Distance Shooting

[madmike1]

I am confused by the following:

An element is a valid target if any part of it is visible within ? base width of straight ahead of any part of the shooting edge, at least 2 of its corners are in front of a line extending the shooting edge, and it is within range.

Does this mean that an archer could only shoot at an enemy that was directly lined up in front of it?  Or can it shoot off to an angle from its front of up to ? a base width? 

Diagram ?17? shows Bow Y able to shoot at enemy Bow ?B? even though ?B? isn?t in front of ?Y?. 

[Aloysius the Gaul]

It's a legal target if any part of it is within 1/2 a base width of staight ahead of any part of the shooting edge....sorry, but what's hard to understand about that? 

why would you think that it had to be straight ahead when it clearly says that you can be up to 1/2 a base width away from straight ahead??

In diagram 17 all the target elements are clearly within 1/2 a base width of straight ahead of the shooting elements as the rule requires.

[bunwin63]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard of any firm like Litko making shooting (or other) templates for DBMM yet?

Bryan

[toby]

OK folks - this is a forum for people to ask questions about the rules, no matter how stupid they may seem to you. If it makes you mad, please just don't answer. There are no stupid questions.

There are plenty of people out there who have no experience of DB* rules and no-one to ask these questions of face-to-face.

I don't want these forums to end up with the level of mud-slinging found on the DBMM List and I will moderate out messages that I think give the forums an unfriendly feel.

This is a place for people to come together and calmly discuss the DBMM rules.

Thank you.

[madmike1]

Thanks Toby for the supportive statement.

It seems that every time I ask a question I get a similar insulting comment from Aloysius.   

It might come as a surprise but there are many things in the rules that aren?t blindingly clear to newbies.  Take Figure 1 concerning the movement of single elements, from looking at this diagram and reading page 28, it appears that a unit can teleport around other units ignoring the total distance travelled, as long as it final position is within its normal move distance of its starting position.  I assume this isn?t the case and our group doesn?t play that way. 

My group are new to DBx so we are still feeling our way, we don?t have 10yrs history of the rules development to go by.  To be honest we where looking at playing in the DBMM tournament in Canberra but have decided against it due to the agro involved. 

[DaveMather]

Thanks Toby for the supportive statement.

It seems that every time I ask a question I get a similar insulting comment from Aloysius.   

It might come as a surprise but there are many things in the rules that aren?t blindingly clear to newbies.  Take Figure 1 concerning the movement of single elements, from looking at this diagram and reading page 28, it appears that a unit can teleport around other units ignoring the total distance travelled, as long as it final position is within its normal move distance of its starting position.  I assume this isn?t the case and our group doesn?t play that way. 

My group are new to DBx so we are still feeling our way, we don?t have 10yrs history of the rules development to go by.  To be honest we where looking at playing in the DBMM tournament in Canberra but have decided against it due to the agro involved. 

Keep going - there are no stupid questions - I have learnt that through my own stupidity

During the 2 + years of "playtesting" I remember arguing in one game till I was blue in the face that the 3PIPs expended for activating an unreliable ally was a one off and how could someone think differently - Next day when in calmer mood I realised I was totally wrong   

A whole chunk of us (inc the key playtesters Norman and Chris) played the -2ME rule for broken commands wrong during playtesting, past publication, at Challenge first tournament before a comment by Mike C on the lists site was spotted and PB confimed how it should be played (that is now a clarification on the forum site)

I can even come clean and say that it wasn't till Britcon last month that I found out that Knights did not need to follow up (other than against other Kns) in enemy bound Doh! - That certainly would have saved Muwatallis life at Campaign.

I personally would welcome seeing more newbie questions on this site (it is certainly a far friendlier place (and long may it remain so than the YahooList)) as they are the fuel for the FAQ, Clarifications sections on the main page and every time one goes up it makes the next newbies experience that bit easier.

KEEP THEM COMING - you should also rethink going to Canberra - dont know what the Oz scene is like but cant imagine its really that diff to the UK - Its the best way to learn in my opinion - people are a lot friendlier face to face - very easy for the written word to convey the wrong meaning.

The example above re "doglegging" is being debated in depth on the yahoo site at the moment - Geoff and Toby are keeping an eye on it and when it resolves it will appear in the clarifcations etc .

Kind Regards


David Mather

[toby]

It might come as a surprise but there are many things in the rules that aren?t blindingly clear to newbies.  Take Figure 1 concerning the movement of single elements, from looking at this diagram and reading page 28, it appears that a unit can teleport around other units ignoring the total distance travelled, as long as it final position is within its normal move distance of its starting position.  I assume this isn?t the case and our group doesn?t play that way. 

Actually there are a bunch of people who think that that might be what the rule is, in which case the rule is pretty stupid

My personal inclination is to stick with the most sensible interpretation that matches what would have historically happened.

[loki223]

so what was the answer to the BOW question?

so they only shoot half a base width to the side now?

also i am not understanding all the supporting rules for bows.

let me see if i have this right.

bow A is flanked on both sides by bows B and C , left to right Respectively.

bow A has a rear support from another bow (D) of same grade.

So my understanding, as I read it that only 2 of the 3 bows contiguous to Bow A in this Example may fire in support of bow A?

The Bow Flanking bow A (B,C) add a -1 modifier to the enemy being targeted and the bow D adds a +1 modifier to Bow A when it shoots???  Is this correct?

also of the 4 bows there, only 1 shoots (in this case A) and Only 2(C and D) will be to supporting? is this right???

Am I right that if the target is facing A and the others can range it, That the Bow that does not support A's fires, (in this case B)shoots at the same target (if no other is available) with no assistance??

If I am right it raises more questions for me.

[toby]

so what was the answer to the BOW question?

so they only shoot half a base width to the side now?

also i am not understanding all the supporting rules for bows.

let me see if i have this right.

bow A is flanked on both sides by bows B and C , left to right Respectively.

bow A has a rear support from another bow (D) of same grade.

So my understanding, as I read it that only 2 of the 3 bows contiguous to Bow A in this Example may fire in support of bow A?

The Bow Flanking bow A (B,C) add a -1 modifier to the enemy being targeted and the bow D adds a +1 modifier to Bow A when it shoots???  Is this correct?

also of the 4 bows there, only 1 shoots (in this case A) and Only 2(C and D) will be to supporting? is this right???

Am I right that if the target is facing A and the others can range it, That the Bow that does not support A's fires, (in this case B)shoots at the same target (if no other is available) with no assistance??

If I am right it raises more questions for me.

You may only shoot at or aid the shooting at an element that is within half a base width either side of your shooting base edge (the front edge for most things).

If you have a target in front of you you must shoot at it rather than aiding the shooting of someone next door to you, so you can't concentrate fire if there is a solid wall of troops advancing on you.

If there are multiple elements that could shoot, the shooter decides which will be the primary shooting element and which other elements will aid him.

No more than three elements can shoot at any one target.

In the case you outline with 4 bow in a 1-2-1 formation with a single enemy in front of the centre element and no other enemy around, you could nominate which of the shooting elements is primary. The most sensible option would be to nominate the central one as primary and the two flanking ones as aiding as that will be -2 on the factor of the enemy, which makes it much easier to double him.

[loki223]

ok i think we were doin that part right.

If 2 elements of Bows are shooting each other. it counts as shooting for both right?

If i choose to shoot your bows, then your bows cant choose to shoot a different target can they?

[Doug M.]

Hi Mike
I can assure you the Canberra DBMM scene is very friendly, they are no way ultra-competitive. Please give it a try, or failing that, there is always BBDBA at Cancon.

cheers

Doug

[Aloysius the Gaul]

I'm sorry MM finds has decided to be insulted - but honestly I did not see where his problem was, and so I asked him a question about exactly what he was having trouble with!!  I highlighted the relevant bits of the rules to ensure he was reading them, and I actually did answer his question...which no-one else bothered to do for some time!!

It is normally quite acceptable to try to clarify what it is that someone is having a problem with if you weren't sure, 'cos establishing that enables you to answer properly.

I am perplexed by his comment about getting a "similar insulting" answer from me for "every time he asks a question" too - I've answered several of his questions and have had some to-and-fro discussions without any bother.

[madmike1]

It's a legal target if any part of it is within 1/2 a base width of staight ahead of any part of the shooting edge....sorry, but what's hard to understand about that?

My groups initial reading of this rule took this to mean that at least ? a base width of the target element had to be visible to the shooter to be a valid target.  I wasn?t sure if this was correct so hence my question.       

I'm sorry MM finds has decided to be insulted - but honestly I did not see where his problem was?

 

If you look at any off my posts at this forum on almost every occasion you will find a smart a$$ follow up comment from yourself.  To date I have generally ignored it but it gets annoying having to read your insults.   

In future if you cant post a reply within being insulting could you please restrain from commenting on my posts at all.  I really am not interested in your attempts to start some sort of flaming war. 

From my searching of comments of miniatures forums (i.e. TMP) the DBMM rules already have an undeservedly bad reputation.  Newbies like me usually read comments at forums before committing to a particular set of rules.  The tone of your sniping will only ensure the continued negative perception of DBMM.               

[toby]

Once again, can I please ask that people refrain from ad hominem attacks of any kind.

The only valid targets for accusations of stupidity are the rules (or possibly Phil).

Otherwise, please take flame wars, accusations of stupidity (direct or implied), questioning of motives, justifications of positions, questioning of justification of positions etc off list.

Thank you.

[loki223]

I think this Bows section has gone off topic.