PDA

View Full Version : A Date for DBA 3.0!(?)


Denis the Menace
06-20-2011, 04:06 AM
Dear All,
Sue LB posted the following last night on the DBA yahoo list. I confess I haven't kept up with all the discussion of 3.0. But a firm date for completion was news to me ...
DTM


Hi everyone

I'm back on DBA after some time spent on family history (publication of a new book and organising a meeting).

I am trying to load the full version of the Book IV lists, but am having trouble sending it. I will continue trying until successful.

I will then spend the next two weeks collecting comments on these lists and would welcome your input.

After that I shall spend two weeks on Book I and then a week each on the revised version of each set of lists. This brings us to mid August, when DBA must be finalised to be printed in time for FALL IN, which we hope to attend.

It's a tight schedule but I'll do my best to complete it.

Sue

Menacus Secundus
06-20-2011, 06:26 AM
To save others checking as well, I believe Fall In is scheduled for the end of October.

snowcat
06-20-2011, 07:18 AM
Great news (hopefully).:)

Jeff
06-20-2011, 09:25 AM
To save others checking as well, I believe Fall In is scheduled for the end of October.

Yep, Halloween weekend....going to be a hoot.

Jeff

winterbadger
06-20-2011, 09:44 AM
Yep, Halloween weekend....going to be a hoot.

Jeff

Hmmm, trick? or treat?

broadsword
06-20-2011, 11:22 AM
Just curious: have any of you been following the DBMM vs DBM kerfuffle over at both yahoo groups?

david kuijt
06-20-2011, 11:27 AM
Just curious: have any of you been following the DBMM vs DBM kerfuffle over at both yahoo groups?

No -- is it the sort of thing you'd expect?

D

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-20-2011, 12:11 PM
Dear All,
Sue LB posted the following last night on the DBA yahoo list. I confess I haven't kept up with all the discussion of 3.0. But a firm date for completion was news to me ...
DTM


Hi everyone

I'm back on DBA after some time spent on family history (publication of a new book and organising a meeting).

I am trying to load the full version of the Book IV lists, but am having trouble sending it. I will continue trying until successful.

I will then spend the next two weeks collecting comments on these lists and would welcome your input.

After that I shall spend two weeks on Book I and then a week each on the revised version of each set of lists. This brings us to mid August, when DBA must be finalised to be printed in time for FALL IN, which we hope to attend.

It's a tight schedule but I'll do my best to complete it.

Sue

Criminy are the Barkers the last peeps in the western hemisphere with a working Bell 103 modem? :silly

Looks like she got it sent...the Book 4 lists are on the Yahoo site. :up

teenage visigoth
06-20-2011, 12:19 PM
Just curious: have any of you been following the DBMM vs DBM kerfuffle over at both yahoo groups?

Hmmm, perhaps like matter and anti-matter both systems will annihilate each other.

:rolleyes

August eh?...off to check Book IV lists...

broadsword
06-22-2011, 12:30 AM
I just fear that if DBA 3.0 is after all pants, and people decide they prefer DBA 2.2, it looks vaguely (by following that thread) that it would be quite a challenge for the DBA 2.2ers to go their own way. Once the supply of 2.2 books dries up, well, let's just say PB is adamantly refusing to release the copyright to DBM if I am following things correctly...

I only posit that since the "let's just wait and see if we like DBA 3.0" approach might be moot if Phil says "DBA 3.0 it is, and if you don't like it, too bad". Again, I mean no offence here, just wondering which way to bet... You know, there are armies in the drawer waiting for painting and basing...

winterbadger
06-22-2011, 12:43 AM
Phil can't stop people playing a game they already own and like. Makes it hard for new players to buy rulebooks, but I imagine we'll all muddle through somehow. Maybe all the adopters of 3.0 will be willing to sell their old rulebooks to the rest of us. :D

ferrency
06-22-2011, 01:30 AM
Again, I mean no offence here, just wondering which way to bet... You know, there are armies in the drawer waiting for painting and basing...

You're in luck: the current situation gives you better odds than Vegas, and you can vote based on past performance instead of political promises.

Wait until the options are available to be evaluated in full, before you cast your bet or vote.

Whether you call it a bet or a vote depends on whether you want to side with the winners, or affect the outcome. I prefer to call it a vote.

In the mean time: if you have armies in the drawer, just paint them; they aren't going to spawn new figures for you if you leave them naked in the drawer, even if the army lists do happen to change.

I mean no offense to anyone either, and don't at all mean to pick on this post in particular. But Fanaticus has felt like a funerary procession for the last few weeks, and it's getting a bit old.

We play with toy soldiers for fun, so go have some fun!

Alan

David Constable
06-22-2011, 04:25 AM
I just fear that if DBA 3.0 is after all pants, and people decide they prefer DBA 2.2, it looks vaguely (by following that thread) that it would be quite a challenge for the DBA 2.2ers to go their own way. Once the supply of 2.2 books dries up, well, let's just say PB is adamantly refusing to release the copyright to DBM if I am following things correctly...

I only posit that since the "let's just wait and see if we like DBA 3.0" approach might be moot if Phil says "DBA 3.0 it is, and if you don't like it, too bad". Again, I mean no offence here, just wondering which way to bet... You know, there are armies in the drawer waiting for painting and basing...

Build for DBA2.2, take a good long look at DBA3, then decide if you are going to add to your armies new elements (if you can) etc.

DBA2.2 is available as a PDF (minus army lists), so scan a good copy of the army lists and you have everything you need.

2012 will decide things, it is going to be a bad year, by 2013 I will know if I am playing DBA2.2, DBA3 or 3mm ACW.

PB will never change DBA3 unless he absolutly has too, DBA2.2 was dead as far as he is concerned as soon as DBA3 was mooted.

David Constable

winterbadger
06-22-2011, 10:00 AM
PB will never change DBA3 unless he absolutely has too, DBA2.2 was dead as far as he is concerned as soon as DBA3 was mooted.

In the same way that, as far as I am concerned, DBA 3 was dead as soon as it was clear that it substantially changes the mechanics of the game. Hearing from people whose opinion I regard just what a cock-up it is* has only reinforced that.




* Yes, yes, yes, the draft, unpublished version. Who here really thinks that all the bad ideas that have been described are going to magically disappear and be replaced with sensible, modest revisions to 2.2 between now and publication?

broadsword
06-22-2011, 10:59 AM
Ah, but hope rears it ugly head just in time to banish my comfortable despondency... I have heard that PB is prone to last minute backtracks...

david kuijt
06-22-2011, 11:02 AM
I have heard that PB is prone to last minute backtracks...

...although one of the last-minute unplaytested additions to the 2.0 rules was the brilliance of the BUA concept, which has advanced even further in 3.0 with denizen sallies and the like until it has reached the pinnacle of silliness.

winterbadger
06-22-2011, 11:07 AM
Ah, but hope rears it ugly head just in time to banish my comfortable despondency... I have heard that PB is prone to last minute backtracks...

As DK points out, it's less a matter of last-minute backtracks as of last-minute untested changes. :(

Bobgnar
06-22-2011, 11:53 AM
I am expecting DBA 3 to be all shirts, not pants. Is shirts opposite of pants? Some people will certainly prefer 2.2. Indeed, the guy who wrote a review of DBA in last issue of Battlegames thinks 1.1 is full dress. I do not expect to be changing any of my current some 50 armies to meet the new lists, but will just play 3 with old armies. I certainly will not be taking up Hail Caesar, Impetvs, WAB, Ars Bellicus, Armati, FOG, Tactica, DBMM or any other ancients monster game out there.

2.2 rules are currently FREE in the DBA Yahoo group files so why the downer on the Barkers for something they are doing for DBM, do we care? Maybe they will release the army lists. If you have 2.2, what's the worry. Or if you are new, spend $15 and get 3 for the lists, but play 2.2.

Of course Phil will say 3 is what it is. Does Microsoft promote an earlier version, once the new one is out?

Paint your armies for 2.2 and continue to play that, or play 3 with them. Why worry about it.


I just fear that if DBA 3.0 is after all pants, and people decide they prefer DBA 2.2, it looks vaguely (by following that thread) that it would be quite a challenge for the DBA 2.2ers to go their own way. Once the supply of 2.2 books dries up, well, let's just say PB is adamantly refusing to release the copyright to DBM if I am following things correctly...

I only posit that since the "let's just wait and see if we like DBA 3.0" approach might be moot if Phil says "DBA 3.0 it is, and if you don't like it, too bad". Again, I mean no offence here, just wondering which way to bet... You know, there are armies in the drawer waiting for painting and basing...

elliesdad
06-22-2011, 11:54 AM
Ah, but hope rears it ugly head just in time to banish my comfortable despondency... I have heard that PB is prone to last minute backtracks...

Perhaps Phil's just following the lead of the Government here... Backtracks are flavour of the month.

Ooo, errr.

Geoff.

Bobgnar
06-22-2011, 12:04 PM
...although one of the last-minute unplaytested additions to the 2.0 rules was the brilliance of the BUA concept
xxxx snip the silly sally.

Not true, the BUA was in the very first version of 2.0. Indeed, right in the middle of the battlefield. It was playtested to death, in the minds of us doing the playtest, but not quite to Phil. He did move it to a side but we could not get him to remove it entirely. To his credit, after a few years of play, he allowed a road to replace it as required for optional. The man does eventually respond to the DBA community.

Bob's comments to a July 2000 draft after play test at Historicon, that year.
==========
8 Still, everyone thinks a required BUA will lead to almost every game taking longer as all games will end up with one. At our recent Constable of France tournament all games spent much time with the BUA. This is a great idea for a campaign, even a big battle game but not for the small, normal game. Many tournament directors with whom I have spoken say they will not make a BUA a required feature. This one aspect will generate more controversary than any other in the rules and give the rules a bad reputation. Can you make something else required for Arable -- enclosed fields maybe. And make the BUA optional for everyone. If a defender wants to use it then its his/her choice. More on BUA below. Many good changes to improve the game with the BUA but is it needed for so many games. There are so many arable armies so there will be so many games with BUA.

El' Jocko
06-22-2011, 02:56 PM
...although one of the last-minute unplaytested additions to the 2.0 rules was the brilliance of the BUA concept, which has advanced even further in 3.0 with denizen sallies and the like until it has reached the pinnacle of silliness.

I think it was actually the LH quick-kill on Spear and Pike that was the untested addition to DBA 2.0. BUAs were a different situation; they were included in the playtest rules, but Phil chose to ignore his playtesters when they told him that BUAs didn't work.

In any event, Phil has a history of both ignoring playtest results that run counter to his pet ideas and adding in untested rules at publication time. Only time will tell which of these we get with DBA 3.0.

- Jack

david kuijt
06-22-2011, 03:10 PM
I am expecting DBA 3 to be all shirts, not pants.

This in spite of the fact that your whole original playtest group for 3.0 told you the movement rates didn't work and eventually refused to playtest it any more? (or that's what you said, anyway, back in April or so)

Defending 3.0 before it comes out is quite similar to criticizing it before it comes out, Bob. Not much use.

david kuijt
06-22-2011, 03:11 PM
I think it was actually the LH quick-kill on Spear and Pike that was the untested addition to DBA 2.0.

Ah, maybe you're right, Jack. That and reducing the 25mm map size to 36" -- a move so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.

El' Jocko
06-22-2011, 03:15 PM
2.2 rules are currently FREE in the DBA Yahoo group files so why the downer on the Barkers for something they are doing for DBM, do we care? Maybe they will release the army lists. If you have 2.2, what's the worry. Or if you are new, spend $15 and get 3 for the lists, but play 2.2.

Having the rules for free is good. Without the lists, though, it's difficult to bring in new players.

Of course Phil will say 3 is what it is. Does Microsoft promote an earlier version, once the new one is out?

They don't promote it, but they support old versions for quite awhile. Windows Vista came out in January 2007. Windows 7 came out in October 2009. But Windows XP is still officially supported and will be for another three years. So we can safely assert that Phil's customer service is worse than Microsoft's. I hope we didn't set the bar too high. :)

- Jack

Bobgnar
06-22-2011, 03:49 PM
However, ironies of ironies, they now like the movement rates on 30 inch boards!

This in spite of the fact that your whole original playtest group for 3.0 told you the movement rates didn't work and eventually refused to playtest it any more? (or that's what you said, anyway, back in April or so)

Defending 3.0 before it comes out is quite similar to criticizing it before it comes out, Bob. Not much use.

Bobgnar
06-22-2011, 04:26 PM
The battlefield size was reduced from 4 foot square to 3 foot square in the first amendment to 2.0, in order to meet the request from players that the 15mm size board be in proportion to the 25mm one. Not a surprise addition to 2.0.
===========
OFFICIAL AMENDMENTS UPGRADING DBA 2.0 to 2.1
1st JULY 2003

Page 2. Paragraph 2. Lines 2-3. Delete "1,200mm or 48". Substitute "900mm or 36".

The standard playing area, "the battlefield", is 600mm or 24" square for 15mm or smaller figures and 900mm or 36" square for 25mm. It is usually assembled from separate terrain features placed on a flat base, but a single integral terrain block, or grouped 300mm or 12" square blocks can be used instead.
===============
This is from a version of DBA 2 dated January 23, 2001

If its total is less than that of its opponent but more than half:
Elephants. Destroyed by Psiloi, Auxilia, Light Horse or Artillery shooting. If not, recoil.
Scythed Chariots. Destroyed.
Knights. Destroyed by Elephants, Scythed Chariots or Light Horse, or by Bows whose front edge they have moved into contact with this bound, or if in bad going. If not, recoil.
Cavalry or Camelry. Flee from Scythed Chariots or if in bad going. If not, recoil.
Light Horse. Flee from Scythed Chariots, from Artillery shooting, or if in bad going. If not, recoil.
Pikes or Spears. Destroyed by Elephants, Knights, Light Horse or Scythed Chariots if in good going or by Warband not garrisoning a BUA. If not, recoil.

Maybe it was something else that sneeked in with out playtesting?



Ah, maybe you're right, Jack. That and reducing the 25mm map size to 36" -- a move so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.

El' Jocko
06-22-2011, 04:47 PM
This is from a version of DBA 2 dated January 23, 2001

If its total is less than that of its opponent but more than half:
Elephants. Destroyed by Psiloi, Auxilia, Light Horse or Artillery shooting. If not, recoil.
Scythed Chariots. Destroyed.
Knights. Destroyed by Elephants, Scythed Chariots or Light Horse, or by Bows whose front edge they have moved into contact with this bound, or if in bad going. If not, recoil.
Cavalry or Camelry. Flee from Scythed Chariots or if in bad going. If not, recoil.
Light Horse. Flee from Scythed Chariots, from Artillery shooting, or if in bad going. If not, recoil.
Pikes or Spears. Destroyed by Elephants, Knights, Light Horse or Scythed Chariots if in good going or by Warband not garrisoning a BUA. If not, recoil.

Maybe it was something else that sneeked in with out playtesting?

LH QK on Spear and Pike was put into DBA 2.0 without playtesting. That's why it's in the DBA 2.0 rulebook that you quoted. But I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't in the playtest rules before that.

- Jack

EDIT: I misunderstood what you were quoting, Bob. I now see that you're quoting the last playtest rules before publication. So I'll concede that the LH QK on Sp/Pk appeared in the last playtest rules before publication. Am I right that DBA 2.0 was published in Februrary of 2001? Not much time between 23 Jan 2001 and Feb 2001 for playtesting. I think it's perfectly fair to call this a last minute addition.

David Schlanger
06-22-2011, 10:56 PM
The battlefield size was reduced from 4 foot square to 3 foot square in the first amendment to 2.0, in order to meet the request from players that the 15mm size board be in proportion to the 25mm one. Not a surprise addition to 2.0.

Bob - I don't think this really captures the essence of what was happening at the time. There was no "request" from the players about this. There were a number of people that believed in bigger boards for 15mm and that one argument in favor of this was that the 25mm standard was proportionally larger. Phil's response to this push for bigger board size for the 15mm game was to reduce the 25mm board size, a nice little gotcha move from the author, and another example of Phil being out of touch with DBA and the people that love the game. The 25mm players had been quite happy with their larger boards.

DS

Bobgnar
06-22-2011, 11:00 PM
One of the playtesters (not in my group) suggested this. There was also a rule that allowed LH to turn around as a group. We strongly rejected that with some weird examples of play. The LH rule did not bother us. It played with no problem but it was a rare event. It seemed reasonable that if LH could skirmish around the front of the heavy foot, and the dice roll gave them the high score, the heavy foot panic and LH get into the ranks and cut them down. Anyway none of us had a problem with it but there were negatives when I posted it to the community. See below.


I found this in my mail archive.
From: PhilBarker <pc.barker@cableinet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: light horse vs. spear
Date: February 24, 2001 7:17:34 AM EST
To: BOB <beattie@umich.edu>
Reply-To: pc.barker@cableinet.co.uk

Some things don't get written about. A Seleucid army surrendered to the
Parthians. They didn't leave a detailed account of the battle, but Carrhae is a
good parallel, considering the heavier Roman armour and larger shields. The
Scythians swept away enough Mesopotamian armies, again with no accounts from
the literate losers and illiterate victors. Try the reverse track - when did a
Pike phalanx survive a horse archer army, let alone walk through it with no
risk?

Phil

BOB wrote:

Hi Phil
It's getting closer to Cold Wars. What days are you and Sue arriving and
departing. I have a room reserved Thursday March 8 to Sunday March 11.
Does that correspond to when you will be there?

I have a background question on the rule for LH to DIB (destroy if beating)
Sp/Pk. I always say these are your rules and your interpretation of
history. However, a number of people with whom I have discussed the
changes raise a complaint of LH DIB pole arms. I say it is just like LH vs
Kn. Below is the typical answer I get. Are there examples of this
happening or is this more a "what if" rule. That is to say, it could
happen, it just didn't because the spears were too good or something. You
do not owe any explanation to anyone, but if you do have one, I'd love to
be able to cite it. Thanks much.

Bob

"No one gets worked up about LH quick killing Kn because mongols smashed
the Teutonic order knights and turkish akinjis had little trouble with
Hungarian knights. No one has yet produced a historical example of light
horse destroying a formed infantry formation with pikes or spears to my
knowledge. The change is ahistorical; hence historical purists dislike
it."
==========
By the way, 2.0 went to press in early March, 2001.

Bobgnar
06-22-2011, 11:23 PM
Bob - I don't think this really captures the essence of what was happening at the time. There was no "request" from the players about this. There were a number of people that believed in bigger boards for 15mm and that one argument in favor of this was that the 25mm standard was proportionally larger. Phil's response to this push for bigger board size for the 15mm game was to reduce the 25mm board size, a nice little gotcha move from the author, and another example of Phil being out of touch with DBA and the people that love the game. The 25mm players had been quite happy with their larger boards.

DS

You say there was a "push" for a bigger board for 15mm. How is that different from my use of the word "request" for a bigger board. I, at least, wrote to him and pointed out the difference in ratio between the 2 foot and 4 foot boards and requested that he allow a larger size. I did this in response to requests from a few (at the time) players who wanted a larger 15mm board.

You are very off base to say Phil was out of touch with the players who love the game. All except a few players in the eastern USA were happy with the 2 foot board, then. Few even knew of using a larger size. But there was a discrepancy between the two sizes. He viewed the 4 foot board as not in proportion with the 2 foot board, and that led to differences in play. So he changed the larger one, as that was in less use.

Perhaps some players are out of touch with Phil. It is his game to do with as he likes. Gamers are free to do what they want, as has been done with some groups using the larger board. It is far from a universal change, however. So the "push" for some sort of blessing on the larger board for 15mm, ended up with a smaller 25mm board. Now both groups do as the want anyway.

My original point was that the change in 25mm board size did not occur as an unexpected change in the last version of 2.0, as someone said. Is that not true?

So if he puts a 30inch board in the rules for 3.0, then he would quite in touch, wouldn't he? And in any event players can use any size they want as has been done in the past. Someone wrote on the Yahoo group that he liked a 2 foot by 3 foot battlefield.

El' Jocko
06-22-2011, 11:30 PM
Some things don't get written about. A Seleucid army surrendered to the
Parthians. They didn't leave a detailed account of the battle, but Carrhae is a
good parallel, considering the heavier Roman armour and larger shields. The
Scythians swept away enough Mesopotamian armies, again with no accounts from
the literate losers and illiterate victors. Try the reverse track - when did a
Pike phalanx survive a horse archer army, let alone walk through it with no
risk?

Is there an emoticon for "jaw dropping on floor"? I know that Phil has used some rather tenuous reasoning in the past, but in this case, he just decided to make some **** up. Thanks for sharing that, Bob. It tells me everything I need to know.

- Jack

David Schlanger
06-22-2011, 11:58 PM
You say there was a "push" for a bigger board for 15mm. How is that different from my use of the word "request" for a bigger board. I, at least, wrote to him and pointed out the difference in ratio between the 2 foot and 4 foot boards and requested that he allow a larger size. I did this in response to requests from a few (at the time) players who wanted a larger 15mm board.

It is quite different, actually. In that the push for a bigger board had nothing to do with Phil, at least until you wrote him and pointed out the difference in ratio. While, I believe you were probably acting in a way you believed was supporting the community, I do remember you being fairly anti-larger boards. So, I suspect the 25mm players weren't particularly happy about you contacting Phil and asking for him to "resolve" the issue.

You are very off base to say Phil was out of touch with the players who love the game. All except a few players in the eastern USA were happy with the 2 foot board, then. Few even knew of using a larger size. But there was a discrepancy between the two sizes. He viewed the 4 foot board as not in proportion with the 2 foot board, and that led to differences in play. So he changed the larger one, as that was in less use.

Bob please, stop being such a Philaphile! Was Phil in touch with DBA players when he excommunicated you and stopped accepting your DBA inquiries for several years? He was definitely out of touch with 25mm players, since his solution to a trend in 15mm play was to punish 25mm players for it.


Perhaps some players are out of touch with Phil. It is his game to do with as he likes. Gamers are free to do what they want, as has been done with some groups using the larger board. It is far from a universal change, however. So the "push" for some sort of blessing on the larger board for 15mm, ended up with a smaller 25mm board. Now both groups do as the want anyway.

There was never a push for some sort of blessing from Phil... except maybe from you. DBA players are free to play DBA as they like. Phil has never supported any sort of standard interpretation of his rules, so why should we be seeking out his approval for changes to a standard board size in rules already published?

Clearly Phil can do what he likes with his game, which is why we are getting DBMMization of DBA 3.0, despite the fact that DBA did not need such radical change.

My original point was that the change in 25mm board size did not occur as an unexpected change in the last version of 2.0, as someone said. Is that not true?

Did someone say that he did this? If so, I missed it.

So if he puts a 30inch board in the rules for 3.0, then he would quite in touch, wouldn't he? And in any event players can use any size they want as has been done in the past. Someone wrote on the Yahoo group that he liked a 2 foot by 3 foot battlefield.

Yes, except that it is 8 years later... and someone in the playtest group had to remind him that he had actually reduced the 25mm scale and that it should also be increased back to what it originally had been. So, no... definitely not in touch.


DS

david kuijt
06-23-2011, 01:45 AM
You are very off base to say Phil was out of touch with the players who love the game.

I am unsure whether to laugh uproariously or weep in response to this ludicrous statement, Bob. Phil chose his initial DBA 3.0 playtest group entirely from DBMM PLAYERS. He went months before he would allow ANY DBA PLAYERS into his playtest group for 3.0 -- his playtest group for DBA. It was only months later that he added a few DBA players (Doug and Andreas), and months after that (February) that he added you and I, Bob. When I sent him huge rafts of playtest reports and feedback and diagrams with pictures and arrows of a huge variety of things that could go horribly wrong with his rules changes, I had to do it over and over again, without response, and when (weeks later) I did it for the third time and asked if he had even looked at my diagrams of all the problems, he said that he had not, because the diagrams wouldn't print out.

If you look in the OED under "Out of Touch with his Players," the definition has his name, address, and photograph there.

David Constable
06-23-2011, 03:48 AM
I am unsure whether to laugh uproariously or weep in response to this ludicrous statement, Bob. Phil chose his initial DBA 3.0 playtest group entirely from DBMM PLAYERS. He went months before he would allow ANY DBA PLAYERS into his playtest group for 3.0 -- his playtest group for DBA. It was only months later that he added a few DBA players (Doug and Andreas), and months after that (February) that he added you and I, Bob. When I sent him huge rafts of playtest reports and feedback and diagrams with pictures and arrows of a huge variety of things that could go horribly wrong with his rules changes, I had to do it over and over again, without response, and when (weeks later) I did it for the third time and asked if he had even looked at my diagrams of all the problems, he said that he had not, because the diagrams wouldn't print out.

If you look in the OED under "Out of Touch with his Players," the definition has his name, address, and photograph there.

Well said DK, it was always intended that DBA3 be an introduction to DBMM, ask about the file modified from DBMM that was cut down to DBA size.

David Constable

Andreas Johansson
06-23-2011, 08:20 AM
Phil chose his initial DBA 3.0 playtest group entirely from DBMM PLAYERS. He went months before he would allow ANY DBA PLAYERS into his playtest group for 3.0 -- his playtest group for DBA. It was only months later that he added a few DBA players (Doug and Andreas), and months after that (February) that he added you and I, Bob.

It's possible you have background knowledge I lack, but I'm not aware there was any playtesting done at all before Doug and I got involved. Which wouldn't, in the grand scheme of things, be a good thing, but it would take a bit of the sting out of the particular charge at hand.

Andreas Johansson
06-23-2011, 09:07 AM
More on topic, I would take any deadline associated with Phil Barker with liberal helpings of salt. Maybe Sue is holding a gun to his head this time but ... maybe she isn't.

david kuijt
06-23-2011, 09:11 AM
It's possible you have background knowledge I lack, but I'm not aware there was any playtesting done at all before Doug and I got involved. Which wouldn't, in the grand scheme of things, be a good thing, but it would take a bit of the sting out of the particular charge at hand.

My knowledge comes solely from statements Phil made, mostly on the DBMM list, about how he didn't want to include any DBA players in the playtest group until things were mostly shaken out because they couldn't be trusted to evaluate changes with an open mind.

So I have no certainty that such pre-Andreas 3.0 playtesting took place -- but lots of proof that Phil is out of touch with DBA players, either way.

Andreas Johansson
06-23-2011, 09:41 AM
My knowledge comes solely from statements Phil made, mostly on the DBMM list, about how he didn't want to include any DBA players in the playtest group until things were mostly shaken out because they couldn't be trusted to evaluate changes with an open mind.
The first request [ETA: to which I replied and got added to the platest group] on the DBMM list was for people who play both games*. I supect "DBA players" got subsequently used ambiguously to mean both anyone who plays DBA and also people who play DBA only, or at least not DBMM.

That said, I don't know what if anything may have gone on before off the lists. There's apparently a "Sue's group" on whose feedback Phil puts considerable weight, which isn't submitting that feedback to the (rest of the) playtest group.


* Said request, with sequelae, BTW, should be studied by PR students as an apt example of how not to do things.

david kuijt
06-23-2011, 09:58 AM
* Said request, with sequelae, BTW, should be studied by PR students as an apt example of how not to do things.

Oh, yes.

But at least Phil isn't out of touch with DBA players, right, Bob? :rotfl

Martyn
06-27-2011, 04:42 AM
Just catching up on various groups and fora when I spotted this on the HFG yahoo group

Posted by Phil 14th June on the HFG yahoo group.

I have just got to the point with DBA 3.0 that I can start going through the HFG
files, so this is probably the first of a torrent from me...

Not sure whether this means Phil is finalising v3, just taking a break to allow the play testers to consider and comment on the latest version, or if he is allowing the dust to settle before making final decisions before publishing?

If the intent is publishing for the end of October, when does the final version need to go to the printers?

David Constable
06-27-2011, 05:54 AM
Just catching up on various groups and fora when I spotted this on the HFG yahoo group

Posted by Phil 14th June on the HFG yahoo group.



Not sure whether this means Phil is finalising v3, just taking a break to allow the play testers to consider and comment on the latest version, or if he is allowing the dust to settle before making final decisions before publishing?

If the intent is publishing for the end of October, when does the final version need to go to the printers?

August or early September for surface mail to America (to be safe), in UK that means it could be available at Derby in early October, depending on sale date allowed.

David Constable

Menacus Secundus
06-27-2011, 05:58 AM
If the intent is publishing for the end of October, when does the final version need to go to the printers?

The original post from Sue Laflin-Barker said it would need to be with the printers by mid-August.

sue@wrg.me.uk
06-27-2011, 07:19 AM
Hadn't you noticed that 2.2 is available as a pdf file on the DBA Yahoo group site?

Not the lists - just the rules as a free download for any newcomers who want to start playing.

Sue

Martyn
06-27-2011, 07:55 AM
Thanks David and Menacus, missed that in my haste to catch up the last two weeks of posts.