PDA

View Full Version : So is 3.0 on schedule?


Jeff
04-13-2011, 04:14 PM
I was wondering if 3.0 was on schedule for historicon 2011? I am loping forward to figuring out army list changes for my existing armies.

I am not buying any armies right now, because of possible changes to the lists. I have noticed that others are, what is motivating those that are buying armies to do so?

I figure i would ask since fanaticus is slow right now.

Jeff

Menacus Secundus
04-13-2011, 04:42 PM
I have no idea whether v3 will be available by the second weekend in July. (I'm happy enough with v2.2 and top of my wish list would be HFG which seems to have been leap-frogged by v3.)

But my answer to Jeff's second question, is that there are two DBA competitions here in the UK before Historicon; PAWS2 in June and the Sussex Shield on 2 July. I don't have one of the listed armies for the first, nor do I have an army with (at least) 3 LH elements for the second.

Which is why I will be heading for the Essex stand at SALUTE in London this Saturday and turning my gold - or its modern-day equivalent - into base metal.

(There are other competitions between now and 9th July as well as these two, but I can use one of my existing armies for Alvechurch and armies are supplied for the Sheffield Triples.)

Denis

Rich Gause
04-13-2011, 05:28 PM
I have no idea whether v3 will be available by the second weekend in July. (I'm happy enough with v2.2 and top of my wish list would be HFG which seems to have been leap-frogged by v3.)

But my answer to Jeff's second question, is that there are two DBA competitions here in the UK before Historicon; PAWS2 in June and the Sussex Shield on 2 July. I don't have one of the listed armies for the first, nor do I have an army with (at least) 3 LH elements for the second.

Which is why I will be heading for the Essex stand at SALUTE in London this Saturday and turning my gold - or its modern-day equivalent - into base metal.

(There are other competitions between now and 9th July as well as these two, but I can use one of my existing armies for Alvechurch and armies are supplied for the Sheffield Triples.)

Denis

Obviously you don't have enough DBA armies if there are two events you aren't going to because you don't have armies for them. You need to paint faster....................:D

Rich Gause
04-13-2011, 05:34 PM
I was wondering if 3.0 was on schedule for historicon 2011? I am loping forward to figuring out army list changes for my existing armies.

I am not buying any armies right now, because of possible changes to the lists. I have noticed that others are, what is motivating those that are buying armies to do so?

I figure i would ask since fanaticus is slow right now.

Jeff

I doubt if 3.0m will be done anytime soon.

Alan Lauder
04-13-2011, 06:18 PM
Hi Jeff,
Can't say I'm worrying too much at all about when 3.0 arrives - I doubt there will be that much pressure to shift quickly to the new edition in short order in Australia. So, I'm still accumulating lead at a steady rate - and painting it at a much slower one! I only have one army on hold (Early Swiss) to see what happens to the 6Bd. Otherwise ... full steam ahead. :2up
Alan

michael guth
04-13-2011, 06:34 PM
The release of 3.1 is the question. 3.1 will be needed to fill all the holes from lack of a defined process of playtesting, proofreading and incorporation of bad ideas from random sources who don't play much DBA into 3.0

Overly pessimistic? Ask yourself, is anyone playing DBMM v1?

ferrency
04-13-2011, 06:37 PM
I was wondering if 3.0 was on schedule for historicon 2011? I am loping forward to figuring out army list changes for my existing armies.

If you mean: "will anyone be playing DBA 3.0 at Historicon" the answer seems to be "not likely." The event schedule explicitly states it's using DBA2.2. If a DBA 3 playtest game shows up, I wouldn't expect to need the updated armies.

I am not buying any armies right now, because of possible changes to the lists. I have noticed that others are, what is motivating those that are buying armies to do so?

Life's short, eat dessert first.

If I decide not to buy an army right now, it's because I already have a dozen unpainted and not because of DBA 3.

I figure i would ask since fanaticus is slow right now.

I noticed the same.

I'm looking forward to Post Tax Day BBDBA in a few days, and Stoogecon in a few weeks, but my painting for those is all done. I just need to decide what kind of Matched Pair to bring...

Alan

Si2
04-13-2011, 06:48 PM
I was wondering if 3.0 was on schedule for historicon 2011? I am loping forward to figuring out army list changes for my existing armies.

I am not buying any armies right now, because of possible changes to the lists. I have noticed that others are, what is motivating those that are buying armies to do so?

I figure i would ask since fanaticus is slow right now.

Jeff

The Anatolians beat the Sumerians at last, so I need Hittites for them to fight next. I ordered from Newline a few days ago. I'm hoping Sean ships my army to me before he heads down for SAlute...
I can't see the DBA secret police crashing my loft if the army changes composition in 3.0 and I'm running the old model.
And as the Libyans beat the Nubians tonight I need to paint up my NKE! They were purchased a long time ago though.

Better to regret something you've done, than something you didn't do.

Si2

Gascap
04-13-2011, 07:50 PM
I have noticed that others are, what is motivating those that are buying armies to do so?


Personally, I'm not motivated to buy armies, I'm just even less motivated to worry about the Third Coming.

Lately I've been busy enough that I've been painting more often than I've been attending events. I've had a couple new armies for each new event that I've attended, and except for a couple favorite armies, I only tend to use any given army 6-12 times. So, I'm more worried about painting a new army and wanting to play that to the exclusion of older armies than I am about 3.0 obsoleting my existing armies.

Also, I try not to be too disciplined with this hobby :) I'll save the discipline for work. If I'm inspired to paint an army, I'll buy it and paint it; you never know when that inspiration will return. I know people who try to not buy new armies until they've painted their existing ones, but at that point, you just risk turning a hobby into work. So, I'm just not worried about getting all my 2.2 armies done before the coming of 3.0.

Finally, I think the business model (if there is one) for WRG is totally different from something like GW's. With the latter, the product is in a constant state of brokenness, and releasing content or bug-fixing patches in the form of new rules and models is a primary way of making money. DBA's rules and miniatures manufacturers are separate, so I'll happily continue to buy armies without worrying that somehow I'm playing into the hands of the rules company. :)

Just some thoughts, "since Fanaticus is slow right now." ;)

JM

Alan Lauder
04-13-2011, 08:16 PM
So, I'm just not worried about getting all my 2.2 armies done before the coming of 3.0.

Now there's a challenge I should take up! :eek

Inanna'sBoyToy
04-13-2011, 09:51 PM
I'm trundling forth to complete my Sumerian I/1a,b,& c lists. If 3.0 comes along and I gotta rebase my blades, so be it.

The Wallachians will stay unpainted and the Mound Builders will stay in their bags until I see the Book IV draft. (The hilarity surrounding WB moving to smaller bases with less figs is keeping me from starting the Moundies.)

Interestingly enough I just received my II/2 Xyston Mountain Indian figs from Brookhurst Hobbies. I got it for two reasons...1) It spans both 2.2 and 3.0 lists easily and 2) It's an Indian painting scheme that's in my comfort zone! :p

Si2
04-14-2011, 05:48 PM
I'm trundling forth to complete my Sumerian I/1a,b,& c lists. If 3.0 comes along and I gotta rebase my blades, so be it. :p

Aren't the Sumerians 3Bd anyhow - I think if there's any change it will be to adopt the deeper 3Bd type bases across the Bd family. So you should be OK.

SI2

Inanna'sBoyToy
04-14-2011, 06:35 PM
Aren't the Sumerians 3Bd anyhow - I think if there's any change it will be to adopt the deeper 3Bd type bases across the Bd family. So you should be OK.

SI2

I thought I saw on that proposed basing chart in that Bd were going to 15mm bases and getting standardised to 4 models/base.

Martyn
04-15-2011, 03:56 AM
I thought I saw on that proposed basing chart in that Bd were going to 15mm bases and getting standardised to 4 models/base.

That is correct on the proposed chart for v3, but it also includes the comment

"any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the corresponding DBA army. (This also covers armies based for previous versions of DBA.)"

So 3Bd on a 20mm base will still be valid, but a simpler basing of only one type of Bd will be recommended.

Inanna'sBoyToy
04-15-2011, 08:17 AM
That is correct on the proposed chart for v3, but it also includes the comment

"any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the corresponding DBA army. (This also covers armies based for previous versions of DBA.)"

So 3Bd on a 20mm base will still be valid, but a simpler basing of only one type of Bd will be recommended.



Sounds good to me! Thanks! :up

Andreas Johansson
04-15-2011, 10:32 AM
When Phil announces a deadline, it's best interpreted as a terminus post quem.

Martyn
04-15-2011, 11:52 AM
When Phil announces a deadline, it's best interpreted as a terminus post quem.

Any chance of an ante quem to that. :???

David Constable
04-16-2011, 06:00 PM
Any chance of an ante quem to that. :???

Not even Phil Barker knows that, a safe bet is the next five years, but you should be able to buy a copy by Christmas 2012 (I will not specify which calender).

David Constable

El' Jocko
04-16-2011, 08:08 PM
Not even Phil Barker knows that, a safe bet is the next five years, but you should be able to buy a copy by Christmas 2012

Great. Just in time for the end of the world. :eek

- Jack

Bobgnar
04-16-2011, 08:55 PM
That reminds me that I wanted to get a Mayan army.

winterbadger
04-18-2011, 06:25 PM
Great. Just in time for the end of the world. :eek

- Jack

That would explain why so many people are acting as if the arrival of 3.0 signals the Last Trump!

David Constable
04-18-2011, 06:39 PM
That would explain why so many people are acting as if the arrival of 3.0 signals the Last Trump!

Some of us also remember the change from 5th to 6th to 7th.
Wait and see, but it will be a new set, not 2.2 with clarifications.

David Constable

kontos
04-18-2011, 06:40 PM
Some of us also remember the change from 5th to 6th to 7th.
Wait and see, but it will be a new set, not 2.2 with clarifications.

David Constable

That's what most of us fear. :eek

Bobgnar
04-18-2011, 09:40 PM
How much change is acceptable? What must remain for The Game to still be DBA, in fact, not just name? Sorta rhetorical but feel free to comment ( as if anyone needed my permission).

David Constable
04-19-2011, 05:26 AM
How much change is acceptable? What must remain for The Game to still be DBA, in fact, not just name? Sorta rhetorical but feel free to comment ( as if anyone needed my permission).

To me if you change moving, shooting and close combat, let alone the play balance, then add in base changes and army list changes, you have a new set of rules, this is not going to be a few changes, this is a full re-write.

To use a car metaphor (which older people might understand), it is like saying the Mk.1 Mini (the original) is the same as the Mini you can buy today.

David Constable

Rong
04-19-2011, 08:40 AM
:???Were the book 1 armies posted by Sue? Any idea when book 4 starts?

David Constable
04-19-2011, 10:27 AM
:???Were the book 1 armies posted by Sue? Any idea when book 4 starts?

Book 1 gives problems, 3Sp being I think the main one.
Book 4 is more of a rules problem, bow effect is based on medieval warfare, a re-write of the rules might cause problems here.

Just a matter of wait and see.

David Constable

Andreas Johansson
04-19-2011, 11:42 AM
:???Were the book 1 armies posted by Sue?
Sue announced sometime back in the winter that someone else were taking care of Bk I. I don't recall who, or even if a name was given.

Rong
04-19-2011, 11:59 AM
Bob and his dog That reminds me that I wanted to get a Mayan army. Bob, there was a Mayan army on ebay, you must have bought it already!:rotfl

Bobgnar
04-27-2011, 01:56 PM
Bob, there was a Mayan army on ebay, you must have bought it already!:rotfl

I missed it. If you see another one, any one, please let me know. Thanks. Painted only,

David Brown
04-27-2011, 06:29 PM
hi there

>>>>>>>>
What must remain for The Game to still be DBA, in fact, not just name?
>>>>>>>>>>>>

If it has named troop types organised as elements, if it uses a PIP system and single contested dice for element-on-element conflict it is DBA.

Regards
David B

david kuijt
04-27-2011, 06:54 PM
If it has named troop types organised as elements, if it uses a PIP system and single contested dice for element-on-element conflict it is DBA.


... or DBMM. A.

winterbadger
04-27-2011, 06:56 PM
... or DBMM. A.

...or HOTT!

JLogan
04-28-2011, 06:36 PM
These posts were made in the past few days by PB (and others):

In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@...> wrote:

personally I do not like any terrain system which has no randomisation of
placement as this can lead to symetric layouts which mean that choice of
sides is irrelavent.

I understand that DBA is moving towards some form of randomisation.

P:
Unfortunately necessary to get rid of current cheese. Basically, dice for
each element, 1 to 4 placed in corresponding quarter, 5 in that chosen by
defender, 6 in that chosen by invader. Linear features and gentle hills can
extend into next quarter, other area features cannot.

Phil

And also:

From: Phil Barker <pc.barker@...>
Subject: [DBMMlist] Generals in litters - request for information

Would commercial models of
generals litters fit on a square base; and how many
figures do they include?

Phil

I have no intention of changing DBMM bases. I asked to see if it would be
practical to change DBA bases! The DBA folk are agitating for a return to
square bases for WWg (with the animals left off, having been notionally
removed when the wagon stopped). Since litters currently count in DBA as
WWg, there would be side effects.

Phil

Aside from the above being of presumable interest to many on this forum, I find these, along with other similar posts by PB - and other people - related to DBA 3.0 on the DBMM Yahoo list very bemusing.

- why does PB not make these comments/requests on the DBA Yahoo list?
- why is he providing information on current DBA 3.0 rules proposals/thinking, having barred game testers from doing so?
- the new(ish) WRG website has this statement: 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. Yet other than Sue's (very welcome) involvement of the DBA yahoo group on the DBA 3.0 army lists, and perhaps (?) a bit on basing, this has not happened and contribution has not been sought ; rather it has been, if at all, on the DBMM list. I'm also unaware American wargamers were demanding a new DBA version, and if so, it seems odd that AFAIK from this forum (?), there are only two American playtesters, compared to complete clubs in the UK?

So does anyone know, if widespread playtesting and feedback opportunity is going to occur at some point on DBA 3.0 (and if so when?); or will it just come out as a fait accompli?

Thanks.

John

David Brown
04-28-2011, 07:22 PM
hi there


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Brown
If it has named troop types organised as elements, if it uses a PIP system and single contested dice for element-on-element conflict it is DBA.

>>>>

... or DBMM. A.
or Hott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well I reckon they could be considerd the same game, Test-mach one-day and 20-Twenty are still all 'cricket' (apols to non-cricket nations).

I should have added to my original DBA description; that both armies have the same number or elements.

Regards

David B

david kuijt
04-28-2011, 08:10 PM
Aside from the above being of presumable interest to many on this forum, I find these, along with other similar posts by PB - and other people - related to DBA 3.0 on the DBMM Yahoo list very bemusing.

- why does PB not make these comments/requests on the DBA Yahoo list?


He does not appear to want responses on the DBA Yahoo list. For whatever reason; my guess is simple familiarity (the DBMM list is what he knows).


- why is he providing information on current DBA 3.0 rules proposals/thinking, having barred game testers from doing so?


He hasn't quite barred game testers from doing so. He has asked them (although not in so many words) to keep the debate from erupting outside his playtest group.

And he certainly never promised not to do so himself. Which, to be fair, is quite reasonable -- he's in charge of the thing he is making.


I'm also unaware American wargamers were demanding a new DBA version, and if so, it seems odd that AFAIK from this forum (?), there are only two American playtesters, compared to complete clubs in the UK?


Two and a half. Bob and I, plus Tom Thomas. You can count Tom Thomas as the half, as he mostly plays HotT and favors that game system, or you can count me as the half, as I am a Can-Am switch hitter.


So does anyone know, if widespread playtesting and feedback opportunity is going to occur at some point on DBA 3.0 (and if so when?); or will it just come out as a fait accompli?


I would be willing to bet at about 10:1 odds that there will be no widespread playtesting and feedback opportunity in the sense that you mean it, although it is possible that some "awareness sessions" might occur at major conventions. I had offered to run one such at Cold Wars in March, but the 3.0 rules were nowhere near close enough to resolution to make that useful (as Phil decided, and I agreed with him).

So the smart money would say fait accompli is the odds-on favorite.

Lobotomy
04-28-2011, 08:23 PM
So the smart money would say fait accompli is the odds-on favorite.

:sick :sick :sick (the forum tells me I need 10 characters)

Stephen Webb
04-29-2011, 12:40 AM
I guess that when Phil thinks that it is ready he will release DBA v3.0.

Then we can play test it, as we did with v2.0.

David Schlanger
04-29-2011, 09:23 AM
I guess that when Phil thinks that it is ready he will release DBA v3.0.

Then we can play test it, as we did with v2.0.

Perhaps we need a top 10 list of things to do with DBA v3.0 when it comes out? :)

DS

kontos
04-29-2011, 09:56 AM
Perhaps we need a top 10 list of things to do with DBA v3.0 when it comes out? :)

DS

#1 - Play v2.2

:D

david kuijt
04-29-2011, 09:58 AM
Perhaps we need a top 10 list of things to do with DBA v3.0 when it comes out? :)


10. An brutal object lesson in a Technical Writing class.
9. A final exam in ESL if your instructor is the Marquis de Sade
...

kontos
04-29-2011, 11:06 AM
10. An brutal object lesson in a Technical Writing class.
9. A final exam in ESL if your instructor is the Marquis de Sade
...

8. Rosetta Stone for Barkerese. :D

david kuijt
04-29-2011, 11:18 AM
8. Rosetta Stone for Barkerese. :D

That's what we need, not what we can use 3.0 for. Unless someone conveniently provides a side-by-side translation into Coptic and Greek.

Xavi
04-29-2011, 12:28 PM
Make an English philologist allucinate with the writing.

Done with 2.2c already. In this case it would be simple rinse and repeat process

JLogan
04-29-2011, 02:14 PM
He does not appear to want responses on the DBA Yahoo list. For whatever reason; my guess is simple familiarity (the DBMM list is what he knows).

He hasn't quite barred game testers from doing so. He has asked them (although not in so many words) to keep the debate from erupting outside his playtest group.

And he certainly never promised not to do so himself. Which, to be fair, is quite reasonable -- he's in charge of the thing he is making.

Two and a half. Bob and I, plus Tom Thomas. You can count Tom Thomas as the half, as he mostly plays HotT and favors that game system, or you can count me as the half, as I am a Can-Am switch hitter.

I would be willing to bet at about 10:1 odds that there will be no widespread playtesting and feedback opportunity in the sense that you mean it, although it is possible that some "awareness sessions" might occur at major conventions. I had offered to run one such at Cold Wars in March, but the 3.0 rules were nowhere near close enough to resolution to make that useful (as Phil decided, and I agreed with him).

So the smart money would say fait accompli is the odds-on favorite.

DK; many thanks for your very helpful, if discouraging, response.

Based on other posts you and Bob have made here, on the DBA Yahoo list and even the DBMM list over the past month or so, I get the sense - reading between the lines ;)- that a) there are a lot of potential changes being considered in DBA 3.0 b) neither you nor Bob are overly enamoured with many of them? (Same probably goes for Andreas?) Fair assessment or not? (i.e. only if you feel able to comment)

Cheers,

John

david kuijt
04-29-2011, 02:53 PM
DK; many thanks for your very helpful, if discouraging, response.

Based on other posts you and Bob have made here, on the DBA Yahoo list and even the DBMM list over the past month or so, I get the sense - reading between the lines ;)- that a) there are a lot of potential changes being considered in DBA 3.0 b) neither you nor Bob are overly enamoured with many of them? (Same probably goes for Andreas?) Fair assessment or not? (i.e. only if you feel able to comment)



Andreas is still involved -- and he and I see eye-to-eye on the issues I mention later.

Bob is still interacting with the 3.0 playtest list, but he reports that his personal playtest group has revolted and is no longer willing to playtest the different versions that come out every week or two.

As for their emotional reactions, Bob and Andreas will have to speak for themselves.

The total number of changes being considered is hard to measure, and perhaps not a useful statistic.

The critical thing (to me) is which changes.

There are a few critical changes that completely change the nature of the game. I am not enamoured of those changes. Sufficiently so that, after long and vociferous advocacy against them, that last week I semi-withdrew from the 3.0 playtest group for creative differences. I say "semi-" because I am still receiving stuff, and this week Phil seems to have abandoned one of those major issues in favor of the solution I had been advocating for two months without result. This makes it difficult for me to decide what to do (completely withdraw or not). My position has always been to support what Phil will produce -- if Phil produces something I can support.

And if Phil does not produce something I can support, something that I think our community will be willing to adopt, then I will continue to support the community. Which would probably mean continuing to play v2.2, perhaps with a page or two of line-edits to fix the (very few) things that need adjustment with v2.2 now.

So to put it simply: if 3.0 is crap, I am going to support the community, both here online and at the major East Coast US conventions. In that case, v2.2 will NOT be abandoned. v2.2 is a good game; if v3.0 is crap, Phil and his cronies can play it in their insular little world.

And if 3.0 is not crap, I will support it. But last week it seemed clear to me that Phil was going in the crap direction, and my attempts to change that direction over the previous months were come to naught. Now it isn't so clear; on one major issue (Bow shooting at +3 vs. foot) Phil has just put forward a solution that matches what Andreas and I (and three or four others) had been advocating since I joined the list early February (Bow back to normal factors; Blade being -1 against shooting).

That isn't the biggest issue. And I'm not saying that 3.0 won't be a good game -- I don't know what it will be. What I'm saying is that right now there are two or three issues that will totally change the game. And if it were to go to press with the current design decisions on those issues, I can't see it being adopted smoothly by the v2.2 playing community.

Bobgnar
04-29-2011, 03:14 PM
I concur with most (almost all) of what David says. I have written a number of messages trying to show Phil and the DBMM-based players that DBA is a game unto itself and not wanting "hand-me-downs that do not keep consistent with the current game. Some of the changes are not acceptable to my local playtesters and we cannot keep up with the weekly changes. There is more to life than play testing The Game. I will not mention any specifics as they may change from week to week.

As cited by Phil himself, he is working on a random terrain placement system, with invader picking edge, most of the time. He mentioned Square bases for WWg for which David, Andreas, and I have been lobbying for since day one. David cites the shooting aspect. Doug Melville and David have written much on this, on the consequences of balancing the game for medieval vs ancients periods. Someone asked if we want 500 years of history to drive 4000.

So, indeed, I am not "enamoured" with SOME of the changes, but not all of them. There are a few basic changes that must go.

I am now thinking that instead of fixing 2.2, I would prefer to fix 3.0 if the changes will be minimal.

I have recently brought up Dismounting to the development group. This is one of a very few rules that people dismiss for tournaments, dismounting after first bound. Check out my poll and give your opinion so I might report it.
http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=11124


DK; many thanks for your very helpful, if discouraging, response.

Based on other posts you and Bob have made here, on the DBA Yahoo list and even the DBMM list over the past month or so, I get the sense - reading between the lines ;)- that a) there are a lot of potential changes being considered in DBA 3.0 b) neither you nor Bob are overly enamoured with many of them? (Same probably goes for Andreas?) Fair assessment or not? (i.e. only if you feel able to comment)

Cheers,

John

david kuijt
04-29-2011, 03:26 PM
So, indeed, I am not "enamoured" with SOME of the changes, but not all of them. There are a few basic changes that must go.


Yes. And I think you and I agree on what critical changes won't work.

But I agree, some of the 3.0 stuff is fine. The new elephants, I quite like -- more than that, I think they are a major improvement to the game. Square bases for WWg are critical, but that would need to be changed if v2.2 was kept also. And so on.

david kuijt
04-29-2011, 03:29 PM
[... Dismounting...] Check out my poll and give your opinion so I might report it.


As an aside, Bob, I'm not sure how useful reporting poll results to Phil will ever be.

JLogan
04-29-2011, 03:29 PM
DK; Wow - thanks very much for this very candid, honest and obviously heartfelt response. Much appreciated.

It confirms what I and I think many others "not in the loop" on this forum have probably been sensing. Obviously, it is mostly discouraging news, but thanks to you, Bob, Andreas and the other playtesters who have been fighting the good fight and representing the DBA user community. I hope you will continue to do so as you best feel able.

Your assessments I feel are spot on; especially that if DBA 3.0 does turn out to be crap; most folks will continue with DBA 2.2. But I live in hope this will not be the case. :up

Cheers,

John

JLogan
04-29-2011, 03:43 PM
I concur with most (almost all) of what David says.

Bob; thanks also to you for this, what is again, a very honest and hearfelt reply. My comments just now back to DK apply here also.

I have responded to your dismounting poll ( I choose option 5. - player must choose at deployment). However, whilst I think it good that you are doing this for DBA 3.0, it would seem based on what you and DK have just said here that there are much bigger changes/issues/fish to fry that need addressing than dismounting.

It is good though that PB is at least considering things like adopting square bases for WWG; even though it really ticks me off that he canvasses input on it from the DBMM list, rather than the DBA list.

Cheers,

John

david kuijt
04-29-2011, 03:50 PM
It is good though that PB is at least considering things like adopting square bases for WWG; even though it really ticks me off that he canvasses input on it from the DBMM list, rather than the DBA list.


Yes, isn't that the problem with this whole process in a nutshell.

Bobgnar
04-29-2011, 04:03 PM
Ditto on what David says, and JLogan on the DBMM situation.

Dismounting is the most contentious rule in the game now. Roughly half the tournaments in world do not allow it after bound 1 and half do. Is there any other rule that is just out-right rejected?

Anyway, I am trying to address every issue that has been mentioned by our Community. All fish deserved to be fried :) I am not sure where to be on this one, however. I am hoping there is a compromise he will accept.

Bob

Bob; thanks also to you for this, what is again, a very honest and hearfelt reply. My comments just now back to DK apply here also.

I have responded to your dismounting poll ( I choose option 5. - player must choose at deployment). However, whilst I think it good that you are doing this for DBA 3.0, it would seem based on what you and DK have just said here that there are much bigger changes/issues/fish to fry that need addressing than dismounting.

It is good though that PB is at least considering things like adopting square bases for WWG; even though it really ticks me off that he canvasses input on it from the DBMM list, rather than the DBA list.

Cheers,

John

winterbadger
04-29-2011, 04:21 PM
Dismounting is the most contentious rule in the game now. Roughly half the tournaments in world do not allow it after bound 1 and half do. Is there any other rule that is just out-right rejected?

For tournament (and much friendly) play? BUAs and rivers (I use both, but most others seem to regard them with slightly less favour than week-old fish.)

El' Jocko
04-29-2011, 04:39 PM
It is good though that PB is at least considering things like adopting square bases for WWG; even though it really ticks me off that he canvasses input on it from the DBMM list, rather than the DBA list.

Having read the thread over on the DBMM list, it was clear that Phil was just canvassing to find out whether the litter figures that are commercially available would fit on a square base. He was not asking if people thought that square bases were a good idea for DBA 3.0. So I wouldn't get too bent out of shape on this one.

- Jack

Andreas Johansson
04-30-2011, 02:49 AM
As it looks now, 3.0* is a mixed bunch. It has a fair number of clarifications, a couple of obscurifications of things I thought were clear, and a number of minor and not-so-minor changes, most of which I think are for the better (eg. the nellie changes that David alluded to, and also the new terrain system Phil mentioned on the DBMMlist). Unfortunately, it also has one fundamental and some important changes I find problematical at best in their current incarnation. I hope Phil can be persuaded to abandon them, or more likely modify them into something functional, before publication.

So I'm feeling frustrated. I like most of the changes, but one or two may end up as deal-killers. :sick


* The parts of it we've seen - for reasons that are not clear to me, Phil's only shown us draft of the main rules section, and, as we all know, some rules are hidden away in troop descrptions and the army list section. Also, we haven't seen the changes to BBDBA, if any.

David Schlanger
04-30-2011, 08:57 AM
So I'm feeling frustrated. I like most of the changes, but one or two may end up as deal-killers. :sick

Based on my play testing with DK, I agree about the deal-killers. I like some of the changes, but there is definitely a move towards more complexity which I do not like.



* The parts of it we've seen - for reasons that are not clear to me, Phil's only shown us draft of the main rules section, and, as we all know, some rules are hidden away in troop descrptions and the army list section. Also, we haven't seen the changes to BBDBA, if any.

Sadly, all of the changes to DBA impact BBDBA, with what appears to be little consideration of BBDBA. I know you meant BBDBA specific rules, but I thought I would still point out that all of Phil's changes to regular DBA may not translate well to the bigger game. I am very concerned about the Big Battle specific rules, as the last changes Phil made (going from 2.1 to 2.2) were mostly a step in the wrong direction.

DS

Scott Russell
04-30-2011, 12:47 PM
So to put it simply: if 3.0 is crap, I am going to support the community, both here online and at the major East Coast US conventions. In that case, v2.2 will NOT be abandoned. v2.2 is a good game; if v3.0 is crap, Phil and his cronies can play it in their insular little world.

[/QUOTE]

Strangely, I don't think Phil is actually planning to play DBA 3.0. As far as I know, he has only played ten competitive games of DBA 2.2 in the last four years (English Open, 2007 and Midlands open 2009). If he has a group of DBA-playing cronies, then they inhabit a very insular world indeed. We play DBA every week about eight miles from where he lives, and he has never shown any inclination to join us. My impression is that the development of DBA 3.0 is an intellectual exercise in itself, quite divorced from any other considerations.
Scott

david kuijt
04-30-2011, 12:58 PM
Strangely, I don't think Phil is actually planning to play DBA 3.0. As far as I know, he has only played ten competitive games of DBA 2.2 in the last four years (English Open, 2007 and Midlands open 2009). If he has a group of DBA-playing cronies, then they inhabit a very insular world indeed. We play DBA every week about eight miles from where he lives, and he has never shown any inclination to join us. My impression is that the development of DBA 3.0 is an intellectual exercise in itself, quite divorced from any other considerations.


Well, it worked for Beethoven, who was completely deaf when he wrote his 9th symphony. Maybe only playing two DBA games a year will work for Phil, writing 3.0. (I'm weeping inside as I type this)

Bobgnar
04-30-2011, 05:44 PM
As an aside, Bob, I'm not sure how useful reporting poll results to Phil will ever be.


Indeed, I am not sure either. But this is a contentious rule, what advice can we give Phil? Some think it is bad, some like it, there may be alternatives. I like it for my Trojan War chariots, but you do not like it for Book 4 armies. There it does make what seems like super troops to some, but not to everyone.

So we tell Phil what people want. He decides. People can still modify it if they want for their event, but when one rule is exempted, then more follow.

In the Yahoo Group, Xavi writes
Around here we have diverse tournaments that use
1. different rules for the agressivity roll
2. terrains allowed (mostly do not allw BUAS and rivers, but some allow them)
3. Terrain placement
4. free for all or thematic (not a rule issue, Bob)
5. Bring your own army or matched pairs. (not a rule issue, Bob)
6. Fixed deployment or not
7. Diverse ways to value victory/draw/defeat and how they are tinkered by casualty rates (not a rule issue from the book)
No comment on dismounting?

The logical aspect of the rule that bothers me is that 800 some mounted troops turn into 1,100 some foot troops.

So I would like to suggest to Phil what are views on this rule. Readers, please cast your opinion. We can say we did something on this one.

Thanks

Xavi
04-30-2011, 06:17 PM
What you quoted came from the discussion on dismounting armies indeed. I do not like them at all, and would remove the option (all dismounters subtitute the // for "or") but it has not been a problem around here. I feel the fact that DBA is a fairly new game in Spain (it has only been played "seriously" for 4 years now) impacts our perception of the game; most of us are still in the "cool oldie book II/III armies" and pass over the overused medieval paradigm that we have used thousands of times under other rulebooks. So, dismounting armies are not popular around here. There is also peer pressure that points out that dismounting armies are armies that the rest of the community looks down.

Xavi

David Brown
04-30-2011, 08:16 PM
Thanks for the 3.0 tidbits and comments.

The comments from the play-testers sound less than fully rosy.

Having worked through DBMM development (at various levels of enthusiasm) I can see some of the same issues cropping up.

PB is excellent at generating rules ideas and mechanisms, and has a knack at injecting colour into his rules. It's easy to write bland rules where nothing happens, but PB's mechanisms are often bold.

Sadly he can easily drift from bold to broken, and as he doesn't actually play his own rules that much he doesn't see the difference.

Or maybe he just hasn't got that knack for seeing how a rule will be abused or is just plain unbalancing.

(DBM development benefitted from having RBS as the key driver and co-author, he had a good grasp of how any particular rule could be twisted.)

I have sympathy for the small gang of playtesters, when PB came up with something daft in DBMM development (compulsory computation of combats from left to right springs to mind) there was a howl of protest from the players.

The small gang of playtesters howling just doesn't sound as dire.

I think David K mentioned that some rule he lobbied against, but initially met with no dice from PB, was later removed. This was also a pattern during DBMM development - you can't blame PB for backing his own ideas.

My advice to the playtesters is try to stick with it and to lobby against the wackier ideas.

Or maybe to suggest open playtesting such that we can join in the howl.

Regards

David b

Obadiah
05-02-2011, 03:50 AM
I have just been reading back through the last few weeks of posts on this thread, and it does all look very gloomy. I was sort of excited at what 3.0 might bring initially.

Filippo S.
05-02-2011, 01:26 PM
So to put it simply: if 3.0 is crap, I am going to support the community, both here online and at the major East Coast US conventions. In that case, v2.2 will NOT be abandoned. v2.2 is a good game; if v3.0 is crap, Phil and his cronies can play it in their insular little world.

This is what most of italian players think about 3.0
Many of us were excited about the new version of their preferred game.

Nowadays our little community - 8 years activity, 200unique players, 40/50 regular players each year - it's confused about the posts they read.
Nobody worries a lot, why?
Simply, what DK wrote was the first solution that come us in mind: we're able to produce a "2.2 upgraded" if the game will be a crap.
Everyone hope to see a NICE game, but in these years we made many different scenarios/customisations, some good some not-so-good... as in my "signature": per aspera ad astra.
Through the "errors" to the stars :)

Ciao

El' Jocko
05-02-2011, 06:07 PM
I have just been reading back through the last few weeks of posts on this thread, and it does all look very gloomy. I was sort of excited at what 3.0 might bring initially.

No need to be gloomy. Yes, there is going to be a period of turmoil. That's pretty much for certain. But things will work out in the end. Whether that means DBA 3.0 (well scrubbed with lots of interesting changes) or DBA 2.3 (a lightly touched up classic), I don't know. But one way or the other, we're going to get a good, playable set of rules. Then we'll have to find other things to argue about. :)

- Jack

Bobgnar
05-02-2011, 06:42 PM
Not in the US, they are still playing DBM 3

The release of 3.1 is the question. 3.1 will be needed to fill all the holes from lack of a defined process of playtesting, proofreading and incorporation of bad ideas from random sources who don't play much DBA into 3.0

Overly pessimistic? Ask yourself, is anyone playing DBMM v1?

Pavane
05-02-2011, 08:57 PM
All fish deserved to be fried :)
That must be a Michiganism. Some fish require the subtly of poaching.

Martyn
05-03-2011, 05:10 AM
Having read the thread over on the DBMM list, it was clear that Phil was just canvassing to find out whether the litter figures that are commercially available would fit on a square base. He was not asking if people thought that square bases were a good idea for DBA 3.0. So I wouldn't get too bent out of shape on this one.

- Jack

Interestingly of the half dozen responses, one decried the proposed change to DBMM base sizes, and another lamented the lack of such a change.

It seems that soliciting opinion on the DBMM group can be a two edged sword. ;)

Martyn
05-03-2011, 05:27 AM
Not sure if this has been pointed out previously, but Sue has posted on the DBA Yahoo group the first section of the Book four army lists.

I would post a link but it never seems to work, but the PDF of the proposed list is in the files section of the yahoo group.

Doug
05-05-2011, 05:37 AM
Yes. And I think you and I agree on what critical changes won't work.

But I agree, some of the 3.0 stuff is fine. The new elephants, I quite like -- more than that, I think they are a major improvement to the game. Square bases for WWg are critical, but that would need to be changed if v2.2 was kept also. And so on.

Generally speaking I would say that as a member of the testing group, I frequently agree with Bob, David & Andreas. Less so with Tom Thomas. I see some of the changes as distinct improvements over DBA 2.2 I am less enamoured of others, although I am unconvinced we have anything like a stable version as yet.

Phil appears to be throwing up new versions very regularly, so much so, that it can be difficult to keep pace. But I can assure Fanaticus members that the 3 listed above are very strongly looking out for their interests and have made strong cases and strong representations where they feel the game isn't right.

Overall I am more optimistic than pessimistic about the potential outcome, but i don't expect the process to be complete any time soon.

Menacus Secundus
05-05-2011, 09:19 AM
....but i don't expect the process to be complete any time soon.

Which suggests that the answer to Jeff's question at the start of this chain ("I was wondering if version 3.0 is on schedule for historicon 2011") is almost cetainly "No".

I continue to paint the new armies I bought at SALUTE last month but it seems likely that they will get a fair bit of use before version 3.0 renders them redundant.

Menacus Secundus

Martyn
05-05-2011, 09:42 AM
Which suggests that the answer to Jeff's question at the start of this chain ("I was wondering if version 3.0 is on schedule for historicon 2011") is almost cetainly "No".

It is a shame we are going to have to wait, it certainly prolongs the agony. Iím not sure if I am encouraged by the comments that the play testing cats have made or depressed. What I would say is that I hope that Doug, Andreas, DK and Bob (and any others who are staying under the radar) stay the course and keep chipping away at PB to get the best possible result.

I continue to paint the new armies I bought at SALUTE last month but it seems likely that they will get a fair bit of use before version 3.0 renders them redundant.

Menacus Secundus

The problem of new armies is not so acute if you are painting your own, I am certainly not stopping, any changes to the lists will just mean a few extra figs to fill the gaps.

If you are planning to buy ready painted armies then that could be more problematic.