Re: Interesting news from the DBMM group
- --- In HOTT@yahoogroups.com, "renegade_dalek" <timjmoore@...> wrote:
>I assume, base widths, which would be quite a good idea if we were starting from scratch. I wish that the FoG rules writers had taken the opportunity to make the base-width the fundamental unit of distance, rather than stick to the unholy mash-up of metric and imperial units we have now. Apparently, they were concerned that people's measuring sticks would have been made obsolete.
> Base lengths? Does that mean 40mm increments or n-base depths?
> If the former:-
> it's going to make the movement very clunky to achieve a movement flow similar to the current set for example;
> blades 200p = 50mm = 1.25 base widths
> dragon 1200p = 300mm = 7.5 base widths
> riders 500p = 125mm = 3 base widths
> beasts 400p = 100mm = 2.5 base widths
I don't know whether to :-) or 8-(
It would not be necessary to maintain exactly the same relative move distances that we have now, as long as you get close, and maintain the same hierarchy of movement rates. We have, at present, a set of movment rates, in paces ...
... where the minimum move of 200 paces is 50mm=1.25 base widths in 40mm frontage, or 80mm=4/3rds of a base widths in 60mm frontage. In general, it wouldn't do any harm to allow elements to move a little further, speeding the game up a bit, which is a good thing, and removing the need for the rules cludge that allows an element in front corner-to-corner contact to 'close the door', pivoting on a front corner, even if it would not normally be able to move that far. We definitely want the mimimum move to be greater than the base width, so that an element inside the 'barker zone' is unambiguously within reach of a single movement.
If we set 1 base width = 2 movement units, we could set the movement allowances to ...
3 MUs for blades, spears, shooters, clerics
4 MUs for warband, knights
5 MUs for beasts
6 MUs for riders
15 MUs for fliers
which would be ...
6/8/10/12/30 cm in 40mm frontage
9/12/15/18/45 cm in 60mm frontage
However, in general, I am dubious about a Barker-originated rewrite of
HoTT, utilising the full power of Barkerese as a data compression algorithm implemented on top of English as the transfer protocol.
- The Plot thins!!!!!!
On 6 May 2010, at 11:04, Steve wrote:
> Interestingly an email to RBS thus:
> "Apperently Phil is talking of HOTT 3 and mentioned he'd been in
> contact with
> you. Do you know any initial details as in is it a full re-vamp
> (base widths
> movement, more ackin to DBMM etc...) or is it a tidy-up (Clerics &
> Water Lurkers and Sneakers etc...), or is it too early to speculate?
> The HOTT list group are wondering what to expect"
> solicited this reply:
> "I have no idea. Nothing has been discussed with me as yet."
> Which could mean he's aware of an intent but not details, or not
> aware at all (about the plan that is, fill your own jokes).
> Certainly RBS never mentioned it at Clevedon so I suspect the latter.
> --- In HOTT@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <stenicplus@...> wrote:
> > --- In HOTT@yahoogroups.com, "Dale Hurtt" <dale_hurtt@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay there is obviously some history here that I don't
> understand, but why would you hope that Phil NOT update HOTT?
> > >
> > Mainly because there is a fear he might break it if he goes ahead
> without consulting interested parties.
> > I've put the question to him on the DBMM list anyway so hopefully
> he'll enlighten us.
> > Steve P
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]