PDA

View Full Version : Circling the Wagons for 2.2


APHooper
08-24-2011, 05:13 PM
I broke down and asked for yet another Fanaticus log-in so I could try to catch up on the progress of 3.0. The resistence shown in this forum cheered me up a little bit.

I'm sure that I will be seduced into purchasing and reading the new work when it is finally published, although I cling to the hope that economic conditions will make the completion of the project impossible, or that the "Author" will allow his attentions to be diffused for a fatal interval.

Rather than resisting the changes mandated by 3.0, I feel called to act positively to preserve the knowledge and currency of DBA 2.2. My pledge is that I will maintain the 270 DBA 2.2 armies I have built, and will continue to make them available for open play, tournament and campaign games. I will sponsor, organize and participate in convention events making use of DBA 2.2. I will continue to research, write and encourage others to expand the scope of material created for use with DBA 2.2. And maybe most importantly, I'm going to continue to try to understand DBA 2.2 myself, and work around the ambiguities and logical inconsistencies that are part of the game.

I've had a great deal of fun doing all these things in the past, and it reuires no great reactionary or counter-revolutionary zeal to maintain this position. Anyone else who wants to direct their energies in the same direction, you will always have at least one comrade here.

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

Wargaming is a Cooperative Pastime

Jeff
08-24-2011, 05:40 PM
Pretty sure that any game will allow 2.2 armies to be played in addition to 3.0 in most tourneys. Not sure you have anything to worry about for the next few years. Otherwise none of us would have any armies to play with. Truthfully, many of us are undecided at this point but hours of speculation, name calling, frustration, opinionating, and so on has only diluted the situation. Wait for the book with the rest of us and make a rational choice. I for one will still be up for a game of 2.2, 2.3, or 3.0 anytime.

Bobgnar
08-24-2011, 09:20 PM
As NASAMW umpire/POC. I consider all 3.0 armies optional into the next year, if not longer. Shall we also allow 1.0 and 1.1 armies too.

Players can opt to use a 3.0 army if desired.

Jeff
08-24-2011, 09:51 PM
Shall we also allow 1.0 and 1.1 armies too.


I would hope not since they were are not currently allowed in 2.2 DBA games. How many years has 1.0 been gone?

Just saying that their must be time for people to buy, paint, morph armies into the 3.0 structure otherwise no one would have any armies to play with. Or maybe not react at all....just don't know anything until the book in question is published and distributed. The big fat "we shall see"

david kuijt
08-24-2011, 10:52 PM
Shall we also allow 1.0 and 1.1 armies too.


Are you on Crack, Bob?

michael guth
08-25-2011, 06:00 AM
Gee, my 2.2 Indians are better than the 3.0 Indians, especially with the new rule changes, lets lobby to say the 3.0 rules are fine, but I should be able to use the stronger, earlier list. And what about those Chou Chinese....

FAIL.

You want to play 3.0, play the 3.0 lists....Man up, paint 3 figures and glue them on a piece of cardboard. And yes, I have 84 armies which have gone through 3 editions, which is a pain.

Oh, and my impression of the lists for 3.0 is that the massive amount of research seems to largely be people arguing over how to translate ONE source, namely the DBMM lists, into DBA. No new research, no thought to balance.

Rong
08-25-2011, 06:25 AM
I attempted to reason with Sue on the Eastern Forest Indians. They have been changed to all bow basically from Warband. I even cited two references which clearly show that the FOREST Indians used hand to hand weapons in combat, the bow was not the weapon of choice. Flint knives, warclubs and the like were used. Oh well. Sue has changed it slightly but does not historically come close to reality of their style of combat.:sick

Bob Santamaria
08-25-2011, 06:50 AM
Oh, and my impression of the lists for 3.0 is that the massive amount of research seems to largely be people arguing over how to translate ONE source, namely the DBMM lists, into DBA. No new research, no thought to balance.

I too get this impression and it worries me. Not that the actual drafts seem that bad.

Most of my DBA armies are cobbled together from much larger forces so I don't have too much to fear from the changes.

I reserve all judgment on the changes to the rules. I hope they are good.

A

Andreas Johansson
08-25-2011, 07:13 AM
It's not like the 2.2 lists involved much original research (they're based on the DBM ones) or thought to balance ...

APHooper
08-25-2011, 02:34 PM
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have very little experience with "National" DBA events. Whether DBA 1.0, 2.2 or 3.0 are used in them is a moot point to me.

The lists have been and always will be a series of educated guesses. The North American lists have always been ridiculous; now they will be ridiculous in a different way.

All I am saying is that I have invested so much in DBA 2.2 that I am unlikely to abandon that investment any time soon.

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

Wargaming is a Cooperative Pastime

ferrency
08-25-2011, 02:59 PM
The North American lists have always been ridiculous; now they will be ridiculous in a different way.
There are few enough players interested in playing North American armies that any house rules you use for non-ridiculous North American lists would definitely be appreciated (but not by very many people).

Thanks,
Alan

pozanias
08-25-2011, 03:13 PM
Gee, my 2.2 Indians are better than the 3.0 Indians, especially with the new rule changes, lets lobby to say the 3.0 rules are fine, but I should be able to use the stronger, earlier list. And what about those Chou Chinese....

FAIL.

You want to play 3.0, play the 3.0 lists....Man up, paint 3 figures and glue them on a piece of cardboard. And yes, I have 84 armies which have gone through 3 editions, which is a pain.

I'm sure this type of decision will be made by the various game masters. I now know that any event you run will require 3.0 armies. That may mean I don't play in your event. Others may allow 2.2 armies for 3.0 events. And still others will run events using 2.2 rules.


Oh, and my impression of the lists for 3.0 is that the massive amount of research seems to largely be people arguing over how to translate ONE source, namely the DBMM lists, into DBA. No new research, no thought to balance.

I'm okay with this as long as the DBMM lists were updated based on massive and scholarly research.

Gascap
08-25-2011, 03:18 PM
I attempted to reason with Sue on the Eastern Forest Indians. They have been changed to all bow basically from Warband. I even cited two references which clearly show that the FOREST Indians used hand to hand weapons in combat, the bow was not the weapon of choice. Flint knives, warclubs and the like were used. Oh well. Sue has changed it slightly but does not historically come close to reality of their style of combat.:sick

Thanks for trying to set her straight, Ron.

Bow in DBA represents a massed unit of archers, which is just wrong for representing the way missile weapons were used by these armies.

Archers were used by Woodlands cultures, but not in any way that ought to be classed as Bow. In Iroquois armies, for example, archers tended to be auxiliaries from conquered tribes, and were used as raiders, ambushers, and waylayers. Ps seems to be the best fit here, especially with the proposed rule that Ps can make group moves in bad going.

Warriors with melee weapons were the norm, and depending on their formations (which would be tribe-, era-, and region-dependent), they could be classed as Aux, Wb, or [3]Bd.

What we really need are separate lists for tribes that are distinguishable in composition. What we really don't need are lists that are horribly inaccurate, like the Bw-based list. I'd be happy enough with the middle ground - leaving (in this case) well enough alone. Wb/Ps worked fine for these armies.

JM

winterbadger
08-25-2011, 03:19 PM
Oh, and my impression of the lists for 3.0 is that the massive amount of research seems to largely be people arguing over how to translate ONE source, namely the DBMM lists, into DBA. No new research, no thought to balance.

It's my impression that a good many of those working on army lists for more obscure regions and periods for any game would be very glad to have even one clear, unambiguous (historical) source. Isn't a lot of ancient/medieval army list definition a process of arguing over the meaning (or even relevance) of a few scrawls, scribbles, or blotches? :silly

El' Jocko
08-25-2011, 03:35 PM
I'm okay with this as long as the DBMM lists were updated based on massive and scholarly research.

My overall impression is that the DBMM lists are pretty good. There are always going to be gaps in the historical record and differing interprations, but the DBMM lists are based on a decent consensus among some very knowledgable people.

On the other hand, the process of going from the DBMM lists to the DBA 3.0 lists seems to be something of a dark art. If there was a specific process used or even a set of guidelines, I've never seen them.

- Jack

Rong
08-25-2011, 03:44 PM
Gascap, what is more concerning, I gave Sue the 2 references for the Woodland Indians. I read them. Did They? :??? I do not believe so. :(

Rich Gause
08-25-2011, 04:15 PM
My overall impression is that the DBMM lists are pretty good. There are always going to be gaps in the historical record and differing interprations, but the DBMM lists are based on a decent consensus among some very knowledgable people.

On the other hand, the process of going from the DBMM lists to the DBA 3.0 lists seems to be something of a dark art. If there was a specific process used or even a set of guidelines, I've never seen them.

- Jack

I think that is true for a lot of the army lists. When you get a 600 year army list that covers numerous different tribes over half a continent that is totally at odds with the previous army list for the same group it is pretty obvious that somebody should be a little more flexible and a little less dogmatic about things that are only a very generalised guess for part of the the group in question at best.

Macbeth
08-25-2011, 10:45 PM
Gee, my 2.2 Indians are better than the 3.0 Indians, especially with the new rule changes, lets lobby to say the 3.0 rules are fine, but I should be able to use the stronger, earlier list. And what about those Chou Chinese....

FAIL.

You want to play 3.0, play the 3.0 lists....Man up, paint 3 figures and glue them on a piece of cardboard. And yes, I have 84 armies which have gone through 3 editions, which is a pain.

Oh, and my impression of the lists for 3.0 is that the massive amount of research seems to largely be people arguing over how to translate ONE source, namely the DBMM lists, into DBA. No new research, no thought to balance.

I'm with you Michael :2up here in Oz we have some competitions that allow you to change your options at each game ie at deployment you choose your options - it gives the attacker some advantage. If both v2 and v3 lists are allowed it will be a slippery slope towards a player wanting to chop and change between the 2 editions.

You are more polite than I - my comment would have been "Suck It Up Princess" - I would have loved to have kept the Thanes as Bd in my Pre Feudal Scots army in the move from v1 to v2 or the colourful rainbow of foot troops in my Scots Isles Army but where was the love then :rolleyes

Cheers

Redwilde
08-26-2011, 12:16 AM
On the other hand, the process of going from the DBMM lists to the DBA 3.0 lists seems to be something of a dark art. If there was a specific process used or even a set of guidelines, I've never seen them.

Perhaps merely a dart art.

Redwilde
08-26-2011, 12:32 AM
I would have loved to have kept the Thanes as Bd in my Pre Feudal Scots army in the move from v1 to v2 or the colourful rainbow of foot troops in my Scots Isles Army but where was the love then :rolleyes


They've got my love <3

Also the v1 Ancient British got to dismount from their chariots. And they're the one army I know of that's documented for actually dismounting as a matter of routine procedure during the course of battle!

Personally, I don't have a problem with treating all the lists as 'once legal, always legal' The interpretations and reinterpretations are highly subjective, and all the moreso for the earlier periods and pre-literate societies. If somebody perceives one list to be more powerful than a more recent one, I still don't see that breaking the system. Numidians would suddenly become a killer army and upset all the tournaments if they could have 2 Blade instead of 1? The big imbalance in v1 was the rules for Blades, not any army lists.

pozanias
08-26-2011, 08:22 AM
I'm with you Michael :2up here in Oz we have some competitions that allow you to change your options at each game ie at deployment you choose your options - it gives the attacker some advantage. If both v2 and v3 lists are allowed it will be a slippery slope towards a player wanting to chop and change between the 2 editions.

You are more polite than I - my comment would have been "Suck It Up Princess" - I would have loved to have kept the Thanes as Bd in my Pre Feudal Scots army in the move from v1 to v2 or the colourful rainbow of foot troops in my Scots Isles Army but where was the love then :rolleyes

Cheers

Even if all gamemasters adopt 3.0 immediately and exclusively, I still think allowing only 3.0 armies is unnecessarily harsh. It takes time to convert armies. But I think this attitude is particlarly unreasonable considering that many players will also be playing 2.2 while they test the 3.0 waters.

So to each their own, but I don't plan on converting my armies to 3.0 until I am sure its a better game than 2.2. And once that decision has been made (IF that decision is ever made) it will still be some while before my armies are compatible.

Edit: I also want to add, wouldn't it be simpler (and "better") to just ban changing armies between games rather than to ban 2.2. lists. In all the competitions I play in, that is already done.

Rich Gause
08-26-2011, 09:48 AM
Perhaps merely a dart art.

No process at all as far as I can tell. You should be able to use basic math skills to figure out how they were converted but that doesn't work. The lists came out way less flexible than the DBMM list but Phil said they were too flexible.

Macbeth
08-26-2011, 11:09 PM
Even if all gamemasters adopt 3.0 immediately and exclusively, I still think allowing only 3.0 armies is unnecessarily harsh. It takes time to convert armies. But I think this attitude is particlarly unreasonable considering that many players will also be playing 2.2 while they test the 3.0 waters.

A fair point Pozanias but I would only consider a strict holding of lists to rules as unecessarily harsh if there was also a rule that disallowed "brevet" elements if we are talking about the need for one more element of Cv in place of an Ax in a given army. I won't be banning anyone from competing if they have an element of Dark Ages Cv mixed in with their Hoplite Greeks if the new lists call for it ;). I might take a dimmer view 18 months from now.

So to each their own, but I don't plan on converting my armies to 3.0 until I am sure its a better game than 2.2. And once that decision has been made (IF that decision is ever made) it will still be some while before my armies are compatible.

Edit: I also want to add, wouldn't it be simpler (and "better") to just ban changing armies between games rather than to ban 2.2. lists. In all the competitions I play in, that is already done.

There will still be grey areas - at this stage we don't know how the dismounting rules will run, or what armies will have dismounting elements. Let us assume that there will exist a Late Medieval Army in v3.0 that is changed only in so far as the Kn no longer dismount, instead they are given as an Kn or Bd option in the lists so the owner of said army need not buy or base new figures. No doubt come tournament time the owner of said army will prefer to use this army under the more generous provisions of v2 - should that be allowed.

My Christian Nubians will have thier Wb converted to Bd come the new world order (if the book III proposal goes through). I don't need to rebase the 3Wb to call them 3Bd but if I prefer to use Wb because I like to hide the Nubien Gents in the Oasis and double move out on unsuspecting Teutons - should that be allowed?

Where I am running my competitions, if there are any players out there that only have an army that is based for 2.2 and it is completely incompatible with 3.0 then I will happily lend out their pick of my stable of 80+ armies - some of which will still be compatible with both rules sets.

I have to admit that my real fear wrt DBA 3 is that there are DBA Tragics like myself who run tournaments and yet it is the DBA/MM crossover group that are playtesting the rules.

I doubt that the dynamic about who is running tournaments is likely to change. If I find myself in a position where in my tournaments I am called upon to make a ruling and am then challenged by a playtester "That isn't the way rule X is meant to be interpereted" then I will either have to thank them for their help or say "It would have been nice for me to have experienced this situation before now". I have spent years building up a reputation of petty childishness so I will no doubt choose the option were I don't have to bury the sarky in my voice.

Cheers

APHooper
11-15-2011, 05:23 AM
Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable having all tournaments conducted under 3.0. I've never liked competitive tournaments -- they bring out a lot of bad behavior, from hostile argument to flat-out cheating, and I don't like seeing people try so hard to win such a facile pastime. What a big man you are, beating down Polybian Romans and Meroitic Ku****es with Medieval Portuguese....

Anyway, I'm really kind of grooving on the idea of continuing to play 2.2 like an old Catholic clinging to the Latin Mass. The more "Official" claptrap that gets attached to DBA 3.0, the more appealing it will be to ignore it.

Everybody is going to have to write their own rules system eventually, you know....

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

Bob Santamaria
11-15-2011, 06:40 AM
Anyway, I'm really kind of grooving on the idea of continuing to play 2.2 like an old Catholic clinging to the Latin Mass. The more "Official" claptrap that gets attached to DBA 3.0, the more appealing it will be to ignore it.




Catholic traditionalists are very strange. The old liturgy is great. The people who now choose it very strange. The Doug Anthony All Stars (Australian comedians) were onto something when they sang: "The Mass was best in Latin, they never should have banned it, it doesn't make sense now that we can understand it"

Dave (Macbeth) runs very good tournaments. I wish I could get to more of them. I will accept his ruling however petty/ childish/ ill-expressed/ or disrespectful of my finely crafted submissions he is as umpire/ organiser.

Adrian

winterbadger
11-15-2011, 09:02 AM
Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable having all tournaments conducted under 3.0. I've never liked competitive tournaments -- they bring out a lot of bad behavior, from hostile argument to flat-out cheating, and I don't like seeing people try so hard to win such a facile pastime.

I'm so sorry that's been your experience! :( That's always been my expectation of (and limited experience with) other wargame tournaments, but the DBA competitions I've played in have been different. Now, my exposure has been restricted to the DBA events at Cold Wars, Historicon, and Fall In; De Bellis Vasingtonium; and our wee Huzzah Hobbies tournament. But I've found the vast majority of DBA tournament players to be good sports. There are one or two rules lawyers, but it hasn't been the "wretched hive of scum and villainy" that I might have expected.

Xavi
11-15-2011, 09:13 AM
Around here tournaments *are* competitive, but so far we have not seen anyone cheating voluntarily. Calling the umpire generally clears the confusion if there is the slightest argument. generally the best thing in the tournaments for us is the lunchtime.

If you even happen to come to Spain, let us know and we will tell you where you can find a challenging but good humored tourney that month :) Challenge thrown ;)

Cheers,
Xavi

david kuijt
11-15-2011, 10:00 AM
Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable having all tournaments conducted under 3.0.

Andy, why are you tying tournaments together with 3.0, then throwing them both under the bus? Do you think that nobody who enjoys tournaments is going to dislike 3.0? Evidence on this forum does not support your theory, if so.

Rong
11-15-2011, 10:38 AM
Did not like 3.0. From the army lists, to deployment, movement, combat and results. Sticking with 2.2. Or with additions like 2.3.:up

winterbadger
11-15-2011, 11:56 AM
Andy, why are you tying tournaments together with 3.0, then throwing them both under the bus? Do you think that nobody who enjoys tournaments is going to dislike 3.0? Evidence on this forum does not support your theory, if so.

No, I think he's just saying that he doesn't think he's going to like 3.0, so that if tournaments (which, more than informal club games, benefit from the broader community following a single set of official rules) adopt 3.0 it will be no skin off his nose, as he doesn't like the tournaments he's been to.

david kuijt
11-15-2011, 12:04 PM
No, I think he's just saying that he doesn't think he's going to like 3.0, so that if tournaments (which, more than informal club games, benefit from the broader community following a single set of official rules) adopt 3.0 it will be no skin off his nose, as he doesn't like the tournaments he's been to.

Perhaps, but Andy's played in tournaments I've run out in Seattle and seemed to like them fine, which is why I was confused by his zip-tying tournaments and 3.0 together before dumping them in the toxic waste.

winterbadger
11-15-2011, 01:30 PM
Perhaps, but Andy's played in tournaments I've run out in Seattle and seemed to like them fine, which is why I was confused by his zip-tying tournaments and 3.0 together before dumping them in the toxic waste.

Well, he did say "I've never liked competitive tournaments"; maybe he didn't see yours that way. Certainly the themed ones you and DS run are (at least for me) more about the theme and character than competition (lucky for me, since I always come in last :) ).

APHooper
11-15-2011, 04:06 PM
People tend to be particularly intolerant of the shortcomings to which they feel personally prone. I've gotten mad under competitive duress enough myself to know that I am absolutely part of the problem. I try not to put myself in a position to care that much about winning.

And indeed, 95% of the people you face in an open or an elimination event are quite pleasant company. Yet, the perversity of memory is such that a handful of bad experiences can easily outweigh all the pleasure of many more positive ones.

My most nightmarish event to date was one in which I wasn't even playing. I set up a small competitive game at a local convention a few years back, and two experienced players -- both of them over 60 years of age -- proceeded to bully and dismiss their young, inexperienced opponents, so they could take the two DBA armies offered for first and scond place. I had to shake their hands and give them prizes for doing it.

I've played in competitive events since then, and even won one small open. But they aren't my favorite sort of game, and having them played under a rules set I don't know will make it that much easier to choose to do something else.

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

APHooper
11-15-2011, 05:47 PM
Odd that you fault the two who placed highly rather than yourself for setting the prizes.

Odd that you think I found no fault with myself.

As I've said, I've resolved not to repeat my crimes.

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

david kuijt
11-15-2011, 07:14 PM
Odd that you fault the two who placed highly rather than yourself for setting the prizes.

That isn't a productive comment, Larry.


Perhaps you have minor tokens for podium finishers. And what about awards for least sportsmanlike for those who have behaved most badly.


I agree with some of your commentary (elided) that the organizer of any tournament must take responsibility for bad things that happen in that tournament -- just like in martial arts where they say there are no bad students, just bad teachers. That doesn't really mean there are no bad students -- it means that the teacher bears the ultimate responsibility. And in this case, a tournament organizer must bear responsibility for running a tournament where bad things happen, because the responsibility is ultimately theirs -- they were the only one who could have fixed things.

With that said, Larry, are you on crack? Because the idea of having a "least sportsmanlike" award is perhaps the worst idea I have ever heard put forward as a tournament organizer. And I've run hundreds of DBA tournaments in the last decade, and I've seen many many more than that -- I've seen some really bad ideas, but that one is the worst.

Do you really think that the best way to have an enjoyable tournament, and to have a fun-loving gaming community where everyone enjoys themselves (the objective, to me, at least) is to end each tournament with a public declaration of shame and distaste and single out one person for derision? I can't think of anything more likely to create personality feuds and drive people (old and new) away from the community.

I devoutly hope you weren't being serious. And I'm not normally devout.

david kuijt
11-15-2011, 09:58 PM
Comments in red italics embedded above.

Imbedding your comments in red italics makes it very difficult to quote and respond, Larry.

I was letting you know that you could have been less abrasive, but if that was a deliberate style choice, I withdraw my remark.


But if there are players who are problematic there is really nothing wrong with helping to spotlight that. One could hope that they never returned or that they reformed their behavior.

Yes, and we should also give awards for "slowest player," and "worst understanding of the rules," and "most moves taken back," and "rudest," and "most likely to lose their temper and throw their dice across the room."

RUOC?

Where are you from, Larry? Have you run tournaments there using this "revile them" system?

El' Jocko
11-15-2011, 10:49 PM
Odd that you fault the two who placed highly rather than yourself for setting the prizes. Perhaps rather than offering armies to first and second you simply indicate that they are prizes -- and then award them to "best newcomer" or "best junior" or some other category at podium time

Really? Are you saying that it was Andy's fault that the players were dicks? Offering unpainted armies for first and second place is too great a temptation for a pair of grown men?

- Jack

john meunier
11-16-2011, 12:06 AM
And indeed, 95% of the people you face in an open or an elimination event are quite pleasant company. Yet, the perversity of memory is such that a handful of bad experiences can easily outweigh all the pleasure of many more positive ones.



This is certainly my experience, too. I can still remember the handful of bad apples I've faced in DBA events. The worst was one who flat-out took advantage of my ignorance of the rules regarding terrain set up in one of the first tournaments I ever played. It was a case of pure cheating, but I did not know enough at the time to call him on it.

Still remember it. Still bitter.

And yet, that was far and away the exception. I have not played tourney DBA for a few years now, but I remember fondly most of the games I've played.

winterbadger
11-16-2011, 08:22 AM
Rather than fixate on what prizes to award and for what reasons,

You were the one who started suggesting awarding prizes for dickish behaviour, not DK. And a remarkable stupid suggestion it was, in my opinion. Yes, bad behaviour has to be dealt with, but you seem set on finding ways that focus everyone's attention on the dicks and make them the center of the event. That's just playing to what they like best--attention. And it *guarantees* that it ruins the event for everyone else.

turn your thinking to why the bad sportsmanship that was mentioned should not be used as an excuse to avoid competitions or other events. And, for those who organize events be aware that it is your responsibility not to let players manipulate your event in order to walk off with the prizes.

Dude, the people who run events are doing other people a favour, and your approach seems to beat them with a metaphorical stick. That seems to me like a sure way to stop thoughtful, agreeable people from running events and leave them to the dicks.

Judging from your posts so far on the forum, I expect you'll be very busy.

winterbadger
11-16-2011, 02:10 PM
I agree that it's unfortunate that negative experiences turn people off a role (running events) or even an entire game system.

But I don't think the solution to that is to attack them and criticize them for their reactions or their choices. I think a better and more productive reaction would be to encourage them to find other ways to enjoy the experience.

david kuijt
11-16-2011, 02:44 PM
No, I suggested one specific approach with one specific type of prize given for one specific type of unwanted behavior that was permitted to go on in a tournament [...]

Exactly. You said, and I quote:


And what about awards for least sportsmanlike for those who have behaved most badly.

Which is just about the worst idea I've ever heard.

You also said other things, and some of them made sense, and some of them perhaps less so. But if you insert ideas like this in among your good ones, it is going to be hard for me to focus on what you might have said that might have had merit.

Rich Gause
11-16-2011, 02:58 PM
Somebody running a tournament should address unacceptable behavior of people participating by taking them aside letting them know privately that the behaviour is unacceptable and if needed what the consequences will be if it continues. I can't imagine needing to do more and have not seen anything so egregious as to even warrant that.

Pavane
11-16-2011, 07:18 PM
Then don't use it. Just because I suggest it doesn't mean you have to do it. ;)

One of the nice things living here in the US. You're free to adopt or ignore as you see fit. :up
OK, you've asked for it. Public humiliation for any reason in a tournament is a dumb idea.

Jeff
11-16-2011, 08:23 PM
Wow....I am having a dejavue moment, from kindergarten....

Not sure where you have played, Larry? but I have never had the opportunity to play against a cheat, a dud, or any other "figure hungry" player in the last five years. My experience in every convention, and I mean every convention is that adults are capable of figuring it out between each other and the game "master" was only needed as a figure head on the schedule. I have also played in many of the tourneys that I have run and have never even had anyone bat an eye at a decision that I made during my own game....Egad, what rock did the people you are using as an example crawl from?

Play to have fun, play for comradry, play because you like it. I have received armies both painted and unpainted for winning and loosing. I have received a hand shake and a plaque. The victory is mostly for adult conversation after the games are done. Gamer "War stories" are the best when chased with beer.

Rong
11-16-2011, 09:01 PM
Just stop it. Everyone knows what l mean. Enough disention . Please

Doug
11-16-2011, 09:49 PM
I have to admit that my real fear wrt DBA 3 is that there are DBA Tragics like myself who run tournaments and yet it is the DBA/MM crossover group that are playtesting the rules.

Oh dear, I guess that makes me a crossover.. see you Sunday for a 2.2 comp... the Ayyubids just need three days x 1/2 hour basing work, (each drybrush needs to dry before the next one and then static grass) leather straps and maybe some more decorative work on clothing.. but I could put them on the table without embarassment right now.

I doubt that the dynamic about who is running tournaments is likely to change. If I find myself in a position where in my tournaments I am called upon to make a ruling and am then challenged by a playtester "That isn't the way rule X is meant to be interpereted" then I will either have to thank them for their help or say "It would have been nice for me to have experienced this situation before now". I have spent years building up a reputation of petty childishness so I will no doubt choose the option were I don't have to bury the sarky in my voice.Cheers

We are used to your petulance David.. wont bother us, and to my knowledge, locally so far only me and John G have been playing 3.0 although a couple more have seen an early draft copy for comment.

If I am organising, which I haven't done for a while now, I would be allowing a decent crossover period for 2.2 armies. One risk is if people are coming into the game after the introduction of 3.0, are they going to be bushwhacked by someone using v2 army, when they cannot accesss the v2 army lists, and have never seen them.

My thinking is that if I was organising I would allow a 3-6 month - run both no warning, 6-12, run both, but V2 lists are publically posted beforehand so no-one complains. After a year. V3 lists only.

david kuijt
11-17-2011, 01:28 AM
I note that this is from the thread's original poster who begins the thread with this:

He could have let it go with this:

But then he had to go on with this:

Which ultimately led to the message I responded to:

The original poster has sought many ways to justify [...]


Larry, would you please stop attacking Andy Hooper? You make it sound like Andy is your nemesis. If you don't agree with him, fine. But reporting the genesis of your positions the way you are doing ends up looking more like a personal attack, and less like you are actually interested in discussing issues.

Andy is a nice guy, and he put me up in his guest room when I went out to run some tournaments at Enfilade a couple or three years ago.

Bob Santamaria
11-17-2011, 01:50 AM
Larry, would you please stop attacking Andy Hooper? You make it sound like Andy is your nemesis. If you don't agree with him, fine. But reporting the genesis of your positions the way you are doing ends up looking more like a personal attack, and less like you are actually interested in discussing issues.

Andy is a nice guy, and he put me up in his guest room when I went out to run some tournaments at Enfilade a couple or three years ago.

Nothing like a good old nemesis relationship. I have a couple of them. I am going to let it stew for years and then slay them when they least expect it, and when they may not even remember who I am.

Victor
11-17-2011, 02:00 AM
Nothing like a good old nemesis relationship. I have a couple of them. I am going to let it stew for years and then slay them when they least expect it, and when they may not even remember who I am.

Only a couple? :)

Bob Santamaria
11-17-2011, 04:49 AM
Only a couple? :)

Yes, only a couple

larryessick
11-17-2011, 11:23 AM
Larry, would you please stop attacking Andy Hooper?

It was not my intent to attack Andy. It was my intent to call attention to a specific behavior and suggest alternative remedies -- remedies that people were free to adopt or ignore at their discretion.

The previous posts have all been deleted as it is evident that they did not serve that purpose.

It seems to me that people will use any excuse as justification for opposing 3.0. I realize that I don't really care if they play the new version when it is published. What I care about is that they just shut up and don't play if that is what their intent is.

I don't play DBMM. I doubt it is relevant to anyone what my reasons are. I could fill posts with excuses and pretend they are justifications. But, in the end, it really comes down to me making a personal choice.

I doubt that I am so important a person that others should make the same decision just because I have. And, I don't have need of some sense of group support where we mutually encourage one another in our decision.

It was my mistake to care about a thread entitled Circling the Wagons for 2.2. I should have realized that people will do what they will do and that nothing changes their minds.

None of us likes to look in the mirror and admit that we might be wrong.

I was. I apologize for intruding on the thread.

Larry

Macbeth
11-17-2011, 07:37 PM
My thinking is that if I was organising I would allow a 3-6 month - run both no warning, 6-12, run both, but V2 lists are publically posted beforehand so no-one complains. After a year. V3 lists only.

You are a far more generous and even handed man than I Doug ;)

My feeling is that once the move comes for DBA 3.0 then most of us have things we can use as Brevet elements until the conversions are done.

It isn't the mismatches that bother me so much as the usage of old style armies when no conversion is needed - take the Christian Nubians for example --> if the list is changed as per the last yahoo group draft then all I need to do is call the 4x3Wb 4x3Bd instead - however if I prefer the devastating power of Wb (maybe not so much now) then in the first 12 months I might stick to the Wb when I could convert. In the NSW based tournaments (& Cancon) where you can switch options at deployment maybe I could flick between the Wb and Bd lists depending on my opponent?

As the lists aren't finalised we still have a way to go BUT I most fear a change in some of the late medieval armies (Free Company, Burgundians of any sort, French, Spanish) where the only change MIGHT be a reduction in the number of dismounters - is that grounds to keep using the v2.2 army?

See you and your quick drying Ayyubids on Sunday.

It looks like we have scored the Auditorium to play in so we'll have a little more elbow room

Cheers

Bob Santamaria
11-17-2011, 07:45 PM
Dave, if a tournament were to permit lists from either 2.2 or 3, I would be against allowing the selection to be made at the time of deployment. I quite like tournaments that permit internal list selections to be made at the time of deployment, but it should still be within the one list. The player needs to select whether they are using their army as 2.2 or 3 before the tournament and may only choose options from within that list.

Adrian

Don Ray
11-18-2011, 01:15 AM
Hi Andy,
Going back to your original points and questions about what to do with 2.2 & 3.0 armies and rules....

Mark Wall and I ran the Alberta Open DBA tourney at FallCon in Calgary this Oct. We would have allowed 3.0 armies in addition to 2.2 armies. Nobody had a 3.0 army... surprise, surprise! We used 2.2 rules. Mark and I have to talk about this, but next year we may well use 2.2 rules and armies( and 3.0 armies if the 3.0 is out by then). If the 3.0 rules are out by... say March, 2012, somebody in Greater Alberta might organise a 3.0 event but We in Calgary will continue to play 2.2 and organise 2.2 events at FallCon in Oct. 2012 for some time into the future...

So come to Calgary, Andy, to play 2.2 rules. Be sure to bring your 2.2 armies! You and they are welcome in Calgary!:2up

Don in Calgary beside the Canadian Rockieswhere it will be -27C in the morning with windchill:silly

Doug
11-19-2011, 09:03 AM
See you and your quick drying Ayyubids on Sunday.

It looks like we have scored the Auditorium to play in so we'll have a little more elbow room

Cheers

They are all done, and I even did it with a day to spare.. 10.00am start?

posted on my blog too... http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com/

winterbadger
11-19-2011, 09:06 AM
They are all done, and I even did it with a day to spare.. 10.00am start?

posted on my blog too... http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com/

Wow! Those are tremendously handsome! You are a talented painter, sir!

Doug
11-19-2011, 09:32 AM
Wow! Those are tremendously handsome! You are a talented painter, sir!

Thankyou for that.. now for the rest of the army.. at 6 elements a week the lot will be done by Cancon. The Mirliton figures are lovely, but a fair bit of work - a lot split at the waist, and separate weapons and shields. But it does give you lovely variety.

Stephen Webb
11-19-2011, 08:56 PM
Dave, if a tournament were to permit lists from either 2.2 or 3, I would be against allowing the selection to be made at the time of deployment. I quite like tournaments that permit internal list selections to be made at the time of deployment, but it should still be within the one list. The player needs to select whether they are using their army as 2.2 or 3 before the tournament and may only choose options from within that list.

Adrian


I would only allow you to field a 2.2 or 3.0 army. Not choose during deployment.

Might be mecessary for me to get players to nominate their armies before the competition during the period where I allow both versions of a list.

Bob Santamaria
11-19-2011, 10:26 PM
I would only allow you to field a 2.2 or 3.0 army. Not choose during deployment.

Might be mecessary for me to get players to nominate their armies before the competition during the period where I allow both versions of a list.

Steve, are you necessarily going to play 3 at all? Not all new editions are an improvement, and they have gone out of their way to have an appalling process here.

I am totally reserving judgment, but I know that even if 3 were an improvement overall, I would still be happy to play 2.2. I will be pleasing myself between family and friends.

Adrian

Stephen Webb
11-20-2011, 02:41 AM
Steve, are you necessarily going to play 3 at all?


I will buy v3.0 and play quite a few of games with Ian and at the club. I will then make my judgement.

I hope it will be an improvement.

I will also take into account the views of my regular competitors.

Bob Santamaria
11-20-2011, 05:40 AM
I will buy v3.0 and play quite a few of games with Ian and at the club. I will then make my judgement.

I hope it will be an improvement.

I will also take into account the views of my regular competitors.

I would like to give you a game too. Not sure how much gaming I will be doing though as my third child was born yesterday

Adrian

El' Jocko
11-20-2011, 11:21 AM
They are all done, and I even did it with a day to spare.. 10.00am start?

posted on my blog too... http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com/

I really like your Ayyubids, Doug. I'd have to say that those photos are the best thing to come out of this thread!

- Jack

MarkBB
11-20-2011, 05:13 PM
Adrian, sincere congratulations to you and your wife. Hope all went well. Boy, girl??

Cheers, Mark

Doug
11-20-2011, 11:12 PM
I really like your Ayyubids, Doug. I'd have to say that those photos are the best thing to come out of this thread!

- Jack

I am reminded of a quote from somewhere .. 'damn pretty - but can they fight' sadly for the Ayyubids, the answer is 'No'. Full reports now on my blog.

john meunier
11-21-2011, 01:03 PM
Great reports. Thank you, Doug. The figs look great, especially next to those all-black 10mm opponents.

Doug
11-21-2011, 07:54 PM
Great reports. Thank you, Doug. The figs look great, especially next to those all-black 10mm opponents.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some stunning 10mm, and I have a whole lot of 6mm that look great en masse... but unpainted troops are a bugbear.

Gregorius
11-21-2011, 07:56 PM
I would like to give you a game too. Not sure how much gaming I will be doing though as my third child was born yesterday

Adrian

Hi Adrian,

Great news.

Cheers,

David Brown
11-22-2011, 05:54 PM
Doug said

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
am reminded of a quote from somewhere .. 'damn pretty - but can they fight' sadly for the Ayyubids, the answer is 'No'. Full reports now on my blog.
__________________
CheersDoug

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


My favourite is; "he looks like Tarzan, but fights like Jane"

david B

Doug
11-22-2011, 10:33 PM
Doug said

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
am reminded of a quote from somewhere .. 'damn pretty - but can they fight' sadly for the Ayyubids, the answer is 'No'. Full reports now on my blog.
__________________
CheersDoug

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


My favourite is; "he looks like Tarzan, but fights like Jane"

david B


Wasn't that a song?

Redwilde
11-22-2011, 10:37 PM
I am reminded of a quote from somewhere .. 'damn pretty - but can they fight'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061578/quotes
That would be Donald Sutherland in The Dirty Dozen.
Pinkley: [impersonating a general] "Very pretty, General. Very pretty. But, can they fight?"

Doug
11-22-2011, 11:06 PM
Good spot, I couldn't remember. For some reason, I was thinking it was a Napoleonic Period quote...

Macbeth
11-23-2011, 12:23 AM
I thought it was something levelled at the Benton Hussars in the ACW

They were known as 'The Butterflies' due to their gaudy uniforms :D

Then there is the Crimean War quoute

"Magnificent - But it is not war" (gaming)