Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DBA] Re: make the rules understandable

Expand Messages
  • Robert Beattie
    When you seen the rules that will soon be posted, you will note that there are more rules about recoil that need to be considered. For example, a flanked
    Message 1 of 194 , Nov 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      When you seen the rules that will soon be posted, you will note that there are more rules about recoil that need to be considered. For example, a flanked element with a recoil outcome is automatically destroyed. Thus it cannot push anything back.

      "If its total is less than that of its opponent but more than half:
      Destroyed if defenders of a city, fort or camp or denizens or camp followers that have sallied, or if not War Wagons and enemy are in front edge combat with flank or rear. Recoil if in close combat against defenders of a city, fort or camp. If neither:"


      May I suggest that discussion be delayed until that version is in the files. Then we can all look at it together.

      Bob
      Dictated and sent from my iPad Which (explains Spelling errors and weird grammar!)

      On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Adrian <argrath_dragonspear@...> wrote:

      > "A recoiling or pushed back element whose rear edge or rear corner meets terrain it cannot enter, a battlefield edge, friends it cannot pass through or push back, enemy or a city, fort or camp ends its move there. A recoiling or pushed back element that is already in such contact with any of these or that starts with enemy in front edge contact with its flank, rear or rear corner cannot recoil and is destroyed instead. "
      >
      > This still indicates that that if you manage to hit a column of 'heavy' infantry in both the front and flank that there is the potential to destroy the front three elements of the column if the column is beaten but not destroyed as the front element is attempting to both recoil and push back the elements behind it, triggering the 'A recoiling or pushed back element that is already in such contact with any of these or that starts with enemy in front edge contact with its flank, rear or rear corner cannot recoil and is destroyed instead.' clause.
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Beattie
      Wouldn t it be wonderful if a player could read the rules and understand them by him or herself? They would not need someone to teach them. However once having
      Message 194 of 194 , Dec 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Wouldn't it be wonderful if a player could read the rules and understand them by him or herself? They would not need someone to teach them. However once having learned the rules by themselves they could then teach someone else. The number of players could be infinite then.

        If this notion of "each one teach one" is crucial to the propagation of the game, then there should be a statement on the cover of the rules that says "do not try to understand these rules by yourself , you need to find someone who already knows how to play to teach you."

        Bob
        Dictated and sent from my iPad Which (explains Spelling errors and weird grammar!)

        On Dec 1, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Phil Barker <pc.barker@...> wrote:

        > There seems to be an assumption that many pairs of players start with
        > neither having any previous experience and first sitting down and memorising
        > the book. My belief is that most players get in by being tempted or
        > dragooned by an existing player. If each existing player went out and did
        > this, the number of players would double. Go forth and multiply!
        >
        > Phil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mark Burton
        > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:37 PM
        > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: rules or riddles Re: [DBA] Diagrams again
        >
        > I say, that it would be a very interesting experiment to find a card
        > carrying member of Mensa, who grew up with English as a first language
        > and who has never played any tabletop wargaming to read the rules.
        >
        > Then tell us how they game is to be played.
        >
        > Now THAT would be quite interesting and TELLING!
        >
        > Mark Burton
        >
        > On 11/20/2012 11:13 AM, knowledge_is_my_weapon wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DBA%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > > "knowledge_is_my_weapon" <knowledge_is_my_weapon@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DBA%40yahoogroups.com>, "Martin"
        > > <smiffft@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DBA%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > > "kundong2012" <kundong2012@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "I, and others in my group, have found that all of the answers
        > > are there in the rulebook if you simply read the book... But beyond
        > > that, the rulebook is very user friendly."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Ben, this claim is absurd.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > The nearest thing to consensus that the DBA community has
        > > reached is that the DBA rules are difficult to understand.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Even a short amount of time spent on this forum or at Fanaticus
        > > will show countless players struggling with the DBA rules, and finding
        > > the WADBAG guide a helpful compliment to the rules.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > It is demonstrably untrue that the rule book is clear. Even
        > > setting aside the ambiguous sentence structures, there was neither
        > > clarity nor consensus as to what the ZOC and conforming rules meant
        > > for over a decade! How can it be claimed that the answers could be
        > > found by "simply read(ing) the book"? Everyone was running with their
        > > own interpretation.
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Well said, that man!
        > > > > M
        > >
        > > And let me ask this question and then I'm going to wash my hands of
        > > the whole argument:
        > >
        > > If the rules for DBA were so ambiguous, so hard to figure out, then
        > > why are there so many people playing the game? If the rules were half
        > > as difficult as you claim and you believe the community at large
        > > claims (which is clearly not true, even if you could define the DBA
        > > community), wouldn't people have stopped playing the game? It happens
        > > all the time. I've seen dozens of games flounder because their rules
        > > were too open to interpretation, ambiguous, or whatever other label
        > > you want to attach to it.
        > >
        > > Instead, the whole argument against basic 2.2 seems entirely fueled by
        > > ego. Abrasive people who want something to complain about, and
        > > complain because they have to read something instead of having rules
        > > spoon fed to them. And when they find themselves in disagreement with
        > > one another, instead of trying to compromise or say "We'll work out
        > > later", they would rather start a pitched battle with anyone who
        > > disagrees with them, including the games creator.
        > >
        > > If I had known this was what I was getting into when I got into DBA, I
        > > wouldn't have joined.
        > >
        > >
        > > Best,
        > > Ben
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.