Artillery/War wagons in combat

[imported_Allan]

The rules under "Moving into contact with enemy" on page 9 start by saying that "Artillery or war wagons cannot move into edge or corner contact with an enemy element..." I understand that artillery and war wagons cannot move into combat contact with their front facing. Does the statement quoted refer to any edge or just the front edge? Are they permitted, as part of a group move, to move into an overlap position when no enemy faces them? Are they allowed to move into a position of mutual flank edge contact?

Thanks,
-Allan

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by Allan:
The rules under "Moving into contact with enemy" on page 9 start by saying that "Artillery or war wagons cannot move into edge or corner contact with an enemy element..." I understand that artillery and war wagons cannot move into combat contact with their front facing. Does the statement quoted refer to any edge or just the front edge? /[QUOTE]

I have always interpreted it as any edge. If front edge only, it should have been explicitely stated in the rules.

[QUOTE]
Are they permitted, as part of a group move, to move into an overlap position when no enemy faces them?
I would say no. At least I have always played like that.

Are they allowed to move into a position of mutual flank edge contact?
Same answer as before.

Now, my question... if Art or WWg are already in overlap contact, can they make a move keeping in contact, like closing the door?

Attilio

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Allan:
Are they permitted, as part of a group move, to move into an overlap position when no enemy faces them? Are they allowed to move into a position of mutual flank edge contact?
No, and no.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Andrechin:

Now, my question... if Art or WWg are already in overlap contact, can they make a move keeping in contact, like closing the door?
Definitely no closing the door!

[xeswop]

David has given the definitive answer to this.

Let me ask a question of Allen. Many of us have been working with Phil to get the rules clear. We often send him messages about unclear statements. Perhaps this rule needs to be clearer. What should be changed to make this rule clear that WWg and Art cannot move into contact with enemy elements.

The 2.0 rule is
" Artillery or war wagons cannot move into edge or corner contact with an enemy element..."

The 1.1 rule is
"Artillery and war wagons cannot be moved into contact with an enemy..."

People complained about the 1.1 rule because it did not say what kind of contact. So Phil changed it to say edge and corner. What else can be done?

[imported_Allan]

The version 1.1 rule was quite clear to me. As I am a relatively new returnee to the game after a several year absence perhaps I have become a victim of the intense scrutiny and disection of the rules I see on this and the Yahoo forum. If the rule stated that artillery and war wagons cannot initiate any contact of any kind including overlaps then maybe that would have spelled it out clear enough for me. As it is I wanted to see if it was generally accepted by the gaming community that a window had been left open for these types of elements to engage in some form of offensive action. I am currently painting an army that contains both artillery and war wagons so the ruling became important to me.

-Allan

[konstantinius]

Whooooa, I never realized that Wg are not allowed to overlap. Is this because no contact is allowed, even with just one corner? sorry, my rules are packed away right now and can't look it up.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by konstantinius:
Whooooa, I never realized that Wg are not allowed to overlap. Is this because no contact is allowed, even with just one corner? WWg are allowed to "be" an overlap -- they aren't allowed to move into a position that would create an overlap. If the enemy moves into a position where your WWg counts as an overlap, you're fine.

[konstantinius]

Odd. Any idea what the historical justification is?

[DBAse]

WWg are allowed to "be" an overlap -- they aren't allowed to move into a position that would create an overlap. If the enemy moves into a position where your WWg counts as an overlap, you're fine. WOW!!! Is this true? Completely NEW information!

1) Does this mean a WWg may be denied the ability to move directly forward because it may create an overlap?

This would seem silly to me. But, I am fairly silly myself.

2) Does that mean its illegal for a WWg to recoil into an overlap position?

3) Does this mean that if an enemy moves into an overlap position, a WWg cannot move forward unless he can COMPLETELY escape the overlap?

4) What happens if I move the WWg into what WOULD be an overlap position IF the enemy unit was in combat AND THEN move a unit into contact with the enemy? Is that OK?

DBAse

[DBAse]

XES*** wrote What should be changed to make this rule clear that WWg and Art cannot move into contact with enemy elements. As with all rules.
Two things would help.
Firstly, a diagram.
Secondly, add a few sentances to explain away the obvious questions.

DBAse

[David Crowell]

Originally posted by DBAse:
[QUOTE]
4) What happens if I move the WWg into what WOULD be an overlap position IF the enemy unit was in combat AND THEN move a unit into contact with the enemy? Is that OK?

DBAse This one at least is a no can do, for two reasons actually. 1) It requires moving into contact with an enemy that is not in combat, which is only allowed as part of a group move if at least one member of the group ends in combat, since you didn't say group move I assume the Wwg is moving on its own. 2) Warwagons are not allowed to move into contact with the enemy.


Your question 1, also brings into play the rules on crossing an enemy's front (at least potentially). It seems to me that the Wwg could move forward as long as it was not in front of the enemy and stopped before it made corner contact, and thus created the overlap.

I am not sure that Wwg should even be an element type in DBA. In at least one army list it seems the element is there to represent one (1) singular wagon from one battle. If this is enough to justify an element choice on the army lists, Caesars Legions (Marian Roman) should get Art as a choice. In the case of Art the rules get silly as well.

I think the silly rules come in part from trying to include things that are fun for wargamers, make great minis, but really should not be seperate factors in a DBA battle. Hmmm, come to think of it BUAs sort of fall into this as well.....

[DBAse]

I am not sure that Wwg should even be an element type in DBA. Agreed. On two points;
1) Its not historical
2) It creates irritating exceptions and special rules.

DBAse

[Badger]

Originally posted by xes***:
What should be changed to make this rule clear that WWg and Art cannot move into contact with enemy elements.

The 2.0 rule is
" Artillery or war wagons cannot move into edge or corner contact with an enemy element..."

The 1.1 rule is
"Artillery and war wagons cannot be moved into contact with an enemy..."

People complained about the 1.1 rule because it did not say what kind of contact. So Phil changed it to say edge and corner. What else can be done?The rules on these points as written (assuming Bob's quotes are accurate, though I haven't any doubts on that) are so clear it almost made me wonder whether Bob was being sarcastic. Where I think the problem comes in, though, is that given the complexities and contortions of much of The Barker's writing style, we get so used to suspecting there are confusing cross-references that we start trying to read more into the rules than might be there.

If The Barker were to finally accept that (for example) lists of conditions or results are more clearly given in bulleted lists than in quadri-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, or polyclausal sentences, that would help the clarity of his writing generally. It would also help if he were to organize his rules into an outline format with clear section/subsection/subsubsection headings to help the reader find the information being looked for, and to facilitate cross-referencing to rules in other sections relating to other aspects of the same topic. These kinds of changes might help the reader trust that The Barker's simple declarative sentences really do mean what they say! smile.gif

[konstantinius]

DBAse wrote: 2)does that mean it is illegal for a WWg to recoil into an overlap position?
This should be a yes since WWg do not recoil at all smile.gif

[imported_Allan]

Originally posted by Badger:
[QUOTE]

If The Barker were to finally accept that (for example) lists of conditions or results are more clearly given in bulleted lists than in quadri-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, or polyclausal sentences, that would help the clarity of his writing generally. It would also help if he were to organize his rules into an outline format with clear section/subsection/subsubsection headings to help the reader find the information being looked for, and to facilitate cross-referencing to rules in other sections relating to other aspects of the same topic. These kinds of changes might help the reader trust that The Barker's simple declarative sentences really do mean what they say! smile.gif Hear hear! I heartily agree. I have said elsewhere on these boards that I feel the number 1 most important amendment to the rules is that an editor be found organize and clarify them and an illustrator be contracted to graphically represent what the rules do and do not allow.

-Allan

[xeswop]

Let me mention a couple of points to help clarify things. Bob does not try to be sarcastic, sorry if it comes out this way.

What is a move? This is a tactical move. A player cannnot make a tactical move that results in a WWg or Art getting in contact with enemy. Edge or corner contact. In the rare case when a WWg does recoil (when it is a third element in a column, contacted by by attacker, for example, or if it somehow got into a flank or rear position on an enemy losing to a frontal attack) then it can end in contact. The only place where there is lack of clarity is the case of a WWg being contacted by an enemy in an overlap and a frontal attack. If it defeats the frontal attack, can the WWg move forward and "continue" the contact with the enemy starting in a corner contact, into an edge contact? Someone can ask Phil. In the meantime, I have taken the position that the WWg can continue a move already starting in overlap. The Rule is that these cannot move INTO contact, not that they cannot move while in contact.

Hope this helps.

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

Originally posted by DBAse:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I am not sure that Wwg should even be an element type in DBA. Agreed. On two points;
1) Its not historical
2) It creates irritating exceptions and special rules.</font>[/QUOTE]Not historical? Since when? Granted, including a war-wagon to represent a special unit in The Battle of the Standards is - simply - silly. (Use it as a camp follower element.) OTOH, the Hussites and a number of Eastern European armies fielded significant numbers of war wagons.

Irritating exceptions/Special rules? Would that be anything like the multiple moves of certain elements? Or LH quick-killing Spears and Pikes?

Really, what is needed is a professionally edited and developed set of rules.

[Badger]

Originally posted by xes***:
Let me mention a couple of points to help clarify things. Bob does not try to be sarcastic, sorry if it comes out this way.
Sorry, Bob -- I didn't mean it as criticism, especially as I would have been hypocritical to be so! I felt a little sarcastic myself ("what part of a simple declarative don't they understand?"), for that matter, but you dealt with it better than I probably would have! smile.gif

[DBAse]

Badger said Not historical? Since when? e.g. There is very little evidence that any warwagons, particularly hussite warwagons, moved DURING a battle.

Badger said Would that be anything like the multiple moves of certain elements? Or LH quick-killing Spears and Pikes?Yes, yes it is.

XES*** said The Rule is that these cannot move INTO contact, not that they cannot move while in contact. IMHO this is exactly the type of interpretative gymnastics that could be avoided by;
1) avoiding silly exeptions like warwagons; and
2) a couple of additional lines of text and a diagram; or
3) if PB was willing to more regularly collect and correct interpretations for dismeination through an online forum like this one.

DBAse

[ April 29, 2003, 02:07: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[konstantinius]

I agree. Since there is so much public debate over a largely successful set of rules, I as a hypothetical author, would certainly create or participate in an existing Forum that dealt with rules questions...perhaps even go crazy and have my own website with tons of links or even play people on line to demonstrate...or I can accept it for what it is. smile.gif

[Badger]

Careful, DBAse -- you're confusing me with the knavish, flea-bitten, unwashed menace of the Upper Midwestern Steppes, enslaver of his own children (just ask them), and corrupter of innocent youths, Basil Bulgar-Slayer/Blinder/Basher.

Much though I appreciate the compliment, I figured I'd better note the differentiation! tongue.gif

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

Originally posted by Badger:
Careful, DBAse -- you're confusing me with the knavish, flea-bitten, unwashed menace of the Upper Midwestern Steppes, enslaver of his own children (just ask them), and corrupter of innocent youths, Basil Bulgar-Slayer/Blinder/Basher.

Much though I appreciate the compliment, I figured I'd better note the differentiation! tongue.gif Et tu, Badger?

Children always think that they are enslaved.

There are no innocent youths. By the time they reach that age, SOCIETY has beat the innocence right out of them.

As to the rest of that - I resent the whole thing! Can't really deny it, but I do resent it.
:D

And I can sure think of a local "Bulgar" that should be slain, blinded, and bashed (not in that order).

DBA armies at dawn, Badger?

[xeswop]

You have to remember, Phil is not commercially concerened with the rules. He writes them to play himself and if nobody likes them or does not understand them then he does not worry. Consider him like a poet who writes to express himself. He does not need to explain them or prove himself. He says, there they are, take them and play them as you want. Use your own historical perspective to work out problems. Use common sense.

Trouble arises when people like me come around to run tournaments where there must be some consensus or agreement among a large group of people on what to do. Since there is no rule ajudication group, we all turn to Phil for "answers." He does not want to deal with what he has written, to him it is perfectly clear, he said all he wanted to say. Can a poet add foot notes or clarification?

Originally posted by konstantinius:
I agree. Since there is so much public debate over a largely successful set of rules, I as a hypothetical author, would certainly create or participate in an existing Forum that dealt with rules questions...perhaps even go crazy and have my own website with tons of links or even play people on line to demonstrate...or I can accept it for what it is. smile.gif

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

Originally posted by xes***:
You have to remember, Phil is not commercially concerened with the rules. He writes them to play himself and if nobody likes them or does not understand them then he does not worry. Consider him like a poet who writes to express himself. He does not need to explain them or prove himself. He says, there they are, take them and play them as you want. Use your own historical perspective to work out problems. Use common sense.

Trouble arises when people like me come around to run tournaments where there must be some consensus or agreement among a large group of people on what to do. Since there is no rule ajudication group, we all turn to Phil for "answers." He does not want to deal with what he has written, to him it is perfectly clear, he said all he wanted to say. Can a poet add foot notes or clarification?As a rules writer (of sorts), I sympathize with The Phil and his attitude. However, as a professional developer/ trainer/ editor, I have to note that (unfortunately for The Phil), DBA is a popular system of rules that is accessed by a wide variety of players. If The Phil wants to be a "poet", fine. However, he should then turn his stuff over to a developer/ editor who is willing to take the work through solid preparation and presentation, and provide user support.

[xeswop]

Why "should" he do anything. You do not get my point; I do not make my point well enough. He is doing us a favor by sharing his rule ideas. He does not care how we interpret them. The costs just cover the production expenses and a cut for all the sellers. He does get a few shillings in royalities. Feel free to play as you wish to interpret the rules. For example, he is happy with the up hill rule. He knows when an element is up hill. He assumes others will too, it's pretty common sensical. If someone askes him for a clarification he will give one, for that time and place, but may change next time he's asked.

Have fun: paint figures, make terrain, set them up, roll dice, work out problems, enjoy.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Bob Beattie Wrote:
Why "should" he do anything. You do not get my point; I do not make my point well enough. Quite true. Even though Phil Barker's rules are kind of hard to learn in their terse and choppy format, this game represents probably the most brilliant wargaming innovation in recent years (read in the last 50 years!!). I would like to have a better written version of the rules. It would help bring in newbies. I don't think Phil sees it that way though.

[David Crowell]

I have seen, written, and played a number of house systems that never even reached the level of polish of DBA2.0.

I am sure the rules are absolutely clear to Phil, and if that view of tehm changes from time to time, nothing wrong with that as long the people he is playing know about it.

For the rest of us, why should Phil care how we play? Indeed outside of the tournament circuit why should any of us care how someone else plays?

I share my view of what the rules say, because I think a unified field theory of DBA is a common value of this group. I like thinking that any where I go I can find DBA players and we will play the same game.

Phil could easilly go the Warhammer route with slickly produced magazines, "official" DBA miniatures etc, and likely much of the fun would go out of our game. I don't know how he would react if Bob asked to publish the "Comentaries" or if someone presented a re-written DBA3.0 and asked permission to have it published.

Nothing of course prevents any of us from writing our own games. Publishing and distributing them may be another matter, but for private enjoyment at our local gaming club we are free to do what we like. Such local rules will be foriegn territory to others though.

I say thank you to Phil for giving us a set of rules so many of us enjoy playing, and thank you for answering at least teh occasional question.

[DBAse]

"Should" is a very funny word.

When I say "you should ...", it generally means "I want you to ...". So saying PB "should" would be, literally, silly. As Bob points out, what's should got to do with it? But we want him to do a whole load of things, because the rules are so damn good.

What gnaws at some of us, is that PB does not "want" very much for his rules. He doesn't want very much for the rules to be understood, to be eaily learnt, easily taught, visually enaging, popular, or consistently applied. He is not ambitious in this regard. Its reminiscent of a British stereoype, quaintly understated.

DBAse

[DBAse]

Phil could easilly go the Warhammer route with slickly produced magazines, "official" DBA miniatures etc, and likely much of the fun would go out of our game. Isn't this completely untrue.
Why does quality mean no fun?
Its also impractical. DBA is about historical armies, so Warhammer style DBA could not dominate the sale of miniatures for the system, or teh publication of support material, as GW does.

DBAse

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

I do NOT want to suggest that The Phil should "do" anything. Frankly, I hold his publishers responsible for the shoddy development and presentation. They essentially take whatever The Phil or his co-authors give them, slap it between two covers, and send it off.

The Phil is responsible for his basic system and rules. The publisher should be providing editorial/ development/ and presentation support. If this was so, maybe some of the problems with DBA - BUAs from H*** and LH QK'ing formed infantry - could be avoided. And maybe a guy could pick up the rules, read them, and play them without major assistance.

[xeswop]

Sorry, I misread your text:
"However, he should then turn his stuff over to a developer/ editor who is willing to take the work through solid preparation and presentation, and provide user support."

I thought when you wrote "he should" I thought you meant "Phil should."

He does not want people messing around with his text so he just gives it to the publisher to put into print as is. How could they possibly rewrite the text or change the presentation and not take the chance of making changes Phil does not want. Phil writes what he wants, in the format he wants and offers it to people who want to use it.

[Badger]

Originally posted by xes***:
He (The Barker) writes them to play himself and if nobody likes them or does not understand them then he does not worry. Consider him like a poet who writes to express himself. He does not need to explain them or prove himself.

(and...)

Why should he "do" anything?
The Barker's being a "poet" is so inappropriate an analogy as to be ludicrous. A set of games rules is by its very function a set of instructions meant to convey how a system works. In response to Bob's question, "Why should he 'do' anything?", I answer, "Because anything worth doing is worth doing well!" And how well a set of instructions are written is directly measured by how clearly they convey to the reader how the system is intended to work.

I have yet to find the source of the quote to verify it, but a colleague at work has a wonderful quote attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson (a Scot, I'll have you note! :D ) posted on his cubicle wall:
Don't write merely to be understood. Write so you can't possibly be misunderstood.To anyone claiming to be a technical writer the distinction should be obvious, and the need to follow the advice just as obvious.

If the so-called "editors" at WRG can't make changes to what The Barker has written without risking changes to what The Barker intended, then the material wasn't written clearly enough in the first place, and/or the editors aren't worthy of the name.

[ May 05, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: Badger ]

[derek]

Hullo
I do not find the analogy ludicrous. Phil's rule writing is an "art" in the sense that Phil is greatly concerned to get tabletop wargames to provide the same result as historical battles.
He is "modelling" an extremely complex and complicated subject (every battle is unique) and trying to provide a rule set which is FUN to play and "realistic" in the sense that it usually reproduces historical outcomes. This is a creative process. Commercial considerations are very low down on Phil's list of concerns, if they even feature at all!
Kind Regards
Derek

[ May 06, 2003, 06:57: Message edited by: derek ]

[Badger]

I should clarify my position:

I will freely accept that the process of creating a good rules system is (in significant part) an art. The process of clearly and thoroughly communicating that system in a set of rules, however, should be first evaluated not as one might critique poetry, but on the basis of how well the writing communicates the rules system and the play of the game to the reader. Once this is effectively accomplished, then niceties of literary merit can be discussed.

Or am I off-base in thinking that the purpose of publishing the rules for a game is to enable others to develop an understanding of those rules sufficient to allow them to play the game in a manner consistent with other people's interpretation of the same written material?