PDA

View Full Version : The new 'WADBAG' form Sue.


Young_Stan
11-12-2011, 06:17 PM
This was posted by Phil on the DBMM list last night.

The interesting bit is about Sue's 'hardback beginner's guide'.
Having a sample game, scripted and commented, by the authours, will be a great assistance to understand what the rules are supposed to mean.

"Re: [DBMMlist] Re: Brian Boru 2011

I am NOT opposed to high production values and including added value. We
have not been making any decisions on grounds of economy. I am strongly of
the opinion that adding more words and padding does not necessarily improve
clarity and that page layout is more important. DBMM is the only set as yet
published by new WRG, with DBA 3.0 and HFG following shortly.

Do bear in mind that DBMM is not our beginners set for ancients. That is DBA
(though many players are content to stay with the simpler set). The new
version 3.0 has a lot of extra content, and moreover is intended for
existing DBA players. Sue is also producing a hardback beginner's guide to
wargaming to appear at the same time, which not only includes the full DBA
rules and army lists, but a sample game (like that in "Charge"), instruction
on painting and terrain making and similar features, and is illustrated with
colour photos.

Phil"

You can see the Beta of the 1st 3 chapters of Sue book on the WRG site...
"http://www.wrg.me.uk/" -> "Susan Laflin-Barker" -> "Start Wargaming"

Cheers,

Stan.

Bob Santamaria
11-12-2011, 07:12 PM
The fact that he sees DBA as in any sense a beginner's set points to everything that is wrong about his mentality.

Pavane
11-12-2011, 07:45 PM
Fortunately the DBA community has enough self-esteem to ignore comments about being content with a simpler, beginner's set of rules. DBM and DBMM are moribund in North America, whereas the DBA community is vibrant, creative and expanding.

Increased complexity does not necessarily make a better simulation, nor does prefering such a game elevate the character or capability of a player.

Africanus
11-12-2011, 08:05 PM
Good god! I can almost hear the high horses being saddled:eek

Like it or not, DBA "IS" (as opposed to DBMM) the simpler of the two(3) rulesets, thus making it the ideal place to "BEGIN" for those starting the journey into the world of miniature wargaming.

Comments to ignore???
I read no slight aimed towards the DBA community in that sentence and find it odd that you feel the need to defend the "self esteem" of the DBA community.
Basically, they are PB's rules, mind, body and soul. One is obviously more complex and/or in depth than the other, hence the term "Simpler"?
This is how he see's it. Fair call!

Whilst I am on no particular side in the 3.0 debate, it does seem as though the DBA hooded vigilante gang need to stop over analyzing every phrase from PB and just enjoy the game for what it is. A "SIMPLE" , quick, enjoyable afternoon.

The more I read, the more I am looking forward to 3.0!:up

trollzwei
11-12-2011, 08:06 PM
Sue is also producing a hardback beginner's guide to
wargaming to appear at the same time, which not only includes the full DBA
rules and army lists, but a sample game (like that in "Charge"), instruction
on painting and terrain making and similar features, and is illustrated with
colour photos.



This sounds absolutely wonderful.

TZ

Rich Gause
11-12-2011, 08:07 PM
So when I was complaining that Phil viewed DBA3 as a beginners game for DBMM I was more right than I knew................

Pavane
11-12-2011, 08:21 PM
Good god! I can almost hear the high horses being saddled:eek

Like it or not, DBA "IS" (as opposed to DBMM) the simpler of the two(3) rulesets, thus making it the ideal place to "BEGIN" for those starting the journey into the world of miniature wargaming.

Comments to ignore???
I read no slight aimed towards the DBA community in that sentence and find it odd that you feel the need to defend the "self esteem" of the DBA community.
Basically, they are PB's rules, mind, body and soul. One is obviously more complex and/or in depth than the other, hence the term "Simpler"?
This is how he see's it. Fair call!

Whilst I am on no particular side in the 3.0 debate, it does seem as though the DBA hooded vigilante gang need to stop over analyzing every phrase from PB and just enjoy the game for what it is. A "SIMPLE" , quick, enjoyable afternoon.

The more I read, the more I am looking forward to 3.0!:up

The proposed 3.0 rules were posted on the walls at Fall In. You could probably compress the new rules by 10% if you removed PB's editorialising.

john meunier
11-12-2011, 10:40 PM
I like the charming part in the example of play where the people playing are a teenage boy and his younger sister.

david kuijt
11-12-2011, 11:00 PM
I like the charming part in the example of play where the people playing are a teenage boy and his younger sister.

That's what we call "marketing", John. To be accurate, the example of play should be two overweight, sedentary men in their fifties with facial hair.

michael guth
11-12-2011, 11:12 PM
DBMM, and other point based ancient systems fail for two or three basic reasons. I discussed this with Sue at Fall In.

First, as Phil Sabin makes clear in example after example from his research and rules set, ancient armies deployed to cover the necessary front. If they could not, battle was either unlikely or predetermined to be catastrophic. This was accomplished historically by thinning the phalanx if needed, but in battle after battle armies deployed on identical frontage, as in DBA. Points based rules systems such as FOG and DBMM do not specify board size to troop density, or board size to points density. This is left to the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the tournament organizer. Small high quality armies, or infantry armies in these games are all too often forced to 'corner sit' to avoid being overlapped by more numerous foes, in situations that fail to simulate the most basic fact of ancient battle.

Second, points based systems rarely accurately predict synergy between troop types. For example, a cavalry unit which can only disorder enemy infantry on a frontal charge is not impressive. But, if an accompanying low cost infantry can charge the enemy disordered before rallying next turn, then the cavalry/infantry combination is auto-win, which may not at all be predicted on the basis of points.

Third, is that the points costs systems are often simply wrong. An example would be the WRG age old failure to charge extra points for wedging knights, or charging too little for scythed chariots which could auto destroy a phalanx of much greater points value 40% or more of time. The Warrior rules remain an Aztec and Burmese fest, although now that Byzantines get darts and caltrops.....

DBA avoids the conventional fail of other ancient rules systems by standardizing frontage and density, and makes victory dependent to a large extent on exploitation of historical troop capabilities such as trading raw frontal combat power for speed, or superiority in different terrain types.

FOG/DBMM and DBM fail from the start as simulations. Attempting to right what are essentially failed systems by adding troop type after troop type of infinte gradations and more and more special rules to permit odd results better explained by a dice throw make for more complex, but not necessarily better simulations, games or game experiences. The 'game' in FOG and DBMM is not to fight opponents using historical tactics, but rather to game the point and terrain systems to get an overlap against the enemy flank, and second to find the troop types which are undercosted by the designer. In other words, playing the flaws in the game rather that the game itself.

And finally, using the phrase 'hooded vigilantes' in a conversation with Americans is offensive.

Mike Guth

larryessick
11-12-2011, 11:13 PM
Since the warband had the higher total, the legionaries had to recoil and were unable to do so with the warband attacking their rear. This meant they were destroyed.

:rotfl

Unfortunate that Sue doesn't know the rules herself as blade is destroyed by warband. Recoil is never an option for them under this situation. This means the attack on the legion's rear is entirely pointless in this example.

:eek

She might want to revise the example to have this combat involve some other Roman element that doesn't suffer quick-kill.

Spencer
11-12-2011, 11:32 PM
Mike is a smart dude.. !!!

Africanus
11-13-2011, 12:41 AM
And finally, using the phrase 'hooded vigilantes' in a conversation with Americans is offensive.

Note to self....

(some)Americans are easily offended. Add "Stroke ego" phrase in next post or refrain from conversing with them.:silly

dbawilliam
11-13-2011, 01:01 AM
Note to self....

(some)Americans are easily offended. Add "Stroke ego" phrase in next post or refrain from conversing with them.:silly

Clearly you do not understand the painful role the Klu Klux Klan played in the history of our country. If you Google image the KKK you can see photos of the many lynchings of innocent people of color by the "hooded vigilantes" -- anyone with any sensibility would be offended to be included with them in any reference whether intended to be jocular or not.

david kuijt
11-13-2011, 01:12 AM
Add "Stroke ego" phrase in next post or refrain from conversing with them.:silly

Troll much, Africanus?

larryessick
11-13-2011, 01:16 AM
First, as Phil Sabin makes clear in example after example from his research and rules set, ancient armies deployed to cover the necessary front.

The problem is not one of points but of poor design with respect to element/unit frontage vis-a-vis table size. The issue is that restricting table size reduces effectiveness of mounted armies that typically fought on less constrained ground. The resolution comes from terrain selection and placement. If we focus on choice of battleground we will see that, in as much as it was possible to do so, ancient/medieval commanders deliberately chose terrain that limited the frontage.

Second, points based systems rarely accurately predict synergy between troop types.

I don't see how this has any relevance. Synergy, if it exists, is likely the result of player competence and not an evidence based historical reality.

Third, is that the points costs systems are often simply wrong.

This is simply argumentative based on one person's opinion of how something should be valued as opposed to some other person's opinion. As such, it is irrelevant as well. It could be observed that no point system will ever satisfy every person's individual take on what the right ratios should be. It is, then, impossible for points to ever be "correct" if the standard is that everyone should be happy. Points are not used in this manner nor are they intended to make everyone happy. Points are a tool used by game designers to generate relatively historical OOBs and to create relatively historical encounters between known enemies. They become a useful way to allow ahistorical foes to meet in competition or "what if" scenarios. Putting more into points than that is just argument for argument's sake and cannot be proven or disproven -- especially because the person holding the view that the points are wrong is already convinced of their position.

See my comments above in red italics.

larryessick
11-13-2011, 01:21 AM
Clearly you do not understand the painful role the Klu Klux Klan played in the history of our country. If you Google image the KKK you can see photos of the many lynchings of innocent people of color by the "hooded vigilantes" -- anyone with any sensibility would be offended to be included with them in any reference whether intended to be jocular or not.

I think you are reaching here for a reason to find fault. I don't think the phrase evokes the imagery you've described.

Bobgnar
11-13-2011, 01:35 AM
Note that the whole story in Chapter 3 is based on 2.2, written in 2009. It is just a first draft and not even based on Third Edition. Note the old style terrain placement and short moves. Not much reason to spend time doing a critique. I am, however, disappointed that it is for two such simplistic armies. Wb, Bd, Ps, Cv, and LH. All the difficult elements are missing. What will be needed is a second game, with perhaps Alexander vs Indians which would have many more troop types.

What historical enemy pair contains the most different types of elements?

Back to the story. We do not even know what Romans or Germans these are, and what elements are used. I can find only 11 Romans,
"Four elements of legionaries were placed together in his front left-hand corner - opposite the enemy general. The other four elements were placed in the centre of the area. The two skirmishing elements, one foot and one mounted, were placed in the front right-hand corner and the general was placed in the centre in front of the camp." Later another Ps shows up.

So read this as an example of what a story might be like. Consider the use of pictures. What combat examples are needed.

Send to Sue what you think such a battle report should be like.

By the way Larry, on page 31 Sue does recognize that Bd are DIB by Wb
"This is higher than the legion's total and so the Germans won that combat. Marcus was dismayed to realise that in these circumstances, the blades were destroyed by the warband."

dbawilliam
11-13-2011, 01:38 AM
I think you are reaching here for a reason to find fault. I don't think the phrase evokes the imagery you've described.

Well, "hooded vigilantes" emphatically evokes the imagery I've described and does so to anyone who has read anything about post-Civil War race relations in the United States. Your comment indicates you (a) have not read much about the topic referenced above, (b) are not from the U.S. or (c) are an apologist for racist movements like the KKK. Which is it ?

larryessick
11-13-2011, 01:51 AM
Well, "hooded vigilantes" emphatically evokes the imagery I've described and does so to anyone who has read anything about post-Civil War race relations in the United States. Your comment indicates you (a) have not read much about the topic referenced above, (b) are not from the U.S. or (c) are an apologist for racist movements like the KKK. Which is it ?

:rotfl

I notice you left off the other choice: Better educated and more knowledgeable than you.... ;)

dbawilliam
11-13-2011, 01:56 AM
:rotfl

I notice you left off the other choice: Better educated and more knowledgeable than you.... ;)

Oh, my friend, I'll compare my education to yours any day (hint: don't go there). It is a trademark tactic of someone getting trounced in a debate to resort to argumentum ad hominem. I will not do that, but simply end my comments on this topic by taking some Biblical advice "Go forth from the presence of a fool."

larryessick
11-13-2011, 01:57 AM
Just for people who might care.

Slapped "hooded vigilante" in Google with moderate search parameter.

The first 20 entries and not a single reference to the KKK....

Changed the search to images and not a single image of the KKK....

Several images of Batman and sweatshirts. But, no KKK.

Like I said, the whole offensive to Americans and image stuff is over-reaction and making something out of nothing.

Larry

dbawilliam
11-13-2011, 02:00 AM
Just for people who might care.

Slapped "hooded vigilante" in Google with moderate search parameter.

The first 20 entries and not a single reference to the KKK....

Changed the search to images and not a single image of the KKK....

Several images of Batman and sweatshirts. But, no KKK.

Like I said, the whole offensive to Americans and image stuff is over-reaction and making something out of nothing.

Larry

How to make this clear to you? Calling the thousands of people murdered in our culture by the "hooded vigilantes" of the KKK is not "making something out of nothing".....your ignorance is breathtaking. I'm out of this conversation.

larryessick
11-13-2011, 02:04 AM
Oops,

When I turned moderate search parameter off -- still not a single reference to the KKK.

I hate it when I'm so stupid. :up

Bobgnar
11-13-2011, 02:08 AM
When I have to think of KKK, I think of white sheet covered racist murderers. When I think of hooded vigilantes, I think of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Knobbers

more examples here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante

Is the "hooded" part that is troubling. If he had just said "vigilantes" it would have been ok?

It is true that "hooded" can be linked to the KKK, but to so many other groups too. Is use of "hooded vigilantes" now not PC in common discourse? Perhaps we could say "non-racially motivated hooded vigilantes" to be sure to exclude any KKK imagery but keep the basic concept of groups trying to police outside the law.

To paraphrase Africanus, and make him now PC
"Whilst I am on no particular side in the 3.0 debate, it does seem as though the DBA non-racially motivated hooded vigilante gang needs to stop over analyzing every phrase from PB and just enjoy the game for what it is. A "SIMPLE" , quick, enjoyable afternoon."

Perhaps this line of discussion can be transferred to a new thread, and the current one can be left to comments regarding Phil recent remarks.

larryessick
11-13-2011, 02:10 AM
How to make this clear to you? Calling the thousands of people murdered in our culture by the "hooded vigilantes" of the KKK is not "making something out of nothing".....your ignorance is breathtaking. I'm out of this conversation.

First, it never was a conversation or a debate. It was you overreacting.

Second, most Americans won't take offense at the phrase "hooded vigilante" because they don't associate it with the image you present.

Third, nothing that anyone has said suggests even vaguely that they are supportive of murder by any group under any circumstance.

dbawilliam
11-13-2011, 02:13 AM
When I have to think of KKK, I think of white sheet covered racist murderers. When I think of hooded vigilantes, I think of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Knobbers

more examples here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante

Is the "hooded" part that is troubling. If he had just said "vigilantes" it would have been ok?

It is true that "hooded" can be linked to the KKK, but to so many other groups too. Is use of "hooded vigilantes" now not PC in common discourse? Perhaps we could say "non-racially motivated hooded vigilantes" to be sure to exclude any KKK imagery but keep the basic concept of groups trying to police outside the law.

To paraphrase Africanus, and make him now PC
"Whilst I am on no particular side in the 3.0 debate, it does seem as though the DBA non-racially motivated hooded vigilante gang needs to stop over analyzing every phrase from PB and just enjoy the game for what it is. A "SIMPLE" , quick, enjoyable afternoon."

Perhaps this line of discussion can be transferred to a new thread, and the current one can be left to comments regarding Phil recent remarks.

I am perfectly happy to end this conversation. However, Bob, if you stop 100 people on the streets of the United States and asked them what does the term "hooded vigilantes" evoke in them I'm guessing a near unanimous response will be the KKK. I'm also guessing NO ONE will respond "oh, yes, the Bald Knobbers." Good night all.

larryessick
11-13-2011, 02:23 AM
if you stop 100 people on the streets of the United States and asked them what does the term "hooded vigilantes" evoke in them I'm guessing a near unanimous response will be the KKK. I'm also guessing NO ONE will respond "oh, yes, the Bald Knobbers."

No, I suspect not a one of them will say "Bald Knobbers."

OTOH, the image it evokes for me is a non-descript militant in a sweatshirt with the hood pulled up or of a militant Islamist in keffiyeh with the scarf covering their face....

dbawilliam
11-13-2011, 02:29 AM
No, I suspect not a one of them will say "Bald Knobbers."

OTOH, the image it evokes for me is a non-descript militant in a sweatshirt with the hood pulled up or of a militant Islamist in keffiyeh with the scarf covering their face....

Which demonstrates once again you are not from this culture... and the original quote included a reference to "saddling up the horses" do your modern terrorists ride into action like the old west? ...I'm going to bed.

Bob Santamaria
11-13-2011, 05:27 AM
I was surprised to see where this threat went today over the course of today.

Alan Lauder
11-13-2011, 07:03 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Knobbers


Not a name you'd use around this neck of the woods! ;)

a cynic writes...
11-13-2011, 07:10 AM
I was surprised to see where this threat went today over the course of today.
Indeed...

I even didn't notice the phrase first time round. Once offence was taken I did cop on that it was the KKK connection without needing to be told but the image "hooded vigilantes" evokes to me is Batman not the Grand Dragon of the Silly Bastards. Dark Knight not Daft Bugger.

Which just goes to show how things depend on your point of view. Funnily enough that is where we started. The designer thinks he's written a set of beginner rules for kids (who don't need to tie down the exact meaning of every rule), whereas the bearded middle aged men who actually play it see a set of quick play rules ideal for a game in the evening or a one day competition (it which case they do).

I don't see that fundamental disconnect being resolved any time soon. Nor do I see Phil willing to get the production values to point where he could actually reach his target market. Which is a pity.

Africanus
11-13-2011, 07:22 AM
Troll much, Africanus?

Now and again.....
Although in this case no!
It actually took me (due to the sheer innocence of the statement or inferior wit) most of the afternoon to come to the conclusion as to how anyone in their right mind could and/or would actually associate that statement with the KKK?

For the record, I do not, nor have I ever condoned in any way shape or form racial discrimination! Period!

Political correctness on steroids?
Give me a bloody break!

Anyway, on that note I will leave your lynch mob to continue hiding in the shadows (hooded or otherwise) awaiting the next installment from PB, ready to pounce.

Thanks for your understanding:rolleyes

larryessick
11-13-2011, 10:07 AM
If you Google image the KKK you can see photos of the many lynchings of innocent people of color by the "hooded vigilantes"

Well, "hooded vigilantes" emphatically evokes the imagery I've described and does so to anyone who has read anything about post-Civil War race relations in the United States.

Just for people who might care.

Slapped "hooded vigilante" in Google with moderate search parameter.

The first 20 entries and not a single reference to the KKK....

Changed the search to images and not a single image of the KKK....

Several images of Batman and sweatshirts. But, no KKK.

When I have to think of KKK, I think of white sheet covered racist murderers. When I think of hooded vigilantes, I think of these.

I even didn't notice the phrase first time round. Once offence was taken I did cop on that it was the KKK connection without needing to be told but the image "hooded vigilantes" evokes to me is Batman not the Grand Dragon of the Silly Bastards.

The problem here is that one person drew an inference that was not part of the discussion and then attacked venomously those who held an opposing view. The fault lies with him for failing to comprehend that this is an international discussion group where various images are less likely to have xenophobic intent and are more likely to have broad-brush and generic meanings.

Had the original poster meant KKK they would have said so. Moreover, for those of us who are Americans and who have responded, the clear majority took no offense.

Neither will the majority of Americans because, in the main, we do not operate in a world where racial issues dominate or guide our lives. Those who do, in fact, help perpetuate racial division rather than helping to eliminate it.

People stuck in the world of academia regularly and mistakenly believe that the entire world views life as a crisis and a clash of ideas. That is far from the truth for most of us. They routinely confuse the amount of education that they've received with the quality of education. And, they often resort to assertions that have no substance and then react in confusion when the evidence shows their perspective is flawed.

It is easy to Google KKK and get images of people in hoods. But, to do so one must first have made the jump to KKK from the starting point -- hooded vigilante. As has been demonstrated, such a jump is atypical. In fact, if we Google "hooded vigilante" we don't get a single image of KKK.

An interesting event took place last week in my son's middle school. The teacher, who by definition is a college graduate working on or already possessing her Master's degree, didn't know the meaning of a word. My son not only gave the meaning of the word but had it confirmed when the class checked the dictionary.

How does such a thing take place? It takes place because the amount of education does not equate to the quality of education.

And so it is in this case. Those who took offense do not represent the majority of Americans and, in spite of diplomas, are less well educated than those who took no offense. Those who understood the imagery for what it was -- the use of bullying and intimidation under the protection of anonymity -- grasped immediately the original poster's meaning.

Larry

teenage visigoth
11-13-2011, 10:41 AM
For a second I thought I was reading TMP.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-JLYRZyMk6MM/Tr_WXnS4KHI/AAAAAAAAA-Q/VgNCmVRZ7Cc/s800/picard-facepalml.jpg

david kuijt
11-13-2011, 11:59 AM
Those who understood the imagery for what it was -- the use of bullying and intimidation under the protection of anonymity -- grasped immediately the original poster's meaning.


KKK was not what I thought of when I read the original post -- but I'm not from South of the Mason-Dixon line (or even the 49th parallel) and that cultural reference doesn't have the same relevance to me. As for Bald Knobbers, I suspect that has no meaning to 99% of the population, Bob.

The implication of bullying and intimidation under the protection of anonymity was what made the statement a trolling statement -- something deliberately offensive to provoke a reaction. Exactly like "lynch mob", which Africanus used as another trolling statement just this morning.

Few people speaking up regularly in the last year of this debate, on either side, are anonymous -- we are using our usual online names on a forum where our usual online names are known. Some of us (I, for one) use our given legal names, which makes any implication of anonymity laughable. And as for bullying and intimidation, give me a break. That's an outright lie.

david Crenshaw
11-13-2011, 12:22 PM
I love it! LOL
The image of Picard, not DK's response - just for clarification.
David

a cynic writes...
11-13-2011, 12:56 PM
"...no meaning to 99% of the population..."

Made me laugh out loud though. Then again I can't really talk - I'm probably the only person on the planet who sees the word "cnut" and thinks of my home village. Specifically the last line of its Domesday book entry:

"Hane tra tulit Cnut rex.f; Witt epc recupauit t.r. Willi."
King Canute took this land; but Bishop William recovered it after 1066.

larryessick
11-13-2011, 12:59 PM
KKK was not what I thought of when I read the original post -- but I'm not from South of the Mason-Dixon line (or even the 49th parallel) and that cultural reference doesn't have the same relevance to me. As for Bald Knobbers, I suspect that has no meaning to 99% of the population, Bob.

The exchange of opinions begins because one person asserts that all Americans will be offended. Yours is another example demonstrating that this is clearly false -- that the KKK imagery did not come to mind.

The implication of bullying and intimidation under the protection of anonymity was what made the statement a trolling statement -- something deliberately offensive to provoke a reaction. Exactly like "lynch mob", which Africanus used as another trolling statement just this morning.

Whether troll or not, the imagery that was evoked was that of bullying and intimidation under the protection of anonymity. Recognizing this and asserting it was a troll are evidence that this is the case.

Few people speaking up regularly in the last year of this debate, on either side, are anonymous -- we are using our usual online names on a forum where our usual online names are known. Some of us (I, for one) use our given legal names, which makes any implication of anonymity laughable. And as for bullying and intimidation, give me a break. That's an outright lie.

It is a waste of effort to discuss anything regarding rules with Phil Barker. Any discussion among those in the gaming community is just noise. Those who hope to be taken most seriously generally establish their credentials -- which at some point means identifying who the are.

It certainly does resort to bullying and intimidation when the direction of the discussion heads towards "we'll just keep playing v2.2 then." That this has no effect on Phil Barker only seems to further infuriate people.

We can waste hours discussing and typing out our thoughts -- and we can spend equal time establishing our bona fide -- it is all for our own amusement as it means nothing to Phil Barker.

Even pointing out that Sue Barker makes mistakes with the rules in writing her guide is unlikely to produce change. Having factual evidence and presenting it does nothing to alter the course that the Barker's have already set out upon.

And, that makes all of the various discussion groups that spend inordinate time batting around the pros and cons just so much wasted energy.

The use of "hooded vigilante" elicits the image that I've suggested. Whether such imagery is accurate or merely a troll is colored by perspective. But what it is demonstrably not is an affront to all Americans. I suspect that it is more accurate than David would lead us to believe.

But, irrespective of accuracy it is also irrelevant because nothing deters Phil Barker from the course he has chosen. It would come as a surprise should the misapplication of their own rules even cause Sue to rework her final combat example.

Larry

Martin Lefebvre
11-13-2011, 01:22 PM
Personally, what came to mind for me after reading hooded vigilantes was 'Black Block' protesters. These fellows can be described as ether Anarchist who use black hoodies to hide their appearance and cause a ruckus during peaceful protests such as last year's G20 protest in Toronto, or police 'agent provocateurs' such as the Montreal anti-WTO protests back in '07.

Then again, my context is quite different. I am Canadian, and the KKK does not have the large cultural impact that it has in the USA.

david kuijt
11-13-2011, 01:23 PM
The exchange of opinions begins because one person asserts that all Americans will be offended. Yours is another example demonstrating that this is clearly false -- that the KKK imagery did not come to mind.


It might be false (or overstated) but my not making the connection is not a counterexample -- the 49th parallel (which I mentioned) is the border between Canada and the US. I was born and raised in Canada -- not an American.


It certainly does resort to bullying and intimidation when the direction of the discussion heads towards "we'll just keep playing v2.2 then." That this has no effect on Phil Barker only seems to further infuriate people.

We can waste hours discussing and typing out our thoughts -- and we can spend equal time establishing our bona fide -- it is all for our own amusement as it means nothing to Phil Barker.


Wait up, Larry -- you're making the same mistake as Africanus, confusing vocal dissent with bullying or intimidation. Saying "I'll just keep playing v2.2 then" is not a threat -- saying "I'll hit you over the head" or "I'll take your money" or "I'll pee on your shoes" is a threat.


And, that makes all of the various discussion groups that spend inordinate time batting around the pros and cons just so much wasted energy.


Wasting energy is not a threat either. If so, every online bulletin board that ever existed was a threat to everyone!

larryessick
11-13-2011, 01:46 PM
Wait up, Larry -- you're making the same mistake as Africanus, confusing vocal dissent with bullying or intimidation. Saying "I'll just keep playing v2.2 then" is not a threat -- saying "I'll hit you over the head" or "I'll take your money" or "I'll pee on your shoes" is a threat.

Perhaps.

I see it differently. Why the need to say "I'll just keep playing v2.2" at all? Just do it.

By putting the thought into words you convey a risk to v3 that you will not buy in and will not participate. That, in turn, implies a risk to the bottom line -- the amount of profit to be made.

Such threats do, sometimes, result in changes. The threat of losing customers caused BofA to change its debit card fees. It didn't stop them from raising money from their customers -- but it did cause them to move it to a less overt practice.

Remember that a threat is not if you intended to convey one but is how what you've conveyed is perceived by those who hear you. And, refusing to play v3 in favor of v2.2 -- and vocally saying so and encouraging others to join in -- is indeed a threat.

Whether it is the action of a hooded vigilante depends on what you were wearing when you said it. ;)

Larry

david kuijt
11-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Perhaps.

I see it differently. Why the need to say "I'll just keep playing v2.2" at all? Just do it.

By putting the thought into words you convey a risk to v3 that you will not buy in and will not participate. That, in turn, implies a risk to the bottom line -- the amount of profit to be made.


That is seriously overusing the word threat, don't you think? My point is simply this -- saying "I will not use 2.2" is not bullying, and is not intimidation. If you want to consider it a "threat" in the sense of expressing a future (very minor) financial impact that somebody (not Phil, who is both oblivious to the financial impact of his efforts and not on this forum) might consider in their planning, okay, that is correct English in the same sense that you might consider Global Warming a threat. But global warming is not bullying, and not intimidation. And expressing a potential distaste with a commercial product that hasn't been released yet is not bullying, and not intimidation. Not by any stretch.


Remember that a threat is not if you intended to convey one but is how what you've conveyed is perceived by those who hear you. And, refusing to play v3 in favor of v2.2 -- and vocally saying so and encouraging others to join in -- is indeed a threat.


Nah. Saying "New Coke sucks, I'm switching to Pepsi" is a statement of opinion with regard to the release of a commercial product. Whether or not the Coca Cola bottling company will decided to release Coke Classic six months later in response to falling sales is a financial decision, not blackmail or response to bullying or intimidation.

Saying "if you don't change your opinion, I will remove your spleen" is a threat. And bullying, and intimidation.

larryessick
11-13-2011, 02:06 PM
Saying "if you don't change your opinion, I will remove your spleen" is a threat. And bullying, and intimidation.

Not the spleen! :eek

david kuijt
11-13-2011, 02:07 PM
Not the spleen! :eek

Canadians are given spleen-hooks when they turn 8, so they can threaten (and bully, and intimidate) appropriately.

larryessick
11-13-2011, 02:12 PM
Canadians are given spleen-hooks when they turn 8, so they can threaten (and bully, and intimidate) appropriately.

Ah, well then....

It explains why so few of us are afraid of Canadians. After all, you can live without your spleen.

Its not like you were ripping our heads off or tearing our hearts out.... :p

Or, as I remind my son on occasion, "I know multiple ways of killing you and only a few of them leave marks." :eek

Larry

Matt
11-13-2011, 03:15 PM
I'm American (meaning born and raised in the USA, not another country on the American continental land mass)

I do not / did not associate the phrase "hooded vigilantes" with the KKK.

I have a MA for education level.

My wife is also born and raised in the USA. She does not have a MA. When asked about what came to mind when the phrase "hooded vigilante" was used, she answered "Robin Hood."

I won't comment on how many of the 305-ish million other US citizens agree or disagree with our view, because I really don't know.

david kuijt
11-13-2011, 03:20 PM
Ah, well then....

It explains why so few of us are afraid of Canadians. After all, you can live without your spleen.


I think it has more to do with our polite manner while spleen-ripping. "Excuse me, this will just take a moment," "Sorry about all this fuss," and all that. It takes away from the message...

larryessick
11-13-2011, 04:02 PM
I think it has more to do with our polite manner while spleen-ripping. "Excuse me, this will just take a moment," "Sorry about all this fuss," and all that. It takes away from the message...

Well, there is that. :up

Rong
11-13-2011, 04:23 PM
"hooded vigilantes" with the KKK. I definetely take exception with that comment.

Kingo
11-13-2011, 05:19 PM
Clearly you do not understand the painful role the Klu Klux Klan played in the history of our country. If you Google image the KKK you can see photos of the many lynchings of innocent people of color by the "hooded vigilantes" -- anyone with any sensibility would be offended to be included with them in any reference whether intended to be jocular or not.

Looks like a condom with legs :D

Kingo

Bob Santamaria
11-13-2011, 05:20 PM
It actually took me (due to the sheer innocence of the statement or inferior wit) most of the afternoon to come to the conclusion as to how anyone in their right mind could and/or would actually associate that statement with the KKK?


I am not sure that it is question of being in their right mind or not, more a question of whether north americans are able to understand that their history is not all of world history, their sensitivities are not the same as or even necessarily understood by everyone else, or that it is reasonable to expect that someone living in rural Australia would necessarily see a remark about "hooded vigilantes" as being capable of interpreted as being about the KKK, even were they to turn their mind to it, especially in a context where that is not at all what is being discussed. Like those famous cases who don't know what the word "niggardly" actually means and choose to be offended by it because of how it sounds. The wikipedia article about this is quite interesting.

I am just pleased to be on a forum where this sort of stuff does not often arise, because the real fights are about the important thing, DBA. There are plenty of forums where at least one KKK apologist would have popped up by now. Thank God this is not that forum.

Adrian

Kingo
11-13-2011, 05:30 PM
The sooner Phil gets his finger out and publishes 3 the better. :eek

larryessick
11-13-2011, 05:49 PM
Like those famous cases who don't know what the word "niggardly" actually means and choose to be offended by it because of how it sounds.

In defense of those who choose to be offended, use of the term with a US audience shows a serious lack of respect. Intentionally choosing words that can be misunderstood or give offense does nothing to further good will or understanding and acceptance.

While I would not and did not find the phrase "hooded vigilante" problematic, I would and did when I read "niggardly." It serves no purpose and does in fact elicit negative reactions among many. That Bob knew this when he wrote it is the only demonstrable evidence that such word choices should be avoided.

In this case it is not a false picture of the US being the center of the known world. It is a recognition that, knowing offense will likely be taken, it is better to choose an alternative.

Larry

pozanias
11-13-2011, 06:13 PM
I don't understand Larry, are you saying you are offended by a clearly non-offensive word just because it "sounds" offensive? Especially when Adrian (not Bob) was only using the word to make that exact point.

Bob Santamaria
11-13-2011, 08:04 PM
In defense of those who choose to be offended, use of the term with a US audience shows a serious lack of respect. Intentionally choosing words that can be misunderstood or give offense does nothing to further good will or understanding and acceptance.

While I would not and did not find the phrase "hooded vigilante" problematic, I would and did when I read "niggardly." It serves no purpose and does in fact elicit negative reactions among many. That Bob knew this when he wrote it is the only demonstrable evidence that such word choices should be avoided.

In this case it is not a false picture of the US being the center of the known world. It is a recognition that, knowing offense will likely be taken, it is better to choose an alternative.

Larry

I will not intentionally offend, but those who choose to be offended as a consequence of their own apparently invincible ignorance can look after themselves. I will not alter anything I do for their benefit.

I would be amazed if anyone other than a overly sensitive and more than usually insular American would have been offended by "hooded vigilantes". Thankfully that is not generally my experience of Americans.

The word "niggardly" does serve a purpose. Its purpose is to communicate its own meaning. In my case it served the purpose of illustrating a point - the point as I now express it is this - if people choose to be offended because they have a poor vocabulary that is their own problem and not that of others.

There is no possible rational defence of those who choose to be offended, especially where that choice is based on a mistake of fact and meaning.

Adrian

Redwilde
11-13-2011, 08:18 PM
Look, bunnies!
http://www.dailybunny.com/.a/6a00d8341bfd0953ef0147e3d8cca8970b-pi

peleset
11-13-2011, 08:23 PM
The sooner Phil gets his finger out and publishes 3 the better. :eek

Amen to that!
It also wouldn't hurt to get this thread back on topic too. Perhaps the gentlemen involved in improving international relations could take it to the blue fez:up

El' Jocko
11-13-2011, 09:15 PM
Look, bunnies!
http://www.dailybunny.com/.a/6a00d8341bfd0953ef0147e3d8cca8970b-pi

Ack! How insensitive to those leporiphobes who frequent this forum!!

- Anonymous

larryessick
11-13-2011, 10:57 PM
I don't understand Larry, are you saying you are offended by a clearly non-offensive word just because it "sounds" offensive? Especially when Adrian (not Bob) was only using the word to make that exact point.

You understood clearly. Yes, I find it offensive to intentionally use a word knowing that it is likely to cause offense -- especially when discussing things with the audience that is likely to be offended.

Apologies for referring to Bob. I went with the forum name not realizing it is not the actual name of the poster.

As for Adrian's later post, it isn't lack of intellect or paucity of vocabulary. It isn't even relevant that the root for the word isn't even connected. It is knowing that it is likely to be offensive and intentionally choosing to make use of the word when other synonyms (which are easily understood and which would not offend) are readily available.

Lastly, bunnies are for dinner. I like mine fried.

Larry

Bob Santamaria
11-13-2011, 11:41 PM
You understood clearly. Yes, I find it offensive to intentionally use a word knowing that it is likely to cause offense -- especially when discussing things with the audience that is likely to be offended.

Apologies for referring to Bob. I went with the forum name not realizing it is not the actual name of the poster.

As for Adrian's later post, it isn't lack of intellect or paucity of vocabulary. It isn't even relevant that the root for the word isn't even connected. It is knowing that it is likely to be offensive and intentionally choosing to make use of the word when other synonyms (which are easily understood and which would not offend) are readily available.

Lastly, bunnies are for dinner. I like mine fried.

Larry

There is a difference between using it intentionally to offend, and using it correctly. If the former, the problem is not the word, it is the intention to offend on racial grounds. If the latter, I will not bow to people's false sensitivities. A word does not become off limits because it sounds like something else people don't want to hear. Just because there are synonyms does not mean it ought to be avoided because people are precious and ignorant at the same time.

And to top it off, rabbit is terrible fried, it gets far too tough. It needs to be made into casserole or pie.

dbawilliam
11-14-2011, 01:01 AM
Something for my new found Australian friends....from an Aussie....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw

Bob Santamaria
11-14-2011, 01:15 AM
look up Tim Minchin "Storm" it is great

dbawilliam
11-14-2011, 01:24 AM
look up Tim Minchin "Storm" it is great

Yes, and I also like "Dark Side"...

larryessick
11-14-2011, 07:45 AM
Just because there are synonyms does not mean it ought to be avoided because people are precious and ignorant at the same time.

And to top it off, rabbit is terrible fried, it gets far too tough. It needs to be made into casserole or pie.

Who is more ignorant, the man who knows many words for the same thing and uses only the one likely to offend all the while holding others in contempt for their lack of education or the person who knows few words and is offended through his lack of knowledge?

As for rabbit, you probably eat wild bunnies whereas those we get are raised just for the purpose of munching.

Phil Bagnall
11-14-2011, 08:22 AM
Ok, feel the need to say my bit & ask you guys to draw this to a close. Personally I didn't think for a minute when I saw "hooded vigilantes" that it referred to anything like dbawilliam has said - and that's with me having a wife who teaches (in the UK) 20th century American history at secondary school level and so I'm much more aware of the history of race and evils such as the KKK than most over here. Numerous other posts from US members have said the same thing. Thus I can see that no offence was intended from the original use in the thread. Likewise Larry has taken "niggardly" to have been use offensively, whereas I only saw it used in a reasonable context of its proper meaning of picky & fussy, and although it can sound like a racist comment if you don't know the word I can't see any evidence that it was used on purpose in this thread with that in mind. It just goes to show that culture, politics etc impinge on the way all of us read &react to comments. I recently found myself angry when a comment was made to a Moslem work colleague by a patient that I thought was abusive to her faith but she thought far less of it than I did and felt she hadnt been offended. So we decided to let the issue go, and I think that's what is now overdue here. Semantics are all well & good, my reading of the comments in the thread are that the terms were not used expecting to cause this reaction and the objections to them are now understood well enough. Perhaps we can now return to wargaming matters and remember that all of us find offence in comments at times, often coloured by personal experience that others will not have encountered, let's be sure to respect each other as much as we can & agree on the big things

Derek de Villiers
11-14-2011, 08:55 AM
Hello
At last some sense returns to this thread...
I find myself in broad agreement with the previous posting by Phil Bagnall.
I would add that I find that the repeated criticism of the Barkers is over the top. Rather get back to wargaming.
Kind Regards
Derek

Rong
11-14-2011, 09:02 AM
Don't Touch the Bunnies, way too cute!:up

kontos
11-14-2011, 09:10 AM
So, to sum this all up, miserly Ewoks eating hares is offensive. Really?

Some people need to get a life. While they're at it, they can play 3.0.

3.0. Now that is offensive!

Rong
11-14-2011, 09:54 AM
Weren't those Ewoks Bob posted a pic of ???? :rotfl

dbawilliam
11-14-2011, 11:51 AM
Ok, feel the need to say my bit & ask you guys to draw this to a close. Personally I didn't think for a minute when I saw "hooded vigilantes" that it referred to anything like dbawilliam has said - and that's with me having a wife who teaches (in the UK) 20th century American history at secondary school level and so I'm much more aware of the history of race and evils such as the KKK than most over here. Numerous other posts from US members have said the same thing. Thus I can see that no offence was intended from the original use in the thread. Likewise Larry has taken "niggardly" to have been use offensively, whereas I only saw it used in a reasonable context of its proper meaning of picky & fussy, and although it can sound like a racist comment if you don't know the word I can't see any evidence that it was used on purpose in this thread with that in mind. It just goes to show that culture, politics etc impinge on the way all of us read &react to comments. I recently found myself angry when a comment was made to a Moslem work colleague by a patient that I thought was abusive to her faith but she thought far less of it than I did and felt she hadnt been offended. So we decided to let the issue go, and I think that's what is now overdue here. Semantics are all well & good, my reading of the comments in the thread are that the terms were not used expecting to cause this reaction and the objections to them are now understood well enough. Perhaps we can now return to wargaming matters and remember that all of us find offence in comments at times, often coloured by personal experience that others will not have encountered, let's be sure to respect each other as much as we can & agree on the big things

Phil, I agree this should end as well. I just want to point out that Mike Guth was the original poster who objected to the language and was jumped on by other posters. I still believe he was right, and with all due respect to your wife's teaching US History in the UK, one of my PhD's is in American History (joint program at Princeton and Rutgers), and I believe I know whereof I speak. I think that anyone who did not grow up in the 1950's and 1960's and see the tremendous sacrifice by people in the US to drive the Civil Rights movement to the forefront of the zeitgeist of the US culture, probably WOULDN'T get the KKK reference. I did a quick survey of highly educated colleagues of mine here in the US. Out of 40 asked about "saddled up hooded vigilantes" 32 came up with the KKK. 3 said "I don't know" and 5 said "get out of here you strange man" (or something like that).
Here's my final "hands across the sea" gesture to end this amicably...I hereby offer to buy a beer for Africanus, Bob, and yes, even Larry, if we should meet at a convention sometime and we can in the meantime just agree to disagree....as another poster on this thread has said "Let's get back to gaming" (anyway trashing anything that Phil Barker has to say has WAY more entertainment value than what has gone on here...:) )

teenage visigoth
11-14-2011, 12:16 PM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Uyhhk65eeG0/TsE-xvEb4KI/AAAAAAAAA-g/GOYZIlACxug/s300/audience.gif

michael guth
11-14-2011, 12:41 PM
The original comment was an accusation that members of the community are acting as some sort of secretive, conspiratorial kabaal engaging in either immoral or illegal activities. I assert that this is untrue. The debate over proposed mechanisms in DBA 3.0 has been anything but secretive. The alleged conspirators are well known, down to their email addresses. I am one of them. Others were, and some of them are playtesters for Phil Barker himself.

I know that some playtesters have a veritable catalog of examples of mechanisms of DBA 3.0 going astray in terms of game balance and playability. I think it would be helpful to see these examples in the forums. I believe it would elevate the level of debate.

The latest version of the rules posted at Fall In contained the statement that increasing board size to 30 inches as done by some Americans increases the number of drawn games. I allege that this is untrue, is unnecessarily nationalistic, and a waste of line space in the rules. My only drawn game in 3years on a thirty inch board occurred because my opponent and I were rolling good dice.

The phrase 'a MA degree' sounds peculiar to me, while the phrase 'a degree' sounds fine. Does anyone on the forum have a MA degree in English?

Mike Guth

larryessick
11-14-2011, 01:33 PM
Likewise Larry has taken "niggardly" to have been use offensively, whereas I only saw it used in a reasonable context of its proper meaning of picky & fussy, and although it can sound like a racist comment if you don't know the word I can't see any evidence that it was used on purpose in this thread with that in mind.

Really? I think you're being willfully ignorant since Adrian's exact words were:

Like those famous cases who don't know what the word "niggardly" actually means and choose to be offended by it because of how it sounds.

He obviously knew that its use is regularly deemed offensive and chose to use it anyways. I find that in the US the word is only ever used in this context -- in an effort to establish some false image of intellectual superiority while simultaneously shocking and annoying a portion of the audience.

It isn't that educated Americans do not know the word or its meaning. It is that we are cognizant of the impact it has on others and consider the impact before choosing our words. Stingy has the same meaning in most context without any of the potentially objectionable overtones and is less pretentious.

Does anyone on the forum have a MA degree in English?

American English, British English or some other? ;)

Another opportunity for pretentiousness as many will assert there is only one English. They, of course, are wrong. But, that will make no difference.

To nitpick a MA as opposed to an MA also denies the ever changing character of the language. I, for one, find it very troublesome to read pleaded not guilty rather than pled not guilty. However, my learned rule concerning the past tense of plead has been replaced by the rather awful sounding pleaded.

Complaining is pointless as pleaded has taken over in print throughout the US. Similarly, a MA might sound incorrect to those who pronounce M and feel that it should be treated in writing as em. Those who see it as a consonant will preface with a and I suspect that this is becoming the norm in most writing.

Finally, as to bashing Phil and Sue Barker -- well, most of it is self inflicted and deserved.

Larry

Xavi
11-14-2011, 01:43 PM
OK, after rweading 8 pages of a thread not related to DBA or the development of DBA 3.0 in the slŮightest I would like to say the following things:

1. KKK was bad. A pitty it exist. AFAIK they do no longer burn people and none of the americans I know are even symathetic to them. I would not call any americans KKK. Amen to that. Move along.

2. Phil tells us DBNA is simple. It is. That is a GOOD thing in my experience. So I feel really happy he says hit will remain so.

3. I expect Sue's guide to be a good thing as well. The more stuff we get, the merrier!!

If either DBA3.0 or the guide sucks, it will be ignored. I can fairly strongly say that the DBA community in Spain is active, strong and fairly capable of editing 2.2 with hourse rules to fit our criteria of "improvement" using the changes we like on the 3.0 version of the game. Right now, wait and see.

Besides from that, I find name calling to be something disgusting in person. the internet is no different here.

Have fun and remember to watch some porn or monty python if you are stressed. If you are at work, the monty python option tends to be more easily justified

Cheers,
Xavi

teenage visigoth
11-14-2011, 02:07 PM
(snip)
Have fun and remember to watch some porn or monty python if you are stressed. If you are at work, the monty python option tends to be more easily justified

Cheers,
Xavi

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ksrPJQL_9kw/TgygmT1arXI/AAAAAAAAA3A/FCMZljtIGLE/s460/intrigued_chimp.jpg

larryessick
11-14-2011, 02:30 PM
Back on topic, it was noted on the Yahoo list that Sue has withdrawn Ch 3 from the list of sample chapters.

As to chapters 1 and 2, does anyone here think the advice given is sufficient to justify buying a hard-bound copy rather than the soft-bound rules? IMO the advice on figure selection (choose plastic) and painting is so elementary that it has no value. Likewise, the advice on terrain building is rudimentary at the very best.

How can the Barkers do better? My advice would be to publish the rules with commentary along the margins illustrating how, when and why to apply the rules. This format has been used for a long time by Bible commentators to provide insight (rightly or wrongly) into Biblical events. Sue's running commentary about the game being played between brother and sister (which change she should make if the game is intended to appeal to both genders -- which it obviously does to some extent) provides the back drop.

With regards to painting and terrain advice, there should be recognition of the varying degrees that wargamers associate with these tasks. Even I, in my incompetence, recognize "painted so that I'm allowed to play" vs "painted to the best of my ability" vs "painted by someone that knows something about painting."

The same applies to terrain making. There is "good enough to indicate something is there" vs "my artistic (or lack thereof) representation" vs "OMG that looks like the real thing."

Any incompetent can achieve either of the first two categories. I do, that's how I know it is possible.

Guides that lead us forward from the least functional to the most are what provide added value. As I've noted elsewhere, compare any Games Workshop publication for examples. If the Barkers want to publish a hard-bound copy with the extra material in it then they should recognize the competition they face and at least match -- preferably exceed -- the information presented there.

I'm constantly impressed by the modifications and modeling demonstrated over on the HOTT side of these forums. It is that kind of skill that a guide should be trying to instill in us.

Larry

Bob Santamaria
11-14-2011, 06:10 PM
3.0. Now that is offensive!

I thought we were meant to avoid controversial remarks!

Bob Santamaria
11-14-2011, 06:15 PM
Really? I think you're being willfully ignorant since Adrian's exact words were:



He obviously knew that its use is regularly deemed offensive and chose to use it anyways. I find that in the US the word is only ever used in this context -- in an effort to establish some false image of intellectual superiority while simultaneously shocking and annoying a portion of the audience.

It isn't that educated Americans do not know the word or its meaning. It is that we are cognizant of the impact it has on others and consider the impact before choosing our words. Stingy has the same meaning in most context without any of the potentially objectionable overtones and is less pretentious.



American English, British English or some other? ;)

Another opportunity for pretentiousness as many will assert there is only one English. They, of course, are wrong. But, that will make no difference.

To nitpick a MA as opposed to an MA also denies the ever changing character of the language. I, for one, find it very troublesome to read pleaded not guilty rather than pled not guilty. However, my learned rule concerning the past tense of plead has been replaced by the rather awful sounding pleaded.

Complaining is pointless as pleaded has taken over in print throughout the US. Similarly, a MA might sound incorrect to those who pronounce M and feel that it should be treated in writing as em. Those who see it as a consonant will preface with a and I suspect that this is becoming the norm in most writing.

Finally, as to bashing Phil and Sue Barker -- well, most of it is self inflicted and deserved.

Larry

I didn't use it to be offensive at all. I used it to make a point, and took it as a well known example of people being offended because of their own stupidity rather than for any good reason.

I am happy to stop this because of the requests to do so, but the characterisation of my original point is incorrect. I have no interest in using racially offensive language.

I also used it to make a secondary point, that the USA is not the whole world.

I have a BA(Hons) in English, but I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

Rong
11-14-2011, 06:19 PM
But the Bunnies were cute!! :2up Thanks Redwilde !

Bob Santamaria
11-14-2011, 06:27 PM
But the Bunnies were cute!! :2up Thanks Redwilde !

And it is true we do tend to eat wild not farmed rabbit in Australia. Farmed rabbit is available, but very expensive and looked down on. The farming or keeping of rabbits in most of Australia is very heavily legally restricted, basically because they are vermin. You may keep them as pets in urban areas, but in rural areas need a permit. When my younger sisters got pet rabbits my rural dwelling aunt asked if we wanted her husband to "deal with them" for us.

Rong
11-14-2011, 06:38 PM
No no no no,,,, Don't Touch the Bunnies. rascally rabbits and hares, ok. :rotfl
OK now to the point, played 3.0, did not like 3.0. :eek Big shocker there.

winterbadger
11-14-2011, 06:45 PM
Wow! I miss a couple of days of reading the forum, and a whole juicy flamewar erupts and dies before I can even get in my obligatory half-dozen posts of outrage. :D

FWIW, "hooded vigilantes" just made me think of the stupid teenagers that tried to rob my friend Richard in Aberdeen (or was it Alloa?) "Bald Knobber" sounds like a contestant on Zap Brannigan's new "Sex Wrestling" show. "Niggardly" is a perfectly good word that only offends those who are constantly looking for something to get offended about. And "pled" has been regarded by lexicographers on both sides of the Atlantic as an obsolete usage beloved only by American lawyers since at least the 1890s. (Ah, those American lawyers...)

Finally, while Canadians are ever so polite when they rip out your spleen, the huge gaping hole they leave in your torso with their nickel-plated spleen hooks is quite likely to kill you even if the loss of your spleen doesn't...

El' Jocko
11-14-2011, 07:03 PM
Wow! I miss a couple of days of reading the forum, and a whole juicy flamewar erupts and dies before I can even get in my obligatory half-dozen posts of outrage. :D



I don't want you to feel left out. So I'll complain that you're a dirty, rotten scoundrel for using the same avatar as dbawilliam. It confuses the heck out of me. So there!

- Anonymous

Bob Santamaria
11-14-2011, 07:16 PM
No no no no,,,, Don't Touch the Bunnies. rascally rabbits and hares, ok. :rotfl
OK now to the point, played 3.0, did not like 3.0. :eek Big shocker there.

More detail? What did you not like?

winterbadger
11-14-2011, 07:25 PM
I don't want you to feel left out. So I'll complain that you're a dirty, rotten scoundrel for using the same avatar as dbawilliam. It confuses the heck out of me. So there!

- Anonymous

Thank you, mysterious person who I have no idea who you are! I feel included now. :D

I switched to Henry VIII because (a) someone else started using the avatar that I liked and had been using, which then confused *me* and (b) I *look* rather like HVIII. But I'd hate to get someone whose nickname is "Butcher" upset, so I will *sigh* switch again. Because I'm just all sweetness and light. :p

(Besides, it confuses me too...)

Doug
11-14-2011, 09:09 PM
Well, "hooded vigilantes" emphatically evokes the imagery I've described and does so to anyone who has read anything about post-Civil War race relations in the United States. Your comment indicates you (a) have not read much about the topic referenced above, (b) are not from the U.S. or (c) are an apologist for racist movements like the KKK. Which is it ?

Outside the US the phrase 'hooded vigilantes' does not automatically evoke the KKK, it is more likely to evoke a group of Marvel Superheroes!

I am pretty sure you guys are reading an offence that was in no way intended, and certainly I didn't make the leap to the KKK when I first read the comment.

Doug
11-14-2011, 09:20 PM
The original comment was an accusation that members of the community are acting as some sort of secretive, conspiratorial kabaal engaging in either immoral or illegal activities. I assert that this is untrue. The debate over proposed mechanisms in DBA 3.0 has been anything but secretive. The alleged conspirators are well known, down to their email addresses. I am one of them. Others were, and some of them are playtesters for Phil Barker himself.

I know that some playtesters have a veritable catalog of examples of mechanisms of DBA 3.0 going astray in terms of game balance and playability. I think it would be helpful to see these examples in the forums. I believe it would elevate the level of debate.

The latest version of the rules posted at Fall In contained the statement that increasing board size to 30 inches as done by some Americans increases the number of drawn games. I allege that this is untrue, is unnecessarily nationalistic, and a waste of line space in the rules. My only drawn game in 3years on a thirty inch board occurred because my opponent and I were rolling good dice.

The phrase 'a MA degree' sounds peculiar to me, while the phrase 'a degree' sounds fine. Does anyone on the forum have a MA degree in English?

Mike Guth


Edinburgh University (for example) grants both BA (Bachelor of Arts) and MA (Master of Arts) degrees. BA is a 3 year, and MA a 4 year, MA are commonly joint and are described as Honours courses.

So I did the Joint Honours English and Philosophy MA at Edinburgh University.

For my sins, I now work in Aviation Safety...

El' Jocko
11-14-2011, 09:55 PM
I switched to Henry VIII because (a) someone else started using the avatar that I liked and had been using, which then confused *me* and (b) I *look* rather like HVIII.

if Henry II was the Lion in Winter, which king was the Badger in Winter?

-Still Anonymous

dicemanrick
11-14-2011, 11:58 PM
I liked the bunnies, but am not sure about the hooded guys or the niggardly bit (/sarc off except for the bunny part):D

Rich Gause
11-15-2011, 01:02 AM
I love bunnies! Yum yum yum....................

Rong
11-15-2011, 10:39 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.

Bobgnar
11-15-2011, 07:31 PM
I know what you mean, I really hated 2.0 over 1.1. For all the same reasons but after a while it grew on me. I just wanted clarifications for that earlier game. Some people still play 1.1.

There was a guy writing for Battlegames who wrote in April, 2011
"My preferred version of DBA is version 1.1 which was
published in 1995, so Iíve just plugged away with that; when
new versions of the rules come out, I take a look to see whatís
changed, and use or ignore these amendments as required to
give me an enjoyable game."

By the way, there will never be a DBA 2.3. Folks can certainly make all the home rules they want to modify DBA 2.2, but not really take over the name of DBA.

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.

Xavi
11-15-2011, 07:42 PM
I can write a rulebook called Direct Brutal Assault (or Dice, Beer and Apricots, or even Designing Beetle Antlers ) and call it DBA no problem. Name is not an issue, really. ;) DBA 2.3 is quite feasible, really. DBA 2.2 + widely accepted house rules in a tourney circuit and there you go :) The "problem" is getting enough people to like the same house rules, since everybody and his cat has his ideas on what needs to be changed, besides removing BUAs and rivers from the book altogether.

Xavi

David Schlanger
11-16-2011, 10:44 AM
I know what you mean, I really hated 2.0 over 1.1. For all the same reasons but after a while it grew on me. I just wanted clarifications for that earlier game.


That's very interesting Bob. I remember you being very supportive of the release of DBA 2.0 at that time. Similar to what we have seen from you now with 3.0. Does this mean you hate DBA 3.0 too?

DS

Richard Lee
11-16-2011, 11:03 AM
The "problem" is getting enough people to like the same house rules, since everybody and his cat has his ideas on what needs to be changed, besides removing BUAs and rivers from the book altogether.

My cat would prefer DBA v2.3 to have live mice running across the table, but expresses no opinion about BUAs or rivers. On the other hand, I would like BUAs to just be considered inpassable terrain and would not be unhappy if rivers were left out of the rules. On the other hand, I wouldn't like live mice running across the table.:D

Bobgnar
11-16-2011, 11:21 AM
That's very interesting Bob. I remember you being very supportive of the release of DBA 2.0 at that time. Similar to what we have seen from you now with 3.0. Does this mean you hate DBA 3.0 too?
DS
My only concerns about the game are

1. to do my best to convince Phil to listen to his user community, so I have conveyed to him every suggestion and comment made in this group, for 2, 2.2, and now 3. For example, for 2, I argued against BUAs from the very first draft I saw and until Roads were added as an option. For 3, I argued long after others quit for the 30" board to be officially allowed, even though I am personally happy with the 2 foot one. I argued until I was told to just stop it for the current 2.2 measurement and I continue to argue for 1.5 BW moves for Heavy foot (and 1/2 less for all types).

My father once told me that it is pretty useless to argue with someone who has made up his mind. Better to stay on good terms and work for compromise.

2. To do my best to get the wording of whatever is included to be clear so not needing questions after publication. I have no personal investment in any rule, they are just rules. I do want them to be simple, clear and playable.

I typically do not use the terms "love" or "hate" when thinking of games that I play as those are much too serious terms to apply to pastimes. I was mistaken to say " I really hated 2.0 over 1.1." That was for effect. I should have said, " preferred 1.1 over 2." Thanks for bringing that mistake to my attention.

I would prefer to play 1.1 with just a few clarifications. I played 2.2 as it was still enjoyable and gave a good game. I will play 3.0 as I understand it, it is enjoyable, and gives a good game (but different from 2.2). It has some interesting new rules and clarifies many things from 1.1 and 2.n.

david kuijt
11-16-2011, 12:19 PM
On the other hand, I would like BUAs to just be considered impassable terrain

Impassable terrain on the edge of the table, like Waterways, not impinging on the size of the battlefield. Allowing huge scope for modelling, but not turning the whole game into a very poor simulation of BUA-siege-and-treachery warfare. Perfect.

El' Jocko
11-16-2011, 02:34 PM
Impassable terrain on the edge of the table, like Waterways, not impinging on the size of the battlefield. Allowing huge scope for modelling, but not turning the whole game into a very poor simulation of BUA-siege-and-treachery warfare. Perfect.

I even have the wording all worked out:

A defending army who's historical home topography is Arable must include a BUA. The BUA must be placed off the board, in side edge contact. Neither troop elements nor camp followers may be placed in the BUA. The BUA does not restrict the movement of friendly or enemy elements and does not modify combat in its vicinity. The BUA is lost if the defending army is defeated.

Note that this saves considerable space over the current BUA rules and makes room for a diagram or two.

- Jack

Lobotomy
11-16-2011, 10:01 PM
I even have the wording all worked out:



Note that this saves considerable space over the current BUA rules and makes room for a diagram or two.

- Jack

Butcher,

You are a first class rules writer!!! :2up

Pillager
12-25-2011, 09:27 AM
"I like the charming part in the example of play where the people playing are a teenage boy and his younger sister."

That's what we call "marketing", John. To be accurate, the example of play should be two overweight, sedentary men in their fifties with facial hair.

One point in DBA's favor is that there is no need to stand up and lean over the table; hence eliminating cases of "butt-crack blindness" in onlookers