PDA

View Full Version : Request to DBA 3.0 playtesters to ask for insertion of the "cutting the corner rule"


JLogan
09-26-2011, 05:14 PM
Hopefully the post title says it all, but in case not, I'm just asking if someone involved with DBA 3.0 playtesting can point out to PB and request that the "cutting the corner " rule be actually inserted into the next DBA edition. I believe the relevant text can be taken from most other DBx rules e.g. page 67 of the HOTT rules (bottom part of page). To be clear, I'm referring here to the situation where a friendly element behind another, moves to line up beside it.

I ask because whilst this "rule" seems to be known and used by most relatvely experienced DBA players, it is not explicitly stated and does sometimes get challenged by relative newbies (and rightly so, IMO.....) A case in point is the Iowa Cup tournament that I ran and umpired this past weekend, where I had two players question it (one a newbie, the other less so).

Thanks.

John

Ammianus
09-26-2011, 06:35 PM
Good move John! It was years before I discovered it.

Bobgnar
09-27-2011, 12:33 PM
Good suggestion, but not now needed as a heavy infantry in 3 moves two base widths. So if one element is behind another, it can move 1 BW to the side and then a fraction to a whole base width forward.

No more cutting the corner is one side effect of the longer moves.

Anyway, the problem is solved in 2.2 anyway, with the rule,
"Although each element is depicted as a rigid rectangular block, this does not imply that the troops it represents are necessarily in such a block or do not vary their position."

the amoeba rule :)

Quasimodo

david kuijt
09-27-2011, 12:43 PM
Good suggestion, but not now needed as a heavy infantry in 3 moves two base widths. So if one element is behind another, it can move 1 BW to the side and then a fraction to a whole base width forward.

No more cutting the corner is one side effect of the longer moves.


Not hardly, Bob! If that was the case, then Cav and LH would not be allowed Amoeba move in 2.2 already, as they already have a longer move, and the amoeba move isn't restricted to heavy foot.

Are you saying that Phil has specifically disallowed the amoeba move in 3.0? If so, I'm quite surprised that this is the first I've heard of it. Nothing like that was in the 3.0 rules when I was working on them, and DS hasn't mentioned anything like that since. Are you sure you haven't made an error, or confused things, or perhaps gone insane? :D

D

Bobgnar
09-27-2011, 01:36 PM
David, one of us does not understand John's question. He asked that there be a clarification of how an element that can move 2 inches can go from behind another element to next to it. This is a 2.15 move if across and forward, for a spear behind another spear, for example. However, it is accepted for the element to make the move referencing the amoeba rule.

In 3 there is no such problem as a heavy infantry element moves 3.15.

So why are you bringing up Cav and LH, the problem existed in 2.2 only for elements that did not have sufficient move go go across and forward?

Where are you getting the idea that Phil dropped the amoeba rule. I certainly did not say that. Are you sure you have not made an error, or confused things, or perhaps gone insane, too :)

Quasimodo

david kuijt
09-27-2011, 02:04 PM
So why are you bringing up Cav and LH, the problem existed in 2.2 only for elements that did not have sufficient move go go across and forward?

Where are you getting the idea that Phil dropped the amoeba rule. I certainly did not say that.


I quote:


No more cutting the corner is one side effect of the longer moves.


Any reasonable person, reading that, would think that you mean that the longer moves create a situation where there is no more cutting the corner. Which is completely false -- cutting the corner is still permitted, and cutting the corner will still happen in play.

If you didn't mean that, you should certainly correct it to reflect what you DID mean. Which was why I responded, Bob -- to bring it to your attention that what you said, had no correspondence to reality. Or even to 3.0! :D

JLogan
09-27-2011, 02:16 PM
Good suggestion, but not now needed as a heavy infantry in 3 moves two base widths. So if one element is behind another, it can move 1 BW to the side and then a fraction to a whole base width forward.

No more cutting the corner is one side effect of the longer moves.

Bob; many thanks for the reply. However, I'm with DK's response on this that I don't see that the longer moves removes the need to have the cutting the corner rule clearly stated (unless the intent now is that there is to be no more cutting the corner?). Also, specifically on this, please see the question I just asked on applying the cutting the corner rule in 2.2 for Cv over on the questions threads; I would very much appreciate your comments/thoughts on it.

And of course, I live in hope that these longer moves won't make it into 3.0.....:)


Anyway, the problem is solved in 2.2 anyway, with the rule,
"Although each element is depicted as a rigid rectangular block, this does not imply that the troops it represents are necessarily in such a block or do not vary their position."

the amoeba rule :)

Quasimodo

Sorry, but I've never been in the camp that the "amoeba" statement/"rule" as currently noted in the DBA 2.2 book covers this alone. It is simply way too vague and ambigous, and could be used to cover all sorts of other unintended/undesirable consequences. What convinced me of the intent of this "undeclared" rule are the specific statements (below) that can be found in DBM, DBR and HOTT; including in HOTT, a helpful diagram also.

"If, however, more than one of the element’s corners deviates from a straight path to avoid other troops, to avoid crossing their front, or to avoid a terrain feature, the extra distance must be taken into account in measuring the element’s move distance."

This is what I'm requesting be inserted in DBA 3.0.

Thanks.

John

pozanias
09-27-2011, 02:19 PM
Bob, would it be fair to summarize you position as:

"We (the DBA Community) made up the ameoba rule to allow certain basic movements to be made which otherwise wouldn't have been allowed in DBA 1.0 - 2.2 for some element types. But because it was needed for some elements, we allowed it for all.

However, in 3.0, the ameoba rule won't be necessary because all element types will be allowed to make those basic moves. And because there is no need to allow corner cutting anymore, measurement can be made as if the elements are rigid rectangles."

I think that's fine, but it couldn't hurt for Phil to state that explicitly in the rules. OR, if he would like to allow the ameoba move, state that explicitly. Either way, I think JLogan is saying Phil should explicitly allow or disallow the ameoba move.

JLogan
09-27-2011, 02:55 PM
Are you saying that Phil has specifically disallowed the amoeba move in 3.0? :D

D

Whilst I can't speak to that, interestingly, it's not clear to me that the cutting the corner rule exists in (warning; I'm about to use a four-letter acronym......:)) DBMM. Whilst I don't play DBMM, I do have a copy of version 1 of those rules, and I cannot find in those the cutting the corner rule (quoted below in previous reply) that is found in DBM,DBR and HOTT.

Does anyone who plays both DBA and DBMM know if it still exists in DBMM?

Thanks.

John

david kuijt
09-27-2011, 02:57 PM
Bob, would it be fair to summarize you position as:

"We (the DBA Community) made up the ameoba rule to allow certain basic movements to be made which otherwise wouldn't have been allowed in DBA 1.0 - 2.2 for some element types. But because it was needed for some elements, we allowed it for all.


I don't think that's what he's saying, Mark.

First, the DBA community didn't make up the rule -- it existed long before (in the DBM world, and probably before that in WRG 3rd or some such) and was foisted upon us.

Second, I don't think the origin story of the amoeba is clear.

Third, it happens to be a reasonable way of dealing with some of the silliness that rigid-block geometry would otherwise create, but unpacking heavy foot into a line is only one of a half-dozen such fixes, and I don't think it was or is the sole or even guiding force behind its adoption back in the dawn of time.


However, in 3.0, the ameoba rule won't be necessary because all element types will be allowed to make those basic moves. And because there is no need to allow corner cutting anymore, measurement can be made as if the elements are rigid rectangles."


I'm fairly sure Bob isn't saying that -- I've seen absolutely nothing that implies that Phil has any thoughts of abandoning the Amoeba Principle.

Bob just misspoke, I believe. Or went insane. Pressures of having to deal with the 3.0 playtest process, I'm sure -- look what happened to DS. He used to have a full head of hair, and it has all fallen out now.

Bobgnar
09-27-2011, 03:26 PM
I thought this was clear, where I am not clear here.

The cutting the corner problem occurs because a heavy infantry element on 15mm deep element, in 2.2, and before, moves only 2 inches and it takes 2.15 inches for such an element to move from behind a similar element to next to it.

Yes or no?

If yes, then in DBA 3 this is not a problem, because heavy infantry moves 3.15 inches.

What is not clear?

Quasimodo

pozanias
09-27-2011, 03:29 PM
I don't think that's what he's saying, Mark.

First, the DBA community didn't make up the rule -- it existed long before (in the DBM world, and probably before that in WRG 3rd or some such) and was foisted upon us.

Second, I don't think the origin story of the amoeba is clear.

Third, it happens to be a reasonable way of dealing with some of the silliness that rigid-block geometry would otherwise create, but unpacking heavy foot into a line is only one of a half-dozen such fixes, and I don't think it was or is the sole or even guiding force behind its adoption back in the dawn of time.


I hope nothing I wrote indicated that I don't support the Ameoba rule in 2.2. I think it is essential.

I don't really know how it came about (and don't really care), I only meant that it isn't actually in the rules -- but works really well so we all play that way. As with much of DBA, we have filled in the gaps on our own to make the game playable.

The real purpose of my post was to make a genuine attempt to understand what Bob's point was. That's it. I'm not really pushing any particular position.

pozanias
09-27-2011, 03:33 PM
I thought this was clear, where I am not clear here.

The cutting the corner problem occurs because a heavy infantry element on 15mm deep element, in 2.2, and before, moves only 2 inches and it takes 2.15 inches for such an element to move from behind a similar element to next to it.

Yes or no?

If yes, then in DBA 3 this is not a problem, because heavy infantry moves 3.15 inches.

What is not clear?

Quasimodo

Right, but to David's point -- cutting the corner is not "necessary" for Cav and LH but yet we let them do it anyway. So, is it allowed or is it not allowed? If its allowed, why not just write it in the rules?

david kuijt
09-28-2011, 09:16 AM
Right, but to David's point -- cutting the corner is not "necessary" for Cav and LH but yet we let them do it anyway. So, is it allowed or is it not allowed? If its allowed, why not just write it in the rules?

That's it exactly, Mark. Bob saying that the new movement rate "fixes" the problem is completely irrelevant -- the question is, is it legal, or is it not?

Unless Phil has undergone a sea change on this issue, I'm sure Phil will still be doing it in his live games. Which would mean that Phil believes it is legal. And the 3.0 heavy foot move has nothing to do with it, or else Phil would have removed the cutting the corner concept when he introduced the Big Move.

jcpotn
09-28-2011, 09:29 AM
I confess my complete ignorance to this "corner cutting" concept. Can someone with graphic skills illustrate it here. How much of the corner can be cut? :o

Jeff

Martyn
09-28-2011, 09:37 AM
That's it exactly, Mark. Bob saying that the new movement rate "fixes" the problem is completely irrelevant -- the question is, is it legal, or is it not?

Unless Phil has undergone a sea change on this issue, I'm sure Phil will still be doing it in his live games. Which would mean that Phil believes it is legal. And the 3.0 heavy foot move has nothing to do with it, or else Phil would have removed the cutting the corner concept when he introduced the Big Move.


It would be useful to know if it is legal or not. If not for the rear support to flank support move (which appears to be side stepped by the increase move distance) then for the other circumstances where it can reduce a move distance if the element can cut the corner and then move on.

This is not included in v2.2 but is addressed in the UG which allows it.

Gascap
09-28-2011, 10:22 AM
This is not included in v2.2 but is addressed in the UG which allows it.

My first reaction was "what does Chomsky have to do with DBA?" Another reason not to post to Fanaticus at work...

I agree the issue is not "can troops make it around to the front?" as much as "is the move legal?"

We had a similar issue in our group where someone got pissy with Alan for him trying to use a column when not navigating between obstacles. It's the same issue here: the obvious use isn't the only use; people use corner cutting for more than just swapping relative front and rear positions.

JM

ferrency
09-28-2011, 01:11 PM
We had a similar issue in our group where someone got pissy with Alan for him trying to use a column when not navigating between obstacles. It's the same issue here: the obvious use isn't the only use; people use corner cutting for more than just swapping relative front and rear positions.

I ran into that problem at a convention as well, and asked DK about it. Apparently the "form a column" issue has a history, where my usage was previously interpreted as illegal, but the agreed upon interpretation has since changed. Some holdovers haven't learned the new way, or confuse themselves by trying to play too many different rule sets.

Alan

Si2
09-28-2011, 01:47 PM
Second, I don't think the origin story of the amoeba is clear.


Does it not stem from the paragraph in the middle of page 2 that says;

"Although each element is depicted as a rigid rectangular block, this does not imply that the troops it represents are necessarily in such a block or do not vary their position."

?

david kuijt
09-28-2011, 02:40 PM
Responding to me saying "Second, I don't think the origin story of the amoeba is clear." Si2 says:

Does it not stem from the paragraph in the middle of page 2 that says;

"Although each element is depicted as a rigid rectangular block, this does not imply that the troops it represents are necessarily in such a block or do not vary their position."

?

Don't confuse post-facto justification with an origin story! The sentence you quote was inserted in 2.0 (or 2.2?) by Phil (which means in 2001 or 2003) to support the amoeba use that had already been in place for a decade or more.

So the post-facto micro-rule justificationin the current rules edition is what you quote -- but the origin (historical source) of the rule is something way, way earlier. Certainly the amoeba stuff origin had already been lost in antiquity when I started playing in the late 90s.

Si2
09-29-2011, 04:24 AM
Responding to me saying "Second, I don't think the origin story of the amoeba is clear." Si2 says:



Don't confuse post-facto justification with an origin story! The sentence you quote was inserted in 2.0 (or 2.2?) by Phil (which means in 2001 or 2003) to support the amoeba use that had already been in place for a decade or more.

So the post-facto micro-rule justificationin the current rules edition is what you quote -- but the origin (historical source) of the rule is something way, way earlier. Certainly the amoeba stuff origin had already been lost in antiquity when I started playing in the late 90s.

You're right, I am confused. I can't really work out what it is you're trying to convey.

If you're after the historical justification for people not moving in rigid blocks, then I think that might be called human nature, I've no idea on it's origin. The explosion of drill manualsin the 18/18 centuries woudl tend to support the suppostion that armies didn't move about in nice rigied block sbefore that - or there would be no need to create a manual to train them to do so.


If it's the origin in the DBx sense, then it will stem from the change from single figure basing as in WRG ancient rules, to the element based game as kicked off in DBA in 1990. Before there were rigid elements, you moved and measured singles.

If you mean the origin on Phils head, then I have no idea.

So, yes, a little confused.

But I'm not letting it get me down.
I have a six hour session on UL compliance to look forward to today.
:up

Si2

Bob Santamaria
09-29-2011, 04:58 AM
If it's the origin in the DBx sense, then it will stem from the change from single figure basing as in WRG ancient rules, to the element based game as kicked off in DBA in 1990. Before there were rigid elements, you moved and measured singles.


Si2

That is simply not true. WRG 7th edition was a firmly element based system. While 6th edition had a frontage per figure people tended to base as elements of varying sizes.

For that matter WRG 1685-1845 which I still play regularly (as does my father and many others in Australia) was an element based system, though admittedly one in which there was individual figure removal as well. That set came out in about 1978.

The innovation of elements did not come with DBA. The first popular set in which elements of troops were primarily defined by broad function rather than the minutiae of equipment, etc was DBA, but it was definitely not the first element based set.

Adrian

Martyn
09-29-2011, 05:35 AM
That is simply not true. WRG 7th edition was a firmly element based system. While 6th edition had a frontage per figure people tended to base as elements of varying sizes.

For that matter WRG 1685-1845 which I still play regularly (as does my father and many others in Australia) was an element based system, though admittedly one in which there was individual figure removal as well. That set came out in about 1978.

The innovation of elements did not come with DBA. The first popular set in which elements of troops were primarily defined by broad function rather than the minutiae of equipment, etc was DBA, but it was definitely not the first element based set.

Adrian

Don’t get side tracked into a discussion on who invented ‘elements’. The discussion was the origin of the ‘amoeba’ move.

I am not familiar with the older ancients rules, but in WRG 1685-1845 the rules include for reinforcing or lapping around (although the mechanism by which this happens are a little light and does not include any description of what can be called an ‘amoeba’ move) to move rear support up into flank support/flank contact.

The difference is the scale. In WRG the individual elements are grouped into units (4 elements being 1000 men close order infantry) which would then be equivalent to a single element in DBA scale. So I feel that this has never been addressed, as being relatively unimportant to the WRG game. My feeling is that the rule in WRG was more designed to allow for breaking up the rigid formation rather than a mechanism for individual movement.

Si2
09-29-2011, 07:41 AM
That is simply not true. WRG 7th edition was a firmly element based system. While 6th edition had a frontage per figure people tended to base as elements of varying sizes.

For that matter WRG 1685-1845 which I still play regularly (as does my father and many others in Australia) was an element based system, though admittedly one in which there was individual figure removal as well. That set came out in about 1978.

The innovation of elements did not come with DBA. The first popular set in which elements of troops were primarily defined by broad function rather than the minutiae of equipment, etc was DBA, but it was definitely not the first element based set.

Adrian

Adrian
Not true indeed, although I wasn't trying to deliberately mislead, I just lacked the knowledge.
I have just come back to add the data that 7th had elements - as you point out. So good spot!

As far as other rules go, I'm not sure they would affect Phil and the WRG team.

While 6th had people creating elements by multi basing, the mechanics of the rules were centred around single figures moving and single figure frontages and multiples there of. Elements were purely convenience.

Once an element becomes part of the rules mechanic, then you are creating a condition that needs some rules to manage it - can a 60mm wide element fit through a 50mm gap? etc.

Si2
09-29-2011, 08:03 AM
Don’t get side tracked into a discussion on who invented ‘elements’. The discussion was the origin of the ‘amoeba’ move.

I am not familiar with the older ancients rules, but in WRG 1685-1845 the rules include for reinforcing or lapping around (although the mechanism by which this happens are a little light and does not include any description of what can be called an ‘amoeba’ move) to move rear support up into flank support/flank contact.

The difference is the scale. In WRG the individual elements are grouped into units (4 elements being 1000 men close order infantry) which would then be equivalent to a single element in DBA scale. So I feel that this has never been addressed, as being relatively unimportant to the WRG game. My feeling is that the rule in WRG was more designed to allow for breaking up the rigid formation rather than a mechanism for individual movement.

Is the amoeba rule needed if you don't use elements?

Martyn
09-29-2011, 08:40 AM
Is the amoeba rule needed if you don't use elements?

Probably not, but then it is not always necessary even if you have elements. The difficulty with elements is the scale.

In DBA an element represents a considerable body of men who, although modelled on a rectangular base, will not necessarily keep in a nice neat formation, therefore the ability to flow around obstructions is more critical.

In DBM there is no amoeba move but the elements are a quarter of the size and an individual element only forms a small part of the army, so is more restricted in its movements.

winterbadger
09-29-2011, 11:51 AM
Probably not, but then it is not always necessary even if you have elements. The difficulty with elements is the scale.

In DBA an element represents a considerable body of men who, although modelled on a rectangular base, will not necessarily keep in a nice neat formation, therefore the ability to flow around obstructions is more critical.

In DBM there is no amoeba move but the elements are a quarter of the size and an individual element only forms a small part of the army, so is more restricted in its movements.

But it's still a body of men which is not, in most cases, going to maneuver in a rigid block (densely formed and regimented troops like Macedonian and Roman infantry or Swiss pike being possible exceptions).

Martyn
09-29-2011, 12:12 PM
But it's still a body of men which is not, in most cases, going to maneuver in a rigid block (densely formed and regimented troops like Macedonian and Roman infantry or Swiss pike being possible exceptions).

Is a large body of ancient warriors more likely to keep formation than a smaller body? Personally I don't know. I interpret the lack of a perceived problem in DBM to suggest so.

At the end of the day the 'amoeba' clarification is just a mechanism in the game, where it came from can only be answered by those involved in its introduction, even then who is to say it is justified.

Doug
09-29-2011, 06:56 PM
Remember that the depth of the block is quite often significantly greater than the scale area the troops would occupy, especially for deep elements such as chariots, elephants, mounted etc.

So they (troops) would move around within that area to change formation. (The 'Amoeba' model)

But I do agree, while not explicitly stated, that is how it is measured around here (Canberra), and it would be nice if it were explicitly stated in DBA 3 so no-one got caught out, and umpires could point to a line in the rulebook when someone looked astonished!

Bob Santamaria
09-29-2011, 10:30 PM
Remember that the depth of the block is quite often significantly greater than the scale area the troops would occupy, especially for deep elements such as chariots, elephants, mounted etc.

So they (troops) would move around within that area to change formation. (The 'Amoeba' model)

But I do agree, while not explicitly stated, that is how it is measured around here (Canberra), and it would be nice if it were explicitly stated in DBA 3 so no-one got caught out, and umpires could point to a line in the rulebook when someone looked astonished!

I agree - whatever solution they take it should be explicitly stated in the rules

JLogan
09-30-2011, 06:22 PM
But I do agree, while not explicitly stated, that is how it is measured around here (Canberra), and it would be nice if it were explicitly stated in DBA 3 so no-one got caught out, and umpires could point to a line in the rulebook when someone looked astonished!

So, er, Doug; can we rely on you then to make the request to PB? Would be very much appreciated. (I believe Bob may have already done so - but the more playtesters that do, presumably the slightly more chance it will get listened to :)).

Btw, since you are also a DBMM player; is it still explicit in DBMM (as it was in DBM)? Looking at v1, I couldn't see it, so wondering if that was deliberately changed or not.

Cheers,

John

Pillager
12-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Whilst I can't speak to that, interestingly, it's not clear to me that the cutting the corner rule exists in (warning; I'm about to use a four-letter acronym......:)) DBMM. Whilst I don't play DBMM, I do have a copy of version 1 of those rules, and I cannot find in those the cutting the corner rule (quoted below in previous reply) that is found in DBM,DBR and HOTT.

Does anyone who plays both DBA and DBMM know if it still exists in DBMM?

John

Yes but your DBA colloquialisms "amoeba" and "cutting the corner" don't exist outside your own clique.

Anyone seeking to understand 3.0 needs to read DBMM 2.0. It contains the detailed verbiage necessary to glean the intent behind what might only be implied in the shorter & looser 3.0. Stop looking backwards at earlier versions of DBA, it won't help. Not to mention that you Fanatici seem to be steeped in your own set of Interpretations.

DBMM 2.0 pg 32:

... Otherwise, troops can interpenetrate friends if passing through only 1 element corner...

winterbadger
12-25-2011, 01:19 PM
Wow, this board is just getting friendlier and friendlier... :sick

Richard Lee
12-25-2011, 01:48 PM
[snip]
Anyone seeking to understand 3.0 needs to read DBMM 2.0. It contains the detailed verbiage necessary to glean the intent behind what might only be implied in the shorter & looser 3.0. Stop looking backwards at earlier versions of DBA, it won't help. Not to mention that you Fanatici seem to be steeped in your own set of Interpretations.

No, DBA is *NOT* a cut-down version of DBMM.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-25-2011, 01:56 PM
Oh no, it is pretty clearly tied with DBMM now...for those of us who embrace 3.0, that is.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 03:14 PM
"so DBA can serve as a simpler introduction to DBMM"

Lobotomy
12-25-2011, 03:50 PM
While Phil says that in the intro to 3.0 he denied it at Fall In. I believe you should stop pushing that view as those involved exclusively in the DBA community have no interest in DBMM, no matter what Phil tries to push on us. Keep in mind, there is nothing in 3.0 that remotely suggests looking at DBMM to resolve questions of meaning in 3.0.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 04:39 PM
Sorry, the "Phil said" argument is passe.

If you want to attract any DBMM players you will have to 'splain it to them in DBMM terms.

So far the DBA players aren't looking very attractive. Posts are 75% sniping, 20% puzzled, and 5% authoritative.

beagle1
12-25-2011, 07:13 PM
If you want to attract any DBMM players .

I'm not quite sure I would want to attract any DBMM players at all?!!

Cheers B1

Alan Saunders
12-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Anyone seeking to understand 3.0 needs to read DBMM 2.0.

Oh well. Until that's no longer the case I can't see that I'll be bothering with DBA 3.0. Assuming it's true, of course.

Alan Saunders
12-25-2011, 08:13 PM
If you want to attract any DBMM players you will have to 'splain it to them in DBMM terms.



I think I know a couple of DBMM players. But they keep themselves to themselves, and do it in the privacy of their own homes :)

Pillager
12-25-2011, 08:17 PM
I'm not quite sure I would want to attract any DBMM players at all?!!

Cheers B1

So DBA is Lutheran, not Baptist?

Pillager
12-25-2011, 08:19 PM
Oh well. Until that's no longer the case I can't see that I'll be bothering with DBA 3.0. Assuming it's true, of course.

Is there an archive of the Stronghold anywhere? Miss it a lot.

With respect to the putative subject of "clarifying" what DBA means to say -- ya'll are just pissing in the wind.

Most of these changes are abbreviated versions of what DBMM says with more detail & more words.

So if you want to UNDERSTAND what the rule intends -- READ DBMM !!!!

Only then can you talk about whether the DBA phrasing is clear enough.

And I wish there were separate sub-forums for talking about whether you like the game effect of a rule versus what people think a rule says. I'm only interested in the latter.

EDIT: And buying a copy will help Phil get out of the financial hole he must be in after printing all those copies

Alan Saunders
12-25-2011, 08:23 PM
Is there an archive of the Stronghold anywhere? Miss it a lot.


Technically there is - it's on my hard-drive :)

Many of the army lists can be found here though:

http://meadhall.org.uk/listlist.htm



So if you want to UNDERSTAND what the rule intends -- READ DBMM !!!!



Is it available for free anywhere? Otherwise I'm spending money on something I'm just going to read once and never play.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 08:26 PM
>Otherwise I'm spending money on something I'm just going to read once and never play.
>

A little financial support in recognition of Phil's lifetime contributions? C'mon, its only about twenty bucks.

Doug
12-25-2011, 08:52 PM
Oh well. Until that's no longer the case I can't see that I'll be bothering with DBA 3.0. Assuming it's true, of course.

It is explicitly not true.

The development process for DBA 3 was not dependent on DBMM, and anyone who claims it was - was not involved in the process. It was not treated as a DBMM Auxiliary.

There is no need to understand or read DBMM. DBA 3 is a stand-alone game.

peleset
12-25-2011, 09:18 PM
Are all DBMM players so abrasive?

Doug
12-25-2011, 09:25 PM
Are all DBMM players so abrasive?

Not in my experience. Possibly only the ones that claim to be DBMM players, but are actually only interested in trying to generate as much ill-feeling against 3.0 as possible.

The DBMM players I play against here in Canberra are a lovely bunch of blokes.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 10:42 PM
Are all DBMM players so abrasive?

Merely conforming to the local style & custom as I have observed it.

David Constable
12-26-2011, 06:27 AM
Are all DBMM players so abrasive?

All the ones I have met, YES.
They all seem to want to change DBA to a sub set of DBMM (for small games).

Cannot say for any other DBMM players that I have not met, they might be nice people.

David Constable

platypus01
12-26-2011, 08:04 AM
I think I'm a nice person. I quite like DBMM, and DBA. There is no point in this argument. You are just taking the bait. I have nothing but respect for you David. I don't see why you can't feel the same about me.

Where are we? Yes, let's see if the corner rule gets in the next draft.

JohnG

Doug
12-26-2011, 05:46 PM
I think I'm a nice person. I quite like DBMM, and DBA. There is no point in this argument. You are just taking the bait. I have nothing but respect for you David. I don't see why you can't feel the same about me.

Where are we? Yes, let's see if the corner rule gets in the next draft.

JohnG

I will second that - John IS a nice person. Who plays DBMM and DBA.