PDA

View Full Version : Summary of changes..?


Paulisper
05-01-2011, 11:23 AM
Rather than trawl through many pages of discussion on the proposed 3.0 ruleset, being the lazy bugger I am, is it possible for any knowledgeable forumites to post a 'cribsheet' style reply, which summarises the key elements of the proposals and highlights the essence of the main changes from 2.2 to 3.0...?

Ta muchly in anticiaption of a kindly response :D

P.

david kuijt
05-01-2011, 11:47 AM
Rather than trawl through many pages of discussion on the proposed 3.0 ruleset, being the lazy bugger I am, is it possible for any knowledgeable forumites to post a 'cribsheet' style reply, which summarises the key elements of the proposals and highlights the essence of the main changes from 2.2 to 3.0...?


Sorry, but you're asking for something that does not exist. The substance of the proposed 3.0 has not been brought up or revealed. Further, those few of us who have worked on playtest copies of 3.0 have been asked (by Phil) to avoid thrashing them on public fora. Which request makes some sense, because I can assure you, having participated in the process for some months now, that there is no "essence of the main changes" to report at all as yet. Very few things are resolved, and even some of those seem to still be constantly reconsidered. Every week or so a new bubble rises and bursts, with the sound of a syphilitic camel passing gas.

Bobgnar
05-01-2011, 12:46 PM
You can find most about the changes proposed to DBA 3 on the DBMM Yahoo list. Search that group for DBA.

Andreas Johansson
05-01-2011, 01:28 PM
You can find most about the changes proposed to DBA 3 on the DBMM Yahoo list. Search that group for DBA.

I don't think that's really true. Some changes have been mentioned here, but hardly most.

And if you find a change proposed there, there's no telling if it's in the current draft, has been abandoned, or mutated into a durophagous space hamster.

Bobgnar
05-01-2011, 02:10 PM
Yes. I meant most of what has been written about changes, not most of the actual changes is in the DBMM group.

dicemanrick
05-01-2011, 08:43 PM
You can find most about the changes proposed to DBA 3 on the DBMM Yahoo list. Search that group for DBA.

I still think it's ludicrous that the discussion is held on a DBMM forum...a rules set that's practically ignored in the US. Why not discuss it on the DBA list if The Barkers don't like Fanaticus?:???

Peter Feinler
05-01-2011, 08:51 PM
Well Phil isn't really discussing it on the DBMM list. He just throws in the occasional titbit. Sue, however, does post about the army list changes on the DBA Yahoo group.

dbawilliam
05-02-2011, 02:07 AM
Just out of curiosity, What kind of noise does a syphilitic camel passing gas MAKE ???

Richard Lee
05-02-2011, 02:24 AM
Just out of curiosity, What kind of noise does a syphilitic camel passing gas MAKE ???

I think it sounds like a durophagous space hamster.:D

Paulisper
05-02-2011, 04:39 AM
I find it astonishing that the proposed move to 3.0 is so secretive. Phil was pretty happy to place DBMM and HFG up for general perusal and discussion via the web, but trying to ascertain the main thrust of 3.0 is akin to joining a religious sect...bizarre. :cool

Guess I'll just have to wait and see... Thanks for everyone's input, anyhoo.

p.

winterbadger
05-02-2011, 09:20 AM
I find it astonishing that the proposed move to 3.0 is so secretive. Phil was pretty happy to place DBMM and HFG up for general perusal and discussion via the web, but trying to ascertain the main thrust of 3.0 is akin to joining a religious sect...bizarre.

Maybe he found he didn't like what happened in those processes. I've no idea, since I wasn't involved in them or privy to his comments.

david kuijt
05-02-2011, 10:21 AM
I find it astonishing that the proposed move to 3.0 is so secretive. Phil was pretty happy to place DBMM and HFG up for general perusal and discussion via the web, but trying to ascertain the main thrust of 3.0 is akin to joining a religious sect...bizarre. :cool


To put it simply, it is adversarial. Since it was adversarial, it isn't surprising that many people in this community reacted negatively.

As to why Phil takes an adversarial stance with regard to the DBA community, and an inclusive stance with regard to HFG and DBMM, I couldn't say. It isn't a new condition, though -- inclusive testing on v2.0 in 1999 was stopped six months through the process, and he used secret testing thereafter, which led to some significant surprises when 2.0 came out fifteen months later (like BUAs). Both 2.1 and 2.2 had double top secret testing -- nobody knew they were coming out at all!

Bobgnar
05-02-2011, 12:14 PM
Note quite the case. The BUA was in the first test version, indeed it was in the middle of the battlefield. It got batted around, and was shown in a near final version at some convention playtest games and then quiet for some time until the final release in March of 2001
Here is my earliest saved message on the topic, from a player at HCon, in 2000.
On Aug 24, 2000, at 11:45 PM, BK wrote:

Bob,
I suppose the presence of artillery in most of our army selections was
making BUAs unusually formidable. But, now that you raise the point, I
suppose BUA's ARE too EASY to take. Indeed, looking at it logically, the
presence of a BUA in or immediately adjacent to the invader's setup area
suggests that he has actually been besieging it, and that the defender has
sent an army to its relief. Whether in the Biblical, Classical, Dark Ages or
Medieval periods, castles and fortified cities were very difficult nuts to
crack, and usually could be taken only by means of lengthy sieges. If,
however, the city or castle could be taken in a few bounds, it would hardly
have survived long enough for a friendly army to assemble and march to its
relief.

Looking at the issue from this perspective, I'd almost be inclined to say
that BUA's should be impassable terrain and nothing more. However, since
it's decidedly unlikely that Phil will make such a major change, I'd propose
the following fixes in addition to the deployment changes described in your
message.

1) Stipulate that BUAs may only be garrisoned or attacked in close combat by
Blade, Spear, Pike, Bow, Auxilia and Psiloi.

2) Allow only 1 attack to be made against a BUA per bound. This would have
the added benefit of bringing the BUA and Camp rules into closer agreement
(and allow Phil to cut some text).

3) If BUAs continue to fall too easily, up the modifier to +5.

K
=======================
To put it simply, it is adversarial. Since it was adversarial, it isn't surprising that many people in this community reacted negatively.

As to why Phil takes an adversarial stance with regard to the DBA community, and an inclusive stance with regard to HFG and DBMM, I couldn't say. It isn't a new condition, though -- inclusive testing on v2.0 in 1999 was stopped six months through the process, and he used secret testing thereafter, which led to some significant surprises when 2.0 came out fifteen months later (like BUAs). Both 2.1 and 2.2 had double top secret testing -- nobody knew they were coming out at all!