"What is a "bound"?" Topic

I'm translating DBA into Chinese.
And what is a "bound"? Does it have the same meaning of "a round" or "a turn"?

Thank you!
Frank

It's one player turn. For some reason the term was popular in the 70s and 80s. No idea why.

It comes from WRG rules, I think (such as DBA).

* A 'turn' is when every player has made their moves.
* A 'bound' is one player's individual set of moves.

Thus in WRG terminology, a 'turn' consists of (player A's bound) + (player B's bound). In other words, one turn is made up of one bound for each player.

Does that help :-) ?

… I first saw it in the London Wargames Soc. Napoleonic rules. also in stuff by John Tunstil I think?

"Translating DBA into Chinese." Into?

In the context of DBA it means a turn.

It is derived from the British Army concept of a tactical bound, a variable distance forwards move towards the enemy while remaining covered by observation or fire.

@Eumelus:
or shall i say "translate DBA TO Chinese", not "into"

I think it does mean "turn". I played MTG cards, it also says "one player's turn" or "until the end of your next turn".

I looked up the dictionary there is no similar explaination for bound.

Frank,

I think Eumelus is not correcting your English, but implying that DBA's English is so convoluted that to the untutored it might appear to be written in Chinese already!

It's all Greek to me.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

There is a theory that if you google translate DBA into Chinese and then translate it back it's either perfectly plain English without ambiguity or it will make the Necronomicon look like a kid's book.

@mollinary
I know exactly what you're talking about. DBA uses a lot of unfamiliar words and long clauses, which is really tiring to read.

When you're done with the Chinese version, Mr. Wang, there might be a market for one written in English.

In DBA it's actually two player turns, an active player turn (essentially with initiative) and a reactive player turn (with opportunity or replying fire and reaction moves required by combat results, but including theoretical march movement and formation changes within an element). This is why DBA can end on any bound, and why the reactive player doesn't seem to get a "last ups" turn. IIRC, Bobgnar brought this up once on the DBA Yahoo group site. You might check that out, Mr Wang, it could answer other questions you have as well.

+1 Mr. Piepenbrink

@Weddier
Thank you! I'll try to check that group but it's inconvenient for me. You know… China network thing….

@Frank Wang: DBA 3.0 into simplified Chinese?

This is quite a boon to gamers, translating this very fun game into Chinese.

It's strange how people only remember older versions of Dba, that were sort of like the WRG ancient rules. They were a bit barkerish. He wrote that way to be as parsimonious as possible. Why are use lots of words when you can simplify the text and hopefully cut down on rules lawyers.

DBA 3 is the result of three years effort by Phil and a dozen active players. This version is quite English friendly, easy to play, and understand. It has a few more concepts than the earlier versions but serves to make the game a bit more enjoyable. People are certainly free to make snide comments about it, it only shows off their ignorance :-)

A bound is the time during which one player makes his moves, and both players resolve combat Resulting from those moves. Compared to most games, this is a half turn. One player takes a bound, then the other player takes a bound, and one turn is completed.

In the rules themselves, it states: "Play is in alternate bounds, simulating action and response. The real life time represented varies, since sometimes response was immediate, but sometimes both armies paused for reorganisation or rest. Averaged over the battle each bound represents about 15 minutes. Move distances were those needed rather than the maximum theoretically possible in the time."

Mr. Wang, Feel free to contact me directly with questions you might have so you can avoid all of the Kibbitzers who show up when you post a general question. I can pose questions to a Dba discussion group for you.

@Skeptic:
Yes. What's wrong with that?

@Bobgnar:
Thank you, Bobgnar! So kind. I think they meant no harm. Phil's presentation do is a little old style. Some parts are hard for non native English users so I wish to make a Chinese version.

@Frank Wang

What? Nothing is wrong at all! Since when was asking a question necessarily a challenge? I didn't even write "吗"…

In fact, I was hoping that it would be in simplified Chinese, rather than in traditional characters, and merely asked for clarification.

I am actually looking forward to being able to play DBA with first-generation 华侨 friends, where they would not be hindered by any need to have to understand the nuances of an English-language ruleset. Since they are originally from China, simplified Chinese would be ideal!

I've sent an email offering my support in this project!