David Schlanger]

I almost can't believe this is being discussed. Seems to be just plain common sense to me.

DS

[John Meunier]

DS - how does der Phil-meister say it? Typical 8-year-old child? graemlins/thumbup.gif

[imported_Lee Shackelford]

DS,

Unfortunately, I do believe that this is being discussed. Too many people choose to read things whichever way they choose, the best example in the current conversation is Snowtiger's

"....... But it doesn't really matter if sides agree beforehand to give the modifier to all generals or to THE general ....... "

agreement is more important than actually knowing the rules.

Lee

PS Bob's quote of the first para. says it all.

[Ares]

Originally posted by David Schlanger:
I almost can't believe this is being discussed.Yep, add one more to the list of topics that DBA can generate divergent understandings on.

Seems to be just plain common sense to me.Believe me, I thought so too... people (at least three that I can name) are reading the same things you and I are, and taking a totally other meaning from it. :rolleyes:

Here's what happened: in a recent game of Big Battle, my left-flank general got into a combat, and I naturally attempted to apply the general's modifier to the combat. My opponent informed me smile.gif that the modifier didn't apply to non-CinC generals... at that, I could only cock one eyebrow and say "huh?"
On top of this, the fellow hosting the games - a long-time wargamer, nice enough guy, and generous with his armies too - agreed that, indeed, the modifier didn't apply to non-CinC's!

I assented, not because I thought there was even the slightest chance that his was the conventional understanding of the rule, but because I perceived there was a misunderstanding of the rules so fundamental that I was not prepared to dispute it at the expense of (a) totally disrupting a game, and (b) seeming petulant and argumentative.

So... I brought the topic up for discussion here to discover if there was the slightest chance that his was the conventional understanding (remaining firmly skeptical, however). I see now that it is not, but also that my DBA colleagues here at home are not alone in their view - it is apparently trans-Atlantic, even!

Eric

[ October 12, 2005, 14:01: Message edited by: Ares ]

[imported_JLogan]

Eric;
For what it's worth, had I been able to make it, I would have agreed with you that all 3 generals in a BBDBA get the +1 modifier.

John

[Ares]

Thanks, John. It was a good game day - sorry you couldn't be there. Anomalous rule interpretations aside, it probably beat running a concession stand. smile.gif

Eric

[Kull the Barbarian]

You know folks mistakes can be made in the interpretation of any WRG rules. I have been using one form or another of Phil's rules since 6th ed. and have found that understanding is in the eye of the beholder. As simple as DBA is I still am learning the suttle nature of some rules of the game. In this case a mistake was made, a review of the rules shows that the intent is to allow an extra +1 to be used by the C in C once per game ln combat. Mark it up to a first journey into BBDBA. As this old gamer plays more BBDBA he might get it right. Eric and John we need to get together and work on our BBDBA understanding by playing more games.

Steve

[John Meunier]

Originally posted by Kull the Barbarian:
Eric and John we need to get together and work on our BBDBA understanding by playing more games.

A brilliant plan for most problems in DBA. Just keep playing. And then play some more.

Wish I could arrange for more of this medicine myself.

[Ares]

Originally posted by Kull the Barbarian:
Eric and John we need to get together and work on our BBDBA understanding by playing more games.
Steve Hey, I'm all for that. smile.gif

Maybe not the next time we get together, but soon, I could have something put together for Big Battle - since last Saturday, I'm starting to see the possibilities in the end-of-Rome period - I'm thinking Patrician.

Eric