PDA

View Full Version : Dba 3.0


Stephen Webb
12-06-2010, 05:38 PM
As quoted from the WRG website.

"Phil's next project will be Version 3.0 of the DBA rules, moved forward in our schedule because of the expected demand for these rules, in particular from American wargamers. Sue and Steven are also working on this. We hope that both the DBA yahoo discussion group and the Fanaticus group will contribute to these in the same way as the DBMM group contributed to the DBMM rules and army lists."

Looks like it may be on its way.

Eventually...

Cremorn
12-06-2010, 11:02 PM
"We hope that both the DBA yahoo discussion group and the Fanaticus group will contribute to these in the same way as the DBMM group contributed to the DBMM rules and army lists."

eek!

Hopefully not in the *same* way. The DBMM construction process was butt-clenchingly excruciating to witness.

Stephen Webb
12-06-2010, 11:19 PM
Why should we be any better?

Have you noticed any agreement with regards to the discussion, so far?

Which has only been with regards to suggestions, base sizes and army lists.

Cremorn
12-07-2010, 12:44 AM
Have you noticed any agreement with regards to the discussion, so far?


Nope.

I still buy and read a lot of miniatures wargaming rulesets, looking for the perfect set of rules that are always just out of reach. Then I give up and paint another DBA army. Barkerese is bizarre, and DBA is flawed, but for me it is the best set of rules, and daylight comes second.

I can play on a wider board, I can play with or without a BUA, I can play with non-official base sizes. Fixing these things in ways that circumvent rules-lawyers and dishonourable players involves changes to the set that can dangerously outweigh the advantages of their incorporation. There are guys here with much longer memories than me about this kind of thing :-)

Richard.

Stephen Webb
12-07-2010, 01:46 AM
Barkerese is bizarre, and DBA is flawed, but for me it is the best set of rules, and daylight comes second.

I agree...

Which is why I have played DBA since 1991.

Adrian Williams
12-07-2010, 06:57 AM
God help us

Stephen Webb
12-07-2010, 06:33 PM
God help us

With reference to?

Paul Collins
12-07-2010, 06:50 PM
With reference to?

The cricket :)

The current version of DBA has a cult-like following. Why anyone would write a new version to bring it up to date with DBMM; a set of rules that appears to be generally unpopular is beyond me.

Simply reprinting it and making a token effort at marketing would be much more useful for WRG.

Stephen Webb
12-07-2010, 07:55 PM
Simply reprinting it and making a token effort at marketing would be much more useful for WRG.

Selling it to a group that could modernise the presentation of the rules, remove the irregularities and market it would be even better.

But I think DK has already tried to get Phil to do that, without success.

Cremorn
12-07-2010, 09:31 PM
Simply reprinting it and making a token effort at marketing would be much more useful for WRG.


Well, I am really excited about the army notes being included with the lists. I will buy 2 copies immediately.

I still shake my head and laugh about Phil's writing, but I guess it is the only way to pack the rules into four (~ish) pages, which seems to be his agenda.

Oh well. It's only toy soldiers :-). I would like to get my hands on the new thing, but I suppose we will just have to wait forever. In the meantime we keep getting fed the progress, so we should be grateful. I am constructing a solo dark-age Britain campaign to see what's different about Sue's campaign rules.

Richard.

Kontos
12-07-2010, 09:55 PM
I am constructing a solo dark-age Britain campaign to see what's different about Sue's campaign rules.

Richard.
Keep us posted on the progress.

Frank

Adrian Williams
12-07-2010, 11:27 PM
With reference to?


I don't want a 3rd edition filled with bizarre little DBMM insights and possibly wrecking my collection of unpainted armies designed for 2.2

A

Rich Gause
12-07-2010, 11:36 PM
I don't want a 3rd edition filled with bizarre little DBMM insights and possibly wrecking my collection of unpainted armies designed for 2.2

A

Things I really don't want to see:
Bound or die roll specific quick kills
Quality ratings
Points
Changes that REQUIRE rebasing of current DBA elements(changes to army lists are ok) if it is a legal bow blade aux spear warband warwagon etc... in 2.2 you should be able to still use it in 3.0.

Things that would be nice:
Straight up conversion of DBMM army lists to DBA lists following a set formula similiar to DBA-RRR.
Taking the best mechanics of HOTT and DBA and consolodating them.

Richard Lee
12-08-2010, 03:24 AM
Things I really don't want to see:
Bound or die roll specific quick kills
Quality ratings
Points
Changes that REQUIRE rebasing of current DBA elements(changes to army lists are ok) if it is a legal bow blade aux spear warband warwagon etc... in 2.2 you should be able to still use it in 3.0.

Things that would be nice:
Straight up conversion of DBMM army lists to DBA lists following a set formula similiar to DBA-RRR.
Taking the best mechanics of HOTT and DBA and consolodating them.

Agreed. However, because DBMM has official 100 and 200 point variants, I suspect and hope that Phil will not be too interested in making DBA into a small-scale version of DBMM. (This is not to knock DBMM, by the way; I just think that DBA and DBMM are separate games, but are both good.)

old mucker
12-08-2010, 04:33 AM
Nope.
Barkerese is bizarre, and DBA is flawed, but for me it is the best set of rules, and daylight comes second.


I agree that its the best set of rules. But, I have to say that I don't find Phil's writing style a problem - am I the only one? As long as you take careful note of the punctuation it all becomes clear (with a few exceptions that have already been identified in other threads on this topic).

Maybe its all those years I've spent reading legislation! :silly

Paul Collins
12-08-2010, 04:57 AM
Well, I am really excited about the army notes being included with the lists. I will buy 2 copies immediately.

I still shake my head and laugh about Phil's writing, but I guess it is the only way to pack the rules into four (~ish) pages, which seems to be his agenda.

Oh well. It's only toy soldiers :-). I would like to get my hands on the new thing, but I suppose we will just have to wait forever. In the meantime we keep getting fed the progress, so we should be grateful. I am constructing a solo dark-age Britain campaign to see what's different about Sue's campaign rules.

Richard.

I dislike Phil's writing style but I find it far from unreadable. Having played 7th ed. for years, DBA seems a snap :)

I will buy a copy of the new DBA, should it ever be published. I am just concerned the DBA community will go the way of the DBM community.

Tony Aguilar
12-08-2010, 08:33 AM
I am just concerned the DBA community will go the way of the DBM community.

A new version of DBA (which I happen NOT to be afraid of) will not affect in our group in Florida.

Jeff Caruso
12-08-2010, 09:30 AM
A new version of DBA (which I happen NOT to be afraid of) will not affect in our group in Florida.

Tony,

Why would a DBA3.0 not affect your group? :???

Jeff

Tony Aguilar
12-08-2010, 09:43 AM
Tony,

Why would a DBA3.0 not affect your group? :???

Jeff

When the dust has settled, we will still be playing DBA. We haven't found much joy in playing anything else since we tried DBA. The days of playing 4+ hour games with no resolution seem to be a thing of the past for many of us.

David Kuijt
12-08-2010, 09:49 AM
The days of playing 4+ hour games with no resolution seem to be a thing of the past for many of us.

And there in a nutshell is the shining truth.

David Constable
12-08-2010, 11:42 AM
And there in a nutshell is the shining truth.

At Alvechurch (UK) I find it amusing (and sad) that we have finished our first DBA game before the first move in a 6th game has been started.
They also know when after deploying they are going to lose, but cannot start the game again.
We get as many DBA games to a finish as they get moves/bounds.

David Constable

RonG
12-08-2010, 01:16 PM
I do believe that we as a community, need to see the rule set before it is adopted. DBA is a great game, and I hope it does not change. But if it does, I hope it does not include rebasing. :2up

winterbadger
12-08-2010, 02:14 PM
When the dust has settled, we will still be playing DBA. We haven't found much joy in playing anything else since we tried DBA. The days of playing 4+ hour games with no resolution seem to be a thing of the past for many of us.

But the days of there being *only* DBA and huge games (WRG/DBM) are also gone. There are other small-game alternatives. Basic Impetus, for example, is a lot clearer and more comprehensible, despite having been translated into English from Italian. Warmaster Ancients has built up quite a following. Some people like the reduced-scale Armati (tried it once and wasn't a fan, myself).

If DBA 3.0 goes in a really dire direction, I'm certainly going to try some of those alternatives.

ferrency
12-08-2010, 02:38 PM
All this apocalyptic speculation is premature. The authors have stated they want to use the input of the community, and have already started soliciting input. Try to turn this into a positive process, and you'll be happier with the results.

Alan

winterbadger
12-08-2010, 02:43 PM
All this apocalyptic speculation is premature. The authors have stated they want to use the input of the community, and have already started soliciting input. Try to turn this into a positive process, and you'll be happier with the results.

Alan

But, Alan, what would Fanaticus be if we were not to run around, wringing our hands and wailing at the possibility that anything might change? (Except when we're sitting and wailing that something really needs to be changed.)

I think you're not fully immersing yourself in the zeitgeist. ;)

ferrency
12-08-2010, 03:38 PM
I think you're not fully immersing yourself in the zeitgeist. ;)

Mostly, I still want to have opponents once BUAs and rivers no longer suck, everyone plays on 30" boards, and war wagons and 6Kn's aren't so friggin' huge :)

Alan

David Constable
12-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Mostly, I still want to have opponents once BUAs and rivers no longer suck, everyone plays on 30" boards, and war wagons and 6Kn's aren't so friggin' huge :)

Alan

Hello Alan

BUAs need sorting, rivers are a different matter might be just a case of making them less effective at blocking, perhaps even determining before deployment, and splitting into half boards, then one half can be difficult, one half paltry.

Thirty inch boards do not apply in the UK, only 24", so allow both sizes as an option.

As I have German IV/13c I know about WWg and 6Kn, yes they occupy space, but it has worked to my advantage in the past.

David Constable

pawsBill
12-08-2010, 04:29 PM
The current version of DBA has a cult-like following. Why anyone would write a new version to bring it up to date with DBMM; a set of rules that appears to be generally unpopular is beyond me.

Appearences can be deceptive. ;)

It's the research Phil has done while producing DBMM and its army lists that has led Phil to the conclusion that some of the interactions between troop types are wrong and he also wants to introduce some of the means of stopping cheesy moves to prevent elements being contacted by the way nearby elements are angled to prevent a legal contact anywhere. This seems a perfectly reasonable aim to me.

pawsBill
12-08-2010, 04:33 PM
... in a 6th game has been started.
They also know when after deploying they are going to lose, but cannot start the game again.

I've had a few DBA games like that :sick

Redwilde
12-08-2010, 05:20 PM
Well, if it turns out at all like the last revision, a few things will be made worse, but some more things than that will be improved....

Bob. (and his dog)
12-09-2010, 11:45 AM
This comment is troubling (Sue's, not Stephens's)
"DBA is moved forward in the schedule" -- forward of what? Horse Foot and Guns, the modern rules, DBR (which needs life restoring infusion or it will be dead soon)

So it is moved forward because of the "expected demand for these rules, in particular from American wargamers." Why differentiate between American gamers and those of Europe and down under? Do they not want a Version 3? Has anyone seen an evidence that only American (US and Canada or just US) want a new version? Does anyone anywhere actually want a new version or just a BETTER version -- better written, clear examples, diagrams some clarification.

Is there some consideration that the Americans are financially better off right now or when new book comes out, so we will buy anything that is new, that is create a demand?

Do we want a trickle down from DBMM to create the DBMM junior game?

I hope the premise of a new edition will be keep the 90% core basics of DBA, clarify those rules that we keep arguing about (use the HOTT version for some things like crossing the front and forming a column), add some things from DBMM that might remove anomolies, fix up a few armies that have major changes, keep the elment sizes at no deeper than wide.

Perhaps the difference between US gamers and those elsewhere is that there is little overlap in play in US between DBA and DBMM. Phil did changes in 2.0 because he thought DBA players would grow up to play DBM. We must make it clear that these are now two different games and one is not the junior of the other/

I will push for a Mission Statement of this project to be
Note that the rules of DBM, DBR, HOTT and future derivatives have no relevance to DBA.

As quoted from the WRG website.

"Phil's next project will be Version 3.0 of the DBA rules, moved forward in our schedule because of the expected demand for these rules, in particular from American wargamers. Sue and Steven are also working on this. We hope that both the DBA yahoo discussion group and the Fanaticus group will contribute to these in the same way as the DBMM group contributed to the DBMM rules and army lists."

Looks like it may be on its way.

Eventually...

El' Jocko
12-09-2010, 12:25 PM
Perhaps the difference between US gamers and those elsewhere is that there is little overlap in play in US between DBA and DBMM. Phil did changes in 2.0 because he thought DBA players would grow up to play DBM. We must make it clear that these are now two different games and one is not the junior of the other/


I certainly agree with this thought. But I'm not hopeful. Here's another post by Phil on the DBMM list:

DBA is our beginners set, and Sue is doing a version of it with extra notes,
colour photos and a bound-by-bound account with explanations of a sample
game. There will also be a basic set with just the rules and army lists for
people who do not want the trimmings.

I've always had the impression that Phil doesn't take the DBA community very seriously. If we were real gamers, we'd be playing DBM(M). And I don't know how to convince him otherwise.

- Jack

Pavane
12-09-2010, 12:37 PM
I've always had the impression that Phil doesn't take the DBA community very seriously. If we were real gamers, we'd be playing DBM(M). And I don't know how to convince him otherwise.

- Jack

If being trounced by a teenager in a DBA tournament doesn't teach Phil respect, nothing will. Kidding aside, the DBA community in North America is very close, creative and growing. DBM, DBR, and DBMM are the complete opposite. DBA should be the model, not the other way around.

The Last Conformist
12-09-2010, 12:47 PM
This comment is troubling (Sue's, not Stephens's)
"DBA is moved forward in the schedule" -- forward of what? Horse Foot and Guns, the modern rules, DBR (which needs life restoring infusion or it will be dead soon)

So it is moved forward because of the "expected demand for these rules, in particular from American wargamers." Why differentiate between American gamers and those of Europe and down under?
Maybe stocks are expected to run out in the US before elsewhere? I seem to recall someone saying the rules have become hard to find on your side of the pond.

I'm a bit disappointed it's moved ahead of HFG (which was earlier said to be the next project after DBMM). A new edition of DBA would be nice, but an edition of HFG would be nicer still.

winterbadger
12-09-2010, 12:58 PM
Maybe stocks are expected to run out in the US before elsewhere? I seem to recall someone saying the rules have become hard to find on your side of the pond.

That doesn't seem like a good reason to produce a new *edition*, just a new printing. If there is a huge stock in the UK and few in the US, they have these things called aeroplanes...

I just read the comment to mean "We're planning on doing a new edition, and when we mentioned this people got very excited (a lot of whom were Americans), so we're giving that a priority" with the implication that they're doing so because there seems to be more enthusiasm for that among gamers than for other projects. I didn't read into it any of the things that Bob did.

As for Bob's comment about not a new version just a better version--I don't know any way to produce a better version *without* producing a *new* version.

I'm also somewhat amused that Bob emphatically proposes a mission statement for DBA that distances it from DBM, DBR, and HOTT...after proposing changes to DBA based on HOTT and DBMM. :rolleyes

David Kuijt
12-09-2010, 01:32 PM
I just read the comment to mean "We're planning on doing a new edition, and when we mentioned this people got very excited (a lot of whom were Americans), so we're giving that a priority" with the implication that they're doing so because there seems to be more enthusiasm for that among gamers than for other projects. I didn't read into it any of the things that Bob did.

Like you, I didn't read any of the things that Bob did. Bob, you seemed to be asking "why differentiate Americans?" -- we're louder. But I don't mean that in an Ugly American Tourist way, I mean in the way that Will (Pavane) does -- the DBA community is large, active, and close-knit, and many of the largest and loudest (most common speakers, most energetic advocates -- I'm not measuring bulk here) are (North) Americans.

Standard disclaimers apply:
Lots of energetic, creative people outside the continent on which I reside; no offense meant to Oz, UK, European speakers of note.
"American" and "North American" are sometimes used interchangeably, both by UK/European speakers (like Phil) and by USians. This often offends Canadians (of which I am one), but no offense is intended or implied by this usage (of which I do not usually partake, but have above)
"American" for whatever reason never seems to apply to residents of Mexico, in spite of the fact that "North American" would seem to include them. Any Mexicans offended by not being included are invited to commiserate with Canadians who are offended by being included.
If I've offended anyone else, I invite them to contact my attorney, Larry Chaban, who I'm sure will tell them how to proceed with their grievance.

winterbadger
12-09-2010, 01:57 PM
"American" and "North American" are sometimes used interchangeably, both by UK/European speakers (like Phil) and by USians. This often offends Canadians (of which I am one), but no offense is intended or implied by this usage (of which I do not usually partake, but have above)

Every once in a while, I try to resurrect the term "Usonian" employed by (among others) Samuel Butler and Frank Lloyd Wright. No one ever seems to bite.

"American" for whatever reason never seems to apply to residents of Mexico, in spite of the fact that "North American" would seem to include them. Any Mexicans offended by not being included are invited to commiserate with Canadians who are offended by being included.

Not only Mexicans, but other inhabitants of Central and South America, all of whom consider "the Americas" to include their home countries.

The Last Conformist
12-09-2010, 02:26 PM
That doesn't seem like a good reason to produce a new *edition*, just a new printing. If there is a huge stock in the UK and few in the US, they have these things called aeroplanes...
The impression I've got is that 2.2 (and HOTT 2.0) can't be reprinted for reasons related to the death and rebirth of WRG. I believe Sue said something to that effect in connection with the HOTT pdf being made available.

As for airlifting rulebooks, the UK stocks are presumably residing among many different retailers.

David Kuijt
12-09-2010, 02:54 PM
As for airlifting rulebooks, the UK stocks are presumably residing among many different retailers.

The Marshall Plan and Berlin Airlift in reverse -- flying stocks of DBA rulebooks to the USA to relieve urgent and chronic shortages. Keen!

Tony Aguilar
12-09-2010, 03:31 PM
Not only Mexicans, but other inhabitants of Central and South America, all of whom consider "the Americas" to include their home countries.

I have had many, many dealings with Spanish-language speakers from just about all countries in Central/South America, and not one would call themselves an "American." They would define themselves from the country they were from/born in. For people from Spanish-speaking cultures (in the New World at least), "American" refers to those born in the United States and assumes an Anglo-Saxon cultural background.

Both of my parents, who are first generation immigrants from Cuba don't call themselves "American" either, but Cuban even though they have been in this country as citizens for over 40 years and are bi-lingual. I should note that both of them love the US and would not want to live anywhere else, but still maintain their heritage/language and Latin roots.

I suspect Phil just lumped all of us from this side of the pond as "Americans."

As a side note, I would always call someone from Canada a Canadian.

Victor
12-09-2010, 04:56 PM
We don't have long to wait, this is also from the wrg website;

"Version 3.0, which is currently (2010) under development, but is unlikely to appear before the middle of next year (2011)."

David Kuijt
12-09-2010, 05:12 PM
We don't have long to wait, this is also from the wrg website;

"Version 3.0, which is currently (2010) under development, but is unlikely to appear before the middle of next year (2011)."

If work on DBA 3.0 is about to start, or has (secretly) started recently, then previous experience is that the minimum time would be 18 months, not six months. Summer 2012.

Which, strangely enough, is also the cosmological apocalypse of the Mayan calendar... Coincidence? I think NOT!

RonG
12-09-2010, 05:33 PM
oy......:eek

Victor
12-09-2010, 09:59 PM
If work on DBA 3.0 is about to start, or has (secretly) started recently, then previous experience is that the minimum time would be 18 months, not six months. Summer 2012.

Which, strangely enough, is also the cosmological apocalypse of the Mayan calendar... Coincidence? I think NOT!

Don't forget that DBA has a Maya army list, which is an additional link. Maybe they foresaw that the sum total of their rich history will be condensed into a one line entry in a wargames rule book, and deemed it to be final confirmation of the end of their civilisation!

Doug
12-13-2010, 04:48 AM
I don't want a 3rd edition filled with bizarre little DBMM insights and possibly wrecking my collection of unpainted armies designed for 2.2

A

How would a v 3.0 'wreck' your collection of armies?

Doug
12-13-2010, 04:51 AM
I do believe that we as a community, need to see the rule set before it is adopted. DBA is a great game, and I hope it does not change. But if it does, I hope it does not include rebasing. :2up

Sue has already said no rebasing will be required, and in fact the basing will be 'more' flexible.

Adrian Williams
12-13-2010, 05:07 AM
How would a v 3.0 'wreck' your collection of armies?

By changing the army lists

Doug
12-13-2010, 05:43 AM
By changing the army lists

I don't think there will be substantial changes to army lists, although the DBMM lists have changed in accordance with more up to date research and a broader input from the wider historically interested community.

One thing to note is that when DBA was originally released there were very few people with an internet connection, and relatively little content. Nowadays that's certainly not the case, and it makes it much easier for interested amateur military historians to do the type of research that would be formerly limited to a few people with access to university libraries.

IMO, the quality of the research has improved greatly. For myself, I would rather have army lists based on the current state of historical knowledge, otherwise there can be no pretensions to a historically-based game. That's ok. There are very few elements I would have to discard entirely, far more likely they would form the nucleus of a new army.

I do appreciate that people who have purchased armies or used figures no longer obtainable may have some concerns, but frankly, the cost of a DBA army is so low, that it should be a minor issue for most.

Adrian Williams
12-13-2010, 07:31 AM
I resent the DBMM tail wagging the DBA dog. I don't want reduced DBMM lists. I want the best DBA lists that there can be. I don't think that they are the same thing.

In default, the best position is to leave things as they are

A

John Loy
12-13-2010, 07:39 AM
Attendance at DBA events has tapered off noticeably in the last couple of years (Midnight Madness, Sunday Themes). So any major rules issues have the distinct possiblity of dring a nail in the coffin.

As to army list changes; any rebasing or changing troop types will "kill" that army for me since a lot of my troops were done by someone else and the odds of matching up a new unit are slim.

YMMV.

John

Doug
12-13-2010, 07:52 AM
I resent the DBMM tail wagging the DBA dog. I don't want reduced DBMM lists. I want the best DBA lists that there can be. I don't think that they are the same thing.

In default, the best position is to leave things as they are

A

??? So are you still driving round in a model T, watching betamax and listening to your 8 track stereophonic sound system? Seriously, how are you going to get universally recognised DBA lists without them being part of the rules?

Now, assuming they are part of the rules, do you think that we should start the whole historical re-examination from scratch, or use the DBMM lists based on some of the best evidence available as the starting point?

Doug
12-13-2010, 08:03 AM
Attendance at DBA events has tapered off noticeably in the last couple of years (Midnight Madness, Sunday Themes). So any major rules issues have the distinct possiblity of dring a nail in the coffin.

I assume 'driving' - but I disagree with your proposition. If a set of rules is in decline, do you persevere with more of the same, or freshen them up? Car manufacturers release new models, GW new codexes, magazines do 'makeovers'. Just leaving the rules as they are is likely to just maintain the status quo of a steady decline. A significant revamp might put people off, (in which case they can continue to play 2.2) or it might just add a bit more variety and interest. For me, this was one of the key factors in switching from DBM to DBMM. While there was a price to pay in extra (and IMHO, not always required) complexity, it did break up the monotony of games that had become very 'samey'.

As to army list changes; any rebasing or changing troop types will "kill" that army for me since a lot of my troops were done by someone else and the odds of matching up a new unit are slim.

Fair enough, although as I have pointed out - no rebasing is being contemplated. If anything the basing guidelines will be more permissive. Sue has explicitly stated that anything based for DBMM, and therefore for DBA, (as they use the same basing conventions) will not need to be rebased.

I have included the expicit statement that any troops correctly based for a DBMM army (and hence for older versions of DBA) are still valid for DBA.

I think there may well be changing troop types in some armies, but the more permissive basing may well just allow you to rebrand existing elements in many cases. (A good example is 4Ax vs 3Ax or 3Bd etc..)

I am not sure how strict convention organisers are in the US, or how an*l your opponents, but we take a fairly relaxed attitude provided elements are clearly identifiable.

A review of the DBMM lists I have shows there have been very few wholesale changes - most have been regrading troop quality, or to a very similar type, so for example, Sp becoming Bd or vice versa.. no rebasing required.

John Loy
12-13-2010, 08:35 AM
Every time ther are significant changes to a rule set a certain percentage of players give it up (GW). There would be no point insticking with 2.2 if all the events at cons are 3.0.

BY rebasing, I refer to changes in troop types. For instance 1 less AX for 1 more Ps. 4 knights instead of 3(units not figs).


Reference to car is irrelevant since that is technology driven, not opinion driven.

John

PS: I have never seen a DBMM game in person and don't know anyone who plays. There was a fairly large DBM turn out at Fall-In.

RonG
12-13-2010, 08:41 AM
Changes in troop types? How about combined stands? Front line spear and back rank bow? (8 Bw units). How would that work? :???

Doug
12-13-2010, 08:56 AM
Every time ther are significant changes to a rule set a certain percentage of players give it up (GW). There would be no point insticking with 2.2 if all the events at cons are 3.0.

BY rebasing, I refer to changes in troop types. For instance 1 less AX for 1 more Ps. 4 knights instead of 3(units not figs).


Reference to car is irrelevant since that is technology driven, not opinion driven.

John

PS: I have never seen a DBMM game in person and don't know anyone who plays. There was a fairly large DBM turn out at Fall-In.

If you think changes in cars are largely technology driven you would be wrong. In any case, changing rule mechanics is "technology". Regardless. I don't think you will see many radical list changes. Personally as a comp organiser I would continue to allow people to bring 2.2 list armies. And yes, a certain number of players are inherently conservative and hate change. Some of them here (for example) stuck with 6th Edition Ancients. But change also attracts new players. DBMM 2 seems to have a significantly bigger following than 1.0.

As for DBMM generally, no - it hasn't really taken off in a big way. Frankly - I think there are way more reasons for that than anything about the inherent quality of the rules. Marketing, jaded players, very bad press in certain quarters, other periods etc. DBM & Ancients generally was in a bit of a decline from about 2005 onwards as people tried new things. The advent of FoG with the huge machine of Osprey, Slitherine, WI behind it has made it very difficult for DBMM to carve out a niche in the market. Anecdotal evidence from the UK and Oz though, has it increasing in uptake. I think the US market is very different because of the paucity of major clubs.

Xavi
12-13-2010, 09:48 AM
As to army list changes; any rebasing or changing troop types will "kill" that army for me since a lot of my troops were done by someone else and the odds of matching up a new unit are slim.

Same for me. I can get access to some of the painters of my armies, but not all, and they would not necessarily want to paint one or 2 elements only to update my armies.

Xavi

Bob. (and his dog)
12-13-2010, 01:29 PM
All good points by John but some of the "tapering off" of attendance can be attributed to the economy. Also, Midnite Madness has been cut into by other games that have been expanding. In the early 2000's many DBM players dropped in now those other games are running longer, starting earlier next day.

Many of us have armies that consist of figures no longer made, or that were painted by someone else so not matchable.

As DBA Umpire for NASAMW I will be gathering opinions from our DBA community on the option of allowing 2.0 armies to continue into a 3.0 era.

DO NOT JUMP ON ME FOR SAYING THIS WILL BE DONE< please

I will just be getting opinions on this option once the new list come out.

Attendance at DBA events has tapered off noticeably in the last couple of years (Midnight Madness, Sunday Themes). So any major rules issues have the distinct possiblity of dring a nail in the coffin.

As to army list changes; any rebasing or changing troop types will "kill" that army for me since a lot of my troops were done by someone else and the odds of matching up a new unit are slim.

YMMV.

John

David Kuijt
12-13-2010, 01:37 PM
DO NOT JUMP ON ME FOR SAYING THIS WILL BE DONE< please


I'm bored, it's Monday, and you say I can't be loud and irrational? No fair, Bob.:silly

foge
12-13-2010, 01:55 PM
I think allowing 2.2 armies at a 3.0 event is a reasonable compromise.

FWIW, you can use both the old DBM and new DBMM lists at the DBM events.

michael guth
12-13-2010, 05:30 PM
Dear David,

If I new you were bored and irritable I would have suggested we get together for a game. How about Wednesday or Friday?

Mike Guth

Adrian Williams
12-13-2010, 05:46 PM
??? So are you still driving round in a model T, watching betamax and listening to your 8 track stereophonic sound system? Seriously, how are you going to get universally recognised DBA lists without them being part of the rules?

Now, assuming they are part of the rules, do you think that we should start the whole historical re-examination from scratch, or use the DBMM lists based on some of the best evidence available as the starting point?

You assume that DBMM is progress. I don't know whether it is or not. I would prefer to treat each set of rules as separate things with their own independent values, communities, etc.

I am always amused at people assuming that there is something highly scientific about relating historical research to troop type and army classifications. It is conjecture at best in most cases. Much as I like reading historical stuff, I am wary of any suggestions that new ideas about history or new archaeological evidence can be demonstrably represented in some uncontested new way in an army list. That is particularly so in such an abstract set as DBA

A

David Kuijt
12-13-2010, 06:07 PM
I am always amused at people assuming that there is something highly scientific about relating historical research to troop type and army classifications. It is conjecture at best in most cases. Much as I like reading historical stuff, I am wary of any suggestions that new ideas about history or new archaeological evidence can be demonstrably represented in some uncontested new way in an army list. That is particularly so in such an abstract set as DBA


So what you're saying is, we can't do it perfectly, so we shouldn't try to do it at all.

Nah. I don't buy it.

There is nothing wrong with playing HotT, or any system that says "make up your own army lists without any pretence of history."

Our vision of history isn't perfect. True.

I refuse to let that fact force all games to be "make up your own army lists." The Romans didn't have Pike and Knights and Longbow.

Adrian Williams
12-13-2010, 06:11 PM
I want it to bear some reasonable relationship to history - but I don't want it to be captive to fads the veracity of which are often overstated.

Stephen Webb
12-13-2010, 06:14 PM
All very interesting comments...

Which may or may not come true...

I am willing to wait to see what happens.

However, for the moment, I am not purchasing, painting or basing any DBA armies. Until the dust settles...

Adrian Williams
12-13-2010, 06:18 PM
All very interesting comments...

Which may or may not come true...

I am willing to wait to see what happens.

However, for the moment, I am not purchasing, painting or basing any DBA armies. Until the dust settles...

Whereas I have five armies with a painter, and have in the last 18 months bought about 20 unpainted for 2.2!

Tony Aguilar
12-13-2010, 06:19 PM
All very interesting comments...

Which may or may not come true...

I am willing to wait to see what happens.

However, for the moment, I am not purchasing, painting or basing any DBA armies. Until the dust settles...

We are both in the same boat. ;)

Doesn't keep me from playing, though. I am playing more DBA than I ever have!

Kontos
12-13-2010, 06:36 PM
We are both in the same boat. ;)

Doesn't keep me from playing, though. I am playing more DBA than I ever have!
But are you playing "well"? :D

I am not stopping my DBA projects. If I don't like where the dust settles; I'll just move the dust. I will continue painting my new project - Numidians - and then I get involved in my DBA-RRR project unless, of course, there is RRR 3.0. ;)

Frank

JLogan
12-13-2010, 07:51 PM
DBA 3.0 incorporates only changes that will benefit DBA. Some of these
derive from experience with mechanisms used in DBMM and cure problems I have had playing DBA in America. For example, they tame the "buttocks of death" and stop players so placing elements as to prevent the opponent contacting any of them.

DBA is a suitable beginners introduction to DBMM because the basing and
procedures are very similar and because Sue is trying to use DBA in an
introduction to ancient wargaming similar to the old Purple Primer. There
will be no forced conversion to DBMM by fire, sword and pretty pictured
hype. I play both sets now!

My current draft of the "Fighting the Battle" section, has green bits that
are rewordings to possibly improve clarity, red bits that are substantive
agreed changes and purple bits to be argued over.

What it does not currently include, but could, is changing distance
measurement to base width multiples (as in DBMM). This would simplify play,
but make a lot of measuring sticks redundant.

I am happy to make a draft available to sensible players to test privately.
If these are people who are already familiar with both DBA and DBMM that
would be a help. At this stage I do not want it on the DBA site because in
my opinion this would generate more heat than light. If you want to join in,
contact me.

Phil

winterbadger
12-13-2010, 09:06 PM
I would be *very* happy to see all measurements in BWDs. That was a change I thought needed to be made as soon as I saw the first edition of DBA, back before they were numbered. I would not object at all to making new measuring sticks.

DBA 3.0 incorporates only changes that will benefit DBA. Some of these
derive from experience with mechanisms used in DBMM and cure problems I have had playing DBA in America.

Amazing how long the memory of being outgeneralled by a teenager apparently rankles... :D

Stephen Webb
12-13-2010, 10:13 PM
I too would be happy to chnage my measuring sticks to Base Widths.

Especially as the ones for 25mm are already correct for 15mm.

However, will Phil remember to make the board size bigger to compensate?

I would hope so, although changing my boards will be similar to re-basing...

Annoying and expensive.

ferrency
12-13-2010, 10:24 PM
DBA 3.0 incorporates only changes that will benefit DBA.

Clearly: just as DBMM only included changes that improved upon DBM.

Personally I would like someone who has played a lot of DBA but very little DBMM to review the proposed changes. "More heat than light" also describes a romantic fireside dinner, so what's the downside?

Alan

David Kuijt
12-13-2010, 11:21 PM
Personally I would like someone who has played a lot of DBA but very little DBMM to review the proposed changes.


Ooo! Me! Me! Take me!


"More heat than light" also describes a romantic fireside dinner, so what's the downside?


You'd be kissing up to someone older, beefier, and hairier than your Sweetie?

Rich Gause
12-13-2010, 11:22 PM
I like the current measurement system better than base widths. I hope DK is one of the people who gets involved and contacts Phil regarding a draft.

David Kuijt
12-13-2010, 11:31 PM
I hope DK is one of the people who gets involved and contacts Phil regarding a draft.

Did that a few minutes before posting on this thread. Lots of people should -- the crucial thing is that he should have lots of playtesters who play DBA. Like Alan (Ferrency) I'm concerned that a pool of DBMM players is a poor testbed for a new DBA version.

ferrency
12-13-2010, 11:31 PM
Ooo! Me! Me! Take me!

Well...


You'd be kissing up to someone older, beefier, and hairier than your Sweetie?

Okay, you've convinced me: I choose you :)

Alan

Kontos
12-13-2010, 11:42 PM
I'd volunteer but I don't know the current rules let alone fillin' my head with new ones. :D

It would be a great opportunity though. :up

Frank

dicemanrick
12-14-2010, 12:17 AM
Do you think Phil would grace a few groups in different cities/regions to give his new baby a test run? We have a Rules Lawyer First Class in Pittsburgh!:D ..

and a few guys who get together frequently to play....

Rich Gause
12-14-2010, 12:19 AM
Did that a few minutes before posting on this thread. Lots of people should -- the crucial thing is that he should have lots of playtesters who play DBA. Like Alan (Ferrency) I'm concerned that a pool of DBMM players is a poor testbed for a new DBA version.

Just sent an email to Phil requesting to help playtest.

Doug
12-14-2010, 02:04 AM
Did that a few minutes before posting on this thread. Lots of people should -- the crucial thing is that he should have lots of playtesters who play DBA. Like Alan (Ferrency) I'm concerned that a pool of DBMM players is a poor testbed for a new DBA version.

I have put my name up, I play a lot of DBA, more than any other game. I also play DBMM and have been actively involved in its development since 2004.

Over the past few years I have organised the DBA Australian Nationals (a duty I have handed over to Gregorius this year), as well as the National DBMM comp.

I regularly umpire in both games (with no misconceptions as to my infallibility) - and have been playing DBA since about 1993 (IIRC).

The Last Conformist
12-14-2010, 02:20 AM
I would be *very* happy to see all measurements in BWDs.
I'm a bit concerned that Phil (apparently) thinks that redoing measurement sticks* is the being reason for caution on this front. It's going to change how the game plays after all ...


* Which itself is a non-issue to me - already got DBMM ones.

Doug
12-14-2010, 02:35 AM
I'm a bit concerned that Phil (apparently) thinks that redoing measurement sticks* is the being reason for caution on this front. It's going to change how the game plays after all ...
* Which itself is a non-issue to me - already got DBMM ones.

It shouldn't actually change the game radically. I would be more concerned if using changed distances meant that the scale of boards needed to be changed.

But this also assumes that Phil doesn't want to change how the game plays.

Tony Aguilar
12-14-2010, 06:21 AM
We have a Rules Lawyer First Class in Pittsburgh!:D

I have heard that he is a First Class "Something Else".... :silly

Tony Aguilar
12-14-2010, 07:04 AM
- and then I get involved in my DBA-RRR project unless, of course, there is RRR 3.0. ;)


There won't be a DBA-RRR 3.0 version until if/when there is a DBA 3.0.

JLogan
12-14-2010, 12:11 PM
Like Alan (Ferrency) I'm concerned that a pool of DBMM players is a poor testbed for a new DBA version.

I agree completely. As a lurker on the DBMM list (though I'm not a DBMM player - I only play DBA), I'm aware there are some interesting idea's/mechanisms that might be useful in a DBA 3.0. But I think it will be far better if PB introduces these to DBA playtesters who are largely unaware of them and so judge them for their utility - or not - to DBA, without preconceptions as to their effect in DBMM.

I find it very odd and very disappointing that PB chose to post his note about DBA 3.0 on the DBMMlist and not this forum.

John

El' Jocko
12-14-2010, 01:00 PM
DBA 3.0 incorporates only changes that will benefit DBA. Some of these
derive from experience with mechanisms used in DBMM and cure problems I have had playing DBA in America. For example, they tame the "buttocks of death" and stop players so placing elements as to prevent the opponent contacting any of them.


John, was this on the DBMM Yahoo list? I keep an eye on that list for just this kind of DBA tidbit. But I wasn't able to find this post.

- Jack

JLogan
12-14-2010, 02:01 PM
John, was this on the DBMM Yahoo list? I keep an eye on that list for just this kind of DBA tidbit. But I wasn't able to find this post.

- Jack

Jack; yes, from the DBMM Yahoo list. Message/post # 130206, Dec.11, by Phil. Helpfully entitled "Re: Marketing, was impeteous movement cancon" - go figure........:)

Hope that helps.

John

The Last Conformist
12-14-2010, 02:18 PM
It shouldn't actually change the game radically.
I expect the overall impact would be fairly small, but I only need look at may most recent game for an instance where heavy infantry moving 2 basewidths rather than 1.25 would have allowed a hardflank on a general.

Redwilde
12-14-2010, 03:20 PM
DBA is a suitable beginners introduction to DBMM because the basing and
procedures are very similar and because Sue is trying to use DBA in an
introduction to ancient wargaming similar to the old Purple Primer. There
will be no forced conversion to DBMM by fire, sword and pretty pictured
hype. I play both sets now!

Phil

So I know Phil has long fancied that DBA is an introductory set for DBM(M). But with the overwhelming majority of DBA/M players I know, this is not the case. I've met very few players who do both, and I don't think I've met any who played DBA til they had enough figures painted to move on to DBM

Has there ever been polls organised on the various DBA/M/M groups to see what portion of players do both systems, and how many moved from DBA to DBM?

foge
12-14-2010, 03:45 PM
FWIW, the whole Pittsburgh crew plays both. Half prefers DBM, half prefers DBA, but we play both systems.

For me, I started with DBA because its much easier to get into than DBM. I like standard DBA for smaller games and "theme" events. However, for larger games, I prefer DBM.

winterbadger
12-14-2010, 04:40 PM
FWIW, the whole Pittsburgh crew plays both. Half prefers DBM, half prefers DBA, but we play both systems.

For me, I started with DBA because its much easier to get into than DBM. I like standard DBA for smaller games and "theme" events. However, for larger games, I prefer DBM.

I would play DBM (occasionally) if it were DBA writ large. That is to say, if they both used the same basic rules but DBM added things like the quality ratings (and thus had to have expanded combat results), armies of uneven sizes (and thus point values), extras like flank marches/weather/more complex and interactive terrain set-up.

But DBM(M) seem to have all those things, but at the cost of mechanics that are just different enough that it's essentially a different set of rules that I'd have to learn and keep separate in my mind from DBA. *That* is too high an opportunity cost.

El' Jocko
12-14-2010, 04:43 PM
Jack; yes, from the DBMM Yahoo list. Message/post # 130206, Dec.11, by Phil. Helpfully entitled "Re: Marketing, was impeteous movement cancon" - go figure........:)

Thanks, John. Turns out I was missing it because a search for "DBA" didn't turn up any messages later than Dec. 5th. And I didn't have the patience to step through the entire message history--I don't know of any other forum with that much traffic. But with your info I was able to track it down.

- Jack

foge
12-14-2010, 05:12 PM
I would play DBM (occasionally) if it were DBA writ large. That is to say, if they both used the same basic rules but DBM added things like the quality ratings (and thus had to have expanded combat results), armies of uneven sizes (and thus point values), extras like flank marches/weather/more complex and interactive terrain set-up.

DBA to DBM isn't too bad. The mechanics are basically the same. The things that are unique to DBM (flank marches, grading, impetuous troops, etc.) don't really cause a problem. What gets me are things like different rear support rules or combat results. I just have to do a slight reset (and scan a quick reference document) when switching from one to another.

But DBM(M) seem to have all those things, but at the cost of mechanics that are just different enough that it's essentially a different set of rules that I'd have to learn and keep separate in my mind from DBA. *That* is too high an opportunity cost.

I think that's why DBMM hasn't caught on with our group. It is a more complicated game than DBM, and its different enough that it requires a lot of "unlearning". This moves it into the "new rule set" category instead of "upgrade to DBM" category, which makes it less appealing.

winterbadger
12-14-2010, 05:33 PM
I think that's why DBMM hasn't caught on with our group. It is a more complicated game than DBM, and its different enough that it requires a lot of "unlearning". This moves it into the "new rule set" category instead of "upgrade to DBM" category, which makes it less appealing.

Exactly--if one has to unlearn rules from one to play the other (and it's always appeared to me that you do), it really means there's a huge barrier to people moving back and forth easily between the two. And as much as it would be keen to play something like DBM(M)--and, no, playing BBDBA does not scratch that itch--I will always play more DBA, so the two having not just different mechanics but contradictory mechanics is, for me at least, A Big Problem.

ferrency
12-14-2010, 05:36 PM
FWIW, the whole Pittsburgh crew plays both. Half prefers DBM, half prefers DBA, but we play both systems.

For me, I started with DBA because its much easier to get into than DBM. I like standard DBA for smaller games and "theme" events. However, for larger games, I prefer DBM.

Speak for yourself, archaeologist-boy. :)

Either that, or JM and I don't count as part of the Pittsburgh crew yet. We have played DBM but don't play it regularly.

Alan

Susan Laflin-Barker
12-14-2010, 05:49 PM
I hope to have the next group of army lists ready for the weekend.

Phil is now looking at DBA and will probably make a few changes, but these will be kept to to a minimum.

We do not want to force anyone to re-base any of the armies.

Sue.

winterbadger
12-14-2010, 05:54 PM
I hope to have the next group of army lists ready for the weekend.

Phil is now looking at DBA and will probably make a few changes, but these will be kept to to a minimum.

We do not want to force anyone to re-base any of the armies.

Sue.

Huzzah! :2up

foge
12-14-2010, 06:45 PM
Speak for yourself, archaeologist-boy. :)


Haha, my bust. I should have said "Most of the Pittsburgh crew..."

Either that, or you should play more DBM. :)

Lobotomy
12-14-2010, 09:08 PM
Do you think Phil would grace a few groups in different cities/regions to give his new baby a test run? We have a Rules Lawyer First Class in Pittsburgh!:D ..

and a few guys who get together frequently to play....

Hey!!! I resemble that remark!!! :2up

Lobotomy
12-14-2010, 09:10 PM
I have heard that he is a First Class "Something Else".... :silly

And the horse you rode in on, buddy! :cool

Bardolph
12-15-2010, 12:23 AM
Did that a few minutes before posting on this thread. Lots of people should -- the crucial thing is that he should have lots of playtesters who play DBA. Like Alan (Ferrency) I'm concerned that a pool of DBMM players is a poor testbed for a new DBA version.


This. Couldn't agree more.

Stephen Webb
12-15-2010, 12:43 AM
I presume none of us have had a reply from Phil, as yet?

David Kuijt
12-15-2010, 02:04 AM
I presume none of us have had a reply from Phil, as yet?
Nothing here.

Susan Laflin-Barker
12-15-2010, 05:02 AM
I find I cannot keep up with all the relevant discussions on both of the groups.

I do value your input and I want to give your comments their full value so I shall have to divide my input.

Fanaticus seem very good at philosophical discussion of general points, so I shall post those queries on the Fanaticus site.

Yahoo DBA has the facility to put a file on the site for discussion by members so in future I shall place the sections of army lists in a file that site.

Anyone who wishes to contribute to both will be able to join both now that you Know what I am going to do, so no-one should miss out.

My first topic on BUAs & Camps will appear shortly on Fanaticus and the next group of lists will be put on the yahoo group at the weekend.

Sue.