PDA

View Full Version : DBA3.0 posted on DBA Yahoo Group


elliesdad
12-10-2011, 05:11 PM
Hi,

Sue has posted the pdf of DBA3.0 in the files section of the DBA Yahoo Group.
Here's your chance to see what it's all about...

Geoff - "elliesdad".

Bobgnar
12-10-2011, 05:21 PM
But don't open it unless you will playtest it. I think Phil wants this test on a standard 2 foot board. He is trying to get rid of the need for larger ones.

I assume people are free to read and comment here, however :)

Sue wrote
Here's your chance to join in the testing of DBA version 3.0

This version has some changes designed to prevent people deploying in a long line from edge to edge of the battlefield. Phil would like people to play test games and report on how successful this is. If it seems satisfactory it will probable be included. If not, he will think again and try something else.

Please play games and report on the results. He doesn't want people to read and comment without trying it.

best wishes,
Sue


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/files/DBA3.0%20Dec%205th%202011.pdf

David Brown
12-10-2011, 05:39 PM
Great to see it in public full view.

Will have to get into it mid-week.

db

Bobgnar
12-10-2011, 06:36 PM
Hi All
At last a chance for everyone to get a look.

May I ask a favor. As the US DBA umpire I have had one primary goal over the last year of reviewing the new game. I do not have (tried not to have) any personal preferences for rules, I do not care how moves are made, who supports whom, how things work, whatever. It is a game to play so I try not get emotionally involved.

What I have been trying to do is make the rules clear and understandable. So what I would like is for people to send to me whatever they find that is still NOT clear. You may not like a rule but if you understand it, then argue with others about it. I have also tried to convey to the Authors my constituents likes and dislikes, but now I put that aside as every one can now jump in.

But, please send along whatever questions you have on what something means. Just send along to me directly. I will get back if I think you might have missed something, and I will report those issues that are sustained.

Thanks much, I hope that as an Umpire, I will have many fewer things to rule on in the future :)

Bob
beattie at umich dot edu

guthroth
12-10-2011, 06:42 PM
It souhnds churlish to say this, but I wish these had been posted 24 hours ago.

There were 22 people at the PAWS tournament today who didn't get into the playoffs, and we could have had a great time with these. You could possibly have had 22 battle reports by now.

Pete - now looking for some games over Christmas ...

john meunier
12-10-2011, 07:20 PM
Great to see the rules posted and shared.

I will certainly try to spend some time with them over the Christmas holiday.

Martyn
12-10-2011, 07:53 PM
Great, Christmas has come early, thanks Sue if you are reading this. :up

Now I can see for myself what the real issues are rather than have it all second hand and piecemeal.

Alan Saunders
12-10-2011, 09:56 PM
Phil's obviously not aware of people who have red/green colour blindness then :)

david kuijt
12-11-2011, 12:07 AM
May I ask a favor. As the US DBA umpire [....]

Hi Bob,

There is no US DBA umpire; you are the DBA Chief Umpire for NASAMW. NASAMW has historically been the largest umbrella organization for Ancients miniature gaming, but it is certainly not the only one -- I'm not sure any NASAMW-controlled events are held west of the Pennsylvania/Ohio border, although I could be wrong. Certainly GLADBAG sees NASAMW as a sibling organization, not an overarching structure that has any influence beyond friendly request or persuasion over them.

The DBA part of NASAMW is still working fairly well; I think there are NASAMW DBA events up and down the East Coast. The rest of NASAMW is nearly moribund, sadly; in the last four or five years they have stopped having a NASAMW organizational table and banner and stuff even at Historicon, Cold Wars, and Fall In. Their website is never updated, and their officers (save for Dave Schlanger) have become more and more inactive.

None of which is to say I don't support your efforts to increase clarity -- I'm just pointing out your authority comes from an organization that doesn't cover the whole continent, and that organization seems to be in the process of slowly dissolving. I wish it wasn't the case -- but the last three or four years NASAMW's main use for the DBA community has been acting as a buffer between the Convention organizational staff and the tournament organizers (like myself). And without Dave Schlanger, most of that wouldn't have gone very well.

Stephen Webb
12-11-2011, 02:43 AM
Now we can raise issues based on what the rules say, rather than what we fear they say.

I am sure I will be playing quite a few games of v3.0 from now on, to try them out.

Sue: Thank you for allowing us to look at the new edition, before it is published.

Richard Lee
12-11-2011, 03:24 AM
I am expecting one of my friends to come for a wargame this afternoon. Had intended to do DBN today, but may see if he is up for trying DBA v3.0. If we do play DBA v3 then I will probably post something on the Yahoo group, and perhaps here.

Kingo
12-11-2011, 03:25 AM
Brill:D
Thanks Sue

Victor
12-11-2011, 04:02 AM
Can't wait to have some games now & we can judge for ourselves. Thanks Sue.

David Constable
12-11-2011, 05:53 AM
Might I remind people that the comments were requested on played games only, not on reading.

Might I also suggest that you add army list information and composition.

My IV/13c is s**t as far as I can see, not checked the rest yet.

David Constable

Haardrada
12-11-2011, 07:05 AM
What is the logic behind only allowing supported pike +1 against Knights only?

So the supperiority clearly demonstrated by Phillips' phalanx at Chaeronea (for example) counts for nothing and Sp in single rank is supperior to pike, the lessons learned from Epameinondas count for nothing in DBA? Have a word with yourselves!

It is established fact supported by countless military historians and littery support that pike phalanxes were supperior if not equal to any foot if on open ground and faced frontally. The Romans defeated them on broken ground or attacked them in flank. I suggest the victories by warbands were by the same method.

Alan Saunders
12-11-2011, 07:44 AM
What is the logic behind only allowing supported pike +1 against Knights only?



And so it begins ...

nick hux
12-11-2011, 09:07 AM
What is the logic behind only allowing supported pike +1 against Knights only?
...

Not only have you not play tested the rules - you haven't even read them!

Pikes add +3 ... when in frontal close combat against enemy foot...

Haardrada
12-11-2011, 10:39 AM
oops! Sorry guys saw it and the red mist decended.lol

larryessick
12-11-2011, 10:47 AM
May I ask a favor. As the US DBA umpire....

It is entirely true that HMGS is the largest historical miniatures organization in the US. NASAMW is the largest focusing exclusively on ancients and medievals. That NASAMW is in decline and has been for 10 years or more is also not debatable.

However, NASAMW is the only US organization with membership in the IWF. As such it is viewed by the international community as representing US interests in the ancient and medieval wargaming community. Whether it does so or not is a separate issue as is the import and effectiveness of the IWF itself.

Bob's dedication to the rules has not been parochial and has not been restricted to NASAMW. His work and efforts are recognized throughout the US and the rest of the world regardless of organizational affiliation.

Bob is as the near to "the US DBA umpire" as any person can be as a result. He certainly has been the focal point for DBA rules in the US since they were first published and is one of a small handful of people who have remained dedicated to the task over the course of many years.

For a poster to have faulted Bob for his choice of words shines a bright light on their personal pettiness and ignorance. It also slights Bob for his tremendous and unselfish efforts through many years.

david kuijt
12-11-2011, 12:06 PM
For a poster to have faulted Bob for his choice of words shines a bright light on their personal pettiness and ignorance. It also slights Bob for his tremendous and unselfish efforts through many years.

Larry, it would be really useful if you only talked about stuff where your knowledge was recent and relevant. The IWF is completely irrelevant for DBA, and has never been relevant -- when the IWF was held in Alexandria, it ended up having no DBA component of note. And this is in the heartbed of HMGS East and NASAMW -- most of the NASAMW officers live within an hour's drive.

Bob has been one of the tireless supporters of DBA in the USA for a very long time. In the 90s nobody was as important for creating and supporting the DBA community. But in the last five years many other people have put in as much work as Bob has -- Mike Demana and others in GLADBAG, Paul Hannah in the Pacific Northwest, Roland Fricke in the NorthEast, Dave Schlanger in the DC area. And myself. Plus dozens of other major contributors -- Tony Aguilar, Will Michaels, Marty Schmidt, and so on. Do you know all of these people? Do you know any of these people? If you don't know them, that's because you have only recently become active in the DBA community in the USA, and you should refrain from stating opinions on it. And if you haven't played in any of the hundred or so tournaments I've run in the main NASAMW area in the last decade (which you have not), then you should not make any comment at all about my relationship with Bob -- which has always been one of mutual respect, even when we disagree.

Kingo
12-11-2011, 12:39 PM
If I read the rules correctly, Phil has "Knackered" my Sch, no second move into contact and +3 V Foot.:eek

Kingo

john meunier
12-11-2011, 01:57 PM
And so it begins ...

I can feel the pitter patter of rain as the orcs chant outside the gates of Helms Deep.

Xavi
12-11-2011, 03:00 PM
DK, I would like to politely ask you to center your efforts in improving DBA3.0 f any, not in demolishing the authority of one of the biggest supporters of DBA out there. You are a big supporter of DBA as well, but I would never start pissing on your face for being onjly a mere writer of the unofficial guide and massive tournament organizer.

People does not care as much about what the hell Bob is formally, but it tends to support him for what he does. Same for you. For biitching out there is a whole off topic section in the forum.

Thank you very much.


Now, regarding Bob's request.

- despite not being a word or page count (Sue's words) the page rules are EXACTRLY the same as in DBA 2.2. The text is still in strict berkerese and the rules could do with some graphic help in the pages. I m sure there are quite a few people that are "not photoshop challenged" in Fanaticus and the wider DBA communities (there are certainly quite a few of those in the Spanish community) that would be willing to help here.

Since it is a blanket statement I do not think that the text will be much ammended, nor changed to make it more accessible, but I thought it was worth puting it forward :) There are certainlty nice additions in green through the text that clarify quite a few things, and I appreciate the effort.

I also noticed that there is a caustic comment when it comes to board sizes in page 2 that basically is saying "the WADBAG guys suck big time" in other words. I would remove such a stastement of 30" being used in the US only (we use it in Spain as well, even if not all the time) and the fact that this implies more draws since that statement is simply and demostrably false. The biggest ammount of draws I have seen happens in Italy, where they play in 24" boards exclusively.

I would also remove the reference to DBA as a tournament game, myself, but hey.



Contacting rules would appreciate some carification. As I understand them right now, you cannot close the door anymore, and 2 elements in your flank (you ar eij their ZOC, or DZ, as it is now called) cannot chage you in the flank as a group move if part of the element nearer you crosses the extension of your imaginary front line and it does not cross the side

So, as I understand it, the 2 red Ax elements cannot attack the 2 Cv group in the side ?
http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee490/xavireke/DBA/flankattack.png


Cheers,
Xavi

david kuijt
12-11-2011, 03:25 PM
DK, I would like to politely ask you to center your efforts in improving DBA3.0 f any, not in demolishing the authority of one of the biggest supporters of DBA out there. You are a big supporter of DBA as well, but I would never start pissing on your face for being onjly a mere writer of the unofficial guide and massive tournament organizer.

People does not care as much about what the hell Bob is formally, but it tends to support him for what he does. Same for you. For biitching out there is a whole off topic section in the forum.

Thank you very much.


I'm glad you wouldn't piss on my face, Xavi -- that would be disturbing on many levels!

Bob has lots of Authority, Xavi -- and lots of credibility. He is the NASAMW Chief Umpire. But as you've been reading over the last four or five years, NASAMW doesn't have authority over the whole USA, and when it claims to do so, several regions that are completely autonomous are (rightfully) offended. If you claimed to be the DBA spokesman for Europe, I'm sure people in France and Italy might wonder about it -- even though you are a fine person and a fine spokesman for DBA. The center of authority for NASAMW, where most of their activity is and has always been, is in HMGS-East, which is a region covering more or less from Virginia to Boston and Ontario (correct me if I'm wrong about Ontario, Will M.) only going as far as Pennsylvania. In other words, the urban NorthEast US. Other parts of the USA and Canada with active DBA organize it completely independently from the NASAMW umbrella, either as parts of HMGS (but not HMGS-East) or not.



I also noticed that there is a caustic comment when it comes to board sizes in page 2 that basically is saying "the WADBAG guys suck big time" in other words.


Hehe...


I would remove such a stastement of 30" being used in the US only (we use it in Spain as well, even if not all the time) and the fact that this implies more draws since that statement is simply and demostrably false.

You're not the first one to say that -- Doug Melville (from Australia) and others of the commentary group (me, back when I was part of it, DS, more recently, and others) have told Phil the same, both about 30" not being purely US, and about more draws on the 30" being completely delusional.


The biggest ammount of draws I have seen happens in Italy, where they play in 24" boards exclusively.


Interesting.

Bobgnar
12-11-2011, 04:24 PM
If I read the rules correctly, Phil has "Knackered" my Sch, no second move into contact and +3 V Foot.:eek

Kingo

I feel the pain, once my favorite War Wagons were +4, +5

But the good news is that SCh now move as fast as Light Horse and still destroy heavy foot by just beating them, and do not count as lost element. Oh, they are now destroyed if doubled by Artillery in close combat :(

teenage visigoth
12-11-2011, 04:26 PM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5V46XRzMKjw/TuURlq4X58I/AAAAAAAABCA/VRnsMu6lPGE/s476/popcorn1.jpg

I'm making popcorn. This one will go on for a while.

-tv

ps: about time.

Kingo
12-11-2011, 04:36 PM
I feel the pain, once my favorite War Wagons were +4, +5

But the good news is that SCh now move as fast as Light Horse and still destroy heavy foot by just beating them, and do not count as lost element. Oh, they are now destroyed if doubled by Artillery in close combat :(

To be fair I think the 2.2 rules for Sch were a bit "Micky mouse":D

Bobgnar
12-11-2011, 04:37 PM
Thanks for the comments. Text is still Barkerese but don]t you think it is better than 2.2? Note that the Table of Contents says there will be Diagrams!

It is nice that Phil toned down his comment on 30" boards,I asked for even more, but does it matter, people got what they wanted. I missed the tournament text, will ask for expansion. DBA is not just for tournaments, anymore :)

You can still close the door, from overlap to flank as the move distances have increased.

The Ax can attack the Cav as I read it, but if you do not agree then there is a problem. The Ax are already on the flank of the Cv. The left most Cv cannot attack the Ax on the flank, if it had the distance. If you start past the flank edge, you can attack the flank and same for rear. Take another look at the rule and let me know what you think.

Thanks






Now, regarding Bob's request.

- despite not being a word or page count (Sue's words) the page rules are EXACTRLY the same as in DBA 2.2. The text is still in strict berkerese and the rules could do with some graphic help in the pages. I m sure there are quite a few people that are "not photoshop challenged" in Fanaticus and the wider DBA communities (there are certainly quite a few of those in the Spanish community) that would be willing to help here.

Since it is a blanket statement I do not think that the text will be much ammended, nor changed to make it more accessible, but I thought it was worth puting it forward :) There are certainlty nice additions in green through the text that clarify quite a few things, and I appreciate the effort.

I also noticed that there is a caustic comment when it comes to board sizes in page 2 that basically is saying "the WADBAG guys suck big time" in other words. I would remove such a stastement of 30" being used in the US only (we use it in Spain as well, even if not all the time) and the fact that this implies more draws since that statement is simply and demostrably false. The biggest ammount of draws I have seen happens in Italy, where they play in 24" boards exclusively.

I would also remove the reference to DBA as a tournament game, myself, but hey.



Contacting rules would appreciate some carification. As I understand them right now, you cannot close the door anymore, and 2 elements in your flank (you ar eij their ZOC, or DZ, as it is now called) cannot chage you in the flank as a group move if part of the element nearer you crosses the extension of your imaginary front line and it does not cross the side

So, as I understand it, the 2 red Ax elements cannot attack the 2 Cv group in the side ?
http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee490/xavireke/DBA/flankattack.png


Cheers,
Xavi

kontos
12-11-2011, 04:47 PM
I can feel the pitter patter of rain as the orcs chant outside the gates of Helms Deep.

What can men do against such wreckless hate? :D

kontos
12-11-2011, 04:57 PM
You can still close the door, from overlap to flank as the move distances have increased.
Thanks

Not the way I read it, Bob.

"An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges."

In a standard "close the door" situation from a parallel battleline, the element does not meet the requirement. Am I missing something? Tell me if I am.

larryessick
12-11-2011, 05:00 PM
And myself.

It is always good to be the biggest fish in a small pond. I'm glad it makes you think you are important.

michael guth
12-11-2011, 05:14 PM
"An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges."

XXYY
AA

Elements XX, YY, and AA. It seems pretty clear to me that YY is on the opposite side of a line prolonging the flank edge of enemy AA.

XX clearly prolongs the flank line of AA. YY does not occupy the same space as XX, and hence cannot occupy the same line as XX....So YY must be on the opposite site of the line prolonging the flank edge.....

I'm sure that this has to do with two points determining only one line....

kontos
12-11-2011, 05:20 PM
"An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges."

XXYY
AA

Elements XX, YY, and AA. It seems pretty clear to me that YY is on the opposite side of a line prolonging the flank edge of enemy AA.

XX clearly prolongs the flank line of AA. YY does not occupy the same space as XX, and hence cannot occupy the same line as XX....So YY must be on the opposite site of the line prolonging the flank edge.....

I'm sure that this has to do with two points determining only one line....
I guess I am drawing a different line. I am extending the front edge of the element to be overlapped assuming the rule restricts any flank contact if you start entirely to the enemy's front field of view. Why else would he add the clarification for partly on both flank and rear edges? I am definitely confused. :???

john meunier
12-11-2011, 05:45 PM
Here is the situation I see described by the both rear and flank language:

https://oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/jmeunier/Pics/rearflank.jpg

The element is not entirely on the opposite side of the flank line, but is partially behind both that and the rear line.

prich
12-11-2011, 05:53 PM
to me, it seems like HOTT
There is a diagram on page 71 of the HOTT rulebook that explains these situations.

Bob, regarding flank and rear contact, is DBA 3.0 similar to HOTT?

Why DBA 3.0 horses are more confident about Elephants and Camels than before?

Kind regards.

larryessick
12-11-2011, 06:13 PM
"An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges."

XXYY
AA

YY is on the "opposite" side of the line prolonging AA's flank edge. XX is on the same side as AA of the line prolonging AA's flank edge.

This means XX cannot move into contact with AA's flank even if it was not in the TZ and had sufficient movement because it does not start "entirely on the opposite side" but YY can move into contact with AA's flank, if it has enough movement, because it does.

XXYY
AA
..ZZRR
TT

Here, ZZ and RR are both at least partly opposite the line prolonging AA's flank and at least partly opposite the line prolonging AA's rear. Either could move to flank contact with AA. TT, however, can only contact AA's rear edge.

kontos
12-11-2011, 06:48 PM
Thanks gents. If that is what is being interpreted, I am fine with it. :up

Macbeth
12-11-2011, 07:08 PM
Oh, they are now destroyed if doubled by Artillery in close combat :(

And not before time says the Sung General :2up

How about Dunes?

do they still block LOS for command but not for shooting? :rolleyes

Is there a way for those of us that don't want to join a Yahoo group to get a looksee at this latest offering


Cheers

Kingo
12-11-2011, 07:17 PM
Sent you an email @ work,

Kingo

And not before time says the Sung General :2up

How about Dunes?

do they still block LOS for command but not for shooting? :rolleyes

Is there a way for those of us that don't want to join a Yahoo group to get a looksee at this latest offering


Cheers

Macbeth
12-11-2011, 07:19 PM
My thanks Kingo - I will take them for a spin at the earliest opportunity

Cheers

Spencer
12-11-2011, 07:52 PM
I call "OVER COMPLICATION" and thus "BAD FORM"
Must be a by product of excessive move rates.

michael guth
12-11-2011, 07:57 PM
I'm not big on the impetuous elephant theory myself (see the book The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World); but the change in camel factors is due to some recent discussion of use of camels in Arab armies. Basically, baggage transports or used for mounted infantry, used for mounted combat only if horses not available, died from exhaustion if armored. Still a combat factor of 2 against mounted seems harsh...

I don't know if is 'true' or not, it is certainly sad news for my/the Later Pre-Islamic Arab armies, but then my camels rolled down horrifically to knights just to spite me, so goodbye....

Si2
12-11-2011, 07:57 PM
Is it me or has the "shooting entirely on the rear" rule gone?
The shooting rules paragraph seems more complex but is very similar to the HFG one, so I think I understand it.
I'll be playing a couple of games on Wednesday.
Camps being only worth 1 element now is a bit of a blow to those classic Lh general raiding type armies...
I'm trying to work out if the new rules now make Steppe armies viable....
Si2

Spencer
12-11-2011, 07:58 PM
I call "OVER COMPLICATION" and thus "BAD FORM"
Must be a by product of excessive move rates.

Si2
12-11-2011, 08:00 PM
I call "OVER COMPLICATION" and thus "BAD FORM"
Must be a by product of excessive move rates.
You seem to have had a second or subsequent post....

john meunier
12-11-2011, 08:17 PM
Is it me or has the "shooting entirely on the rear" rule gone?
The shooting rules paragraph seems more complex but is very similar to the HFG one, so I think I understand it.
I'll be playing a couple of games on Wednesday.
Camps being only worth 1 element now is a bit of a blow to those classic Lh general raiding type armies...
I'm trying to work out if the new rules now make Steppe armies viable....
Si2

The faster move and expanded command radius mean LH really fly about. I agree the camp is not as juicy as it used to be, but LH can get to it more easily than before.

Bob Santamaria
12-11-2011, 08:17 PM
I'm glad you wouldn't piss on my face, Xavi -- that would be disturbing on many levels!




Some folks pay good money for that sort of thing

Kingo
12-11-2011, 08:38 PM
Having a solo game as I type this, first altered my movement sticks...oops Thracians loose a hill because there is one already there, wow deployment area is shrunk!!!, Persians deploy.

Kingo
12-11-2011, 08:49 PM
Deployment so far in for the bulk of the Persian army means I do'nt want to much bad terrain in my deployment area.

DEFENDER takes first bound.

Thacians advance, Persian Hoplites etc in contact with Thracian foot on their first turn. Wow speedy!!!.

Deployment will be crucial

john meunier
12-11-2011, 09:11 PM
Having a solo game as I type this, first altered my movement sticks...oops Thracians loose a hill because there is one already there, wow deployment area is shrunk!!!, Persians deploy.

It is not shrunk, just rearranged.

You can now deploy up to 2BW of the center line. Depth and not just width is now in play.

Victor
12-11-2011, 09:53 PM
It is not shrunk, just rearranged.

You can now deploy up to 2BW of the center line. Depth and not just width is now in play.

This looks like it may be an advantage for the attacker, especially if the defender has deployed up to the limit of 2BW from the center line and both armies are less than 5BW apart. You can get artillery in shooting range straight away. Is this right?

David Schlanger
12-11-2011, 10:30 PM
It is nice that Phil toned down his comment on 30" boards,I asked for even more, but does it matter, people got what they wanted. I missed the tournament text, will ask for expansion. DBA is not just for tournaments, anymore :)



I too asked Phil to remove the reference to North America and the assertion regarding longer games and draws. I even asked him to change "draws" to "unfinished games" because draws are not called out in the rules under Victory Conditions.

The language is softened a bit now compared to what he originally included.

DS

john meunier
12-11-2011, 11:23 PM
This looks like it may be an advantage for the attacker, especially if the defender has deployed up to the limit of 2BW from the center line and both armies are less than 5BW apart. You can get artillery in shooting range straight away. Is this right?

If your opponent helps you out, yes. You could start 4BW from each other if both sides push up as far as possible.

Alan Saunders
12-12-2011, 12:16 AM
One minor note (and one purely from reading it).

The address for the DBA Yahoo group on the last page isn't really a link to the site. Shouldn't it be:

games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/

Rather than:

www.DBA@yahoogroups.com

And, I have to say, after ten years of HOTT 2.0 being my only real contact with the DBx world, I found the rules painful to read.

David Schlanger
12-12-2011, 01:04 AM
It is always good to be the biggest fish in a small pond. I'm glad it makes you think you are important.


Is this kind of post really necessary? I don't think you are going to find many friends in this community if you continue to post rude comments like this.

DS

larryessick
12-12-2011, 01:19 AM
"If a single element contacting a single enemy element cannot line up, that contacted must if it can."

I understand this with respect to front edge contact.

What is the implication for side or rear edge contact, even considering that the enemy element will ultimately turn to face?

Can I contact a single enemy element on its side edge with just enough movement to make contact -- but not enough to line up front corner to front corner -- and still expect the enemy element to be pulled into combat (turning and sliding down into full front edge contact)?

larryessick
12-12-2011, 01:47 AM
"An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges."

In a standard "close the door" situation from a parallel battleline, the element does not meet the requirement. Am I missing something? Tell me if I am.

I'm not 100% certain that I understand "close the door" as it is used among DBA folk. I think it is being used to describe moving from overlap to flank contact with an enemy element.

AAABBB
XXXEEE

AAA and BBB are friendly elements facing down the page while XXX is an enemy element in front contact with AAA and EEE is empty space.

If I understand "close the door" as it is being used here the result would be

AAA
XXXB
EEEB
EEEB

Now BBB has moved into front corner and front edge to side edge contact with enemy element XXX. EEE still represents empty space.

This is allowed by the 3.0 rule as written.

Why? Because BBB starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging XXX's flank.

Forget fudgy base width differences and all the things that exist with imprecise base sizes. Keep in mind that a line has no width. Elements are either on the side opposite or on the same side as the enemy element -- or they are straddling the line.

In the following, BBB will not be able to move into flank contact -- even if it has sufficient movement -- because it does not start entirely on the side opposite of the line prolonging XXX's flank.

EEBBB
AAA
XXX

Here EE is empty space. That BBB is separated from XXX's TZ by AAA is irrelevant. It can only, at best, move to provide overlap support.

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 01:50 AM
This diagram shows what I think the Overlap to Flank situation is like.
A and 1 are lined up, 2 is giving overlap. On blue bound, 2 can turn the corner and flank A. Supposed to be just like HOTT

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/flankedge.jpg


If 2 were in the area above Black and right of Green, it would be partly on sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear.
Not the way I read it, Bob.

"An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges."

In a standard "close the door" situation from a parallel battleline, the element does not meet the requirement. Am I missing something? Tell me if I am.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 02:07 AM
If 2 were in the area above Black and right of Green, it would be partly on sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear.

Yes, that is correct. And, the rule does not require both. It is a two part rule.

Part 1 is that the element can be entirely on the side opposite a line prolonging the flank. Your 2 is that.

Part 2 is that the element can be partly opposite and partly behind -- as in the earlier diagram posted by John.

The rule, again, is:

An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges.

The OR means there are two separate ways to qualify a movement into flank contact.

If Phil would use shorter sentences it could be written this way:

An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge. It can also move into close combat against an enemy flank edge if it starts partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges.

Note that we are saying the same thing -- I think.

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 02:09 AM
Yes, Dave has argued strongly for many fixes. I really do like his argument that there are no "draws" in DBA! Phil thinks there would be more of what he calls Draws on larger boards and with shorter moves. We know unfinished games are a result of slow players and short times.

Dave has also been the primary proponent for including the Big Battle rules used by most tournaments in US, east and midwest. While I agree with Phil on many things, his ignoring 10 years of tournament experience is troubling.

We have objected to the expressions that imply DBA is a beginners game, and that has been somewhat softened. I still do not know what is meant by
"There is a large overlap between players of DBMM and players of DBA; so DBA can serve as a simpler introduction to DBMM (or to ancient wargaming in general) as well as a stand-alone game. " Strange use of "overlap" as it means "next to" in the game but here I think he means people who play both. So does some people playing both mean DBA is an introduction?

However, I now am not worried about all the personal beliefs of Phil -- see dice throwing for example. Dave and I and others at least got help for the superstitious player :) Does it matter what is written "around" the game? We need only worry what is written for actually playing the game.

One the English stalwarts wrote that if you make any changes to playing the game, you are not really playing DBA. Dave made an excellent comment about what really counts in making a game DBA. Changes around the "edges" make no difference, but keeping core values such as movement are crucial.


I too asked Phil to remove the reference to North America and the assertion regarding longer games and draws. I even asked him to change "draws" to "unfinished games" because draws are not called out in the rules under Victory Conditions.

The language is softened a bit now compared to what he originally included.

DS

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 02:14 AM
Yes. This 2BW from center rule is just new in this version,and what Phil wants tested. It was 4Bw in last version. Even with Defender moving first, a bad match up against Invader will be dangerous. Invader gets to shoot first. This is getting more like Armati. Initial set up is crucial.

Many playtesters did not like the loss of Defender swaps even with first move when the set up was 4BW from center.

This looks like it may be an advantage for the attacker, especially if the defender has deployed up to the limit of 2BW from the center line and both armies are less than 5BW apart. You can get artillery in shooting range straight away. Is this right?

larryessick
12-12-2011, 02:26 AM
"There is a large overlap between players of DBMM and players of DBA; so DBA can serve as a simpler introduction to DBMM (or to ancient wargaming in general) as well as a stand-alone game. "

You cannot fault Phil for putting in a commercial for his other products. It is a throw-away sentence and meaningless in the big scheme of things. It might cause some new players to look at DBMM. So what if it does? New players are apt to look at DBMM anyway.

If that is among the big worries then DBA3.0 must be ready for release, because it is trivial.

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 02:38 AM
I stand by my original statement
"However, I now am not worried about all the personal beliefs of Phil -- see dice throwing for example. Dave and I and others at least got help for the superstitious player Does it matter what is written "around" the game? We need only worry what is written for actually playing the game. "


You cannot fault Phil for putting in a commercial for his other products. It is a throw-away sentence and meaningless in the big scheme of things. It might cause some new players to look at DBMM. So what if it does? New players are apt to look at DBMM anyway.

If that is among the big worries then DBA3.0 must be ready for release, because it is trivial.

Victor
12-12-2011, 04:00 AM
Yes. This 2BW from center rule is just new in this version,and what Phil wants tested. It was 4Bw in last version. Even with Defender moving first, a bad match up against Invader will be dangerous. Invader gets to shoot first. This is getting more like Armati. Initial set up is crucial.

Many playtesters did not like the loss of Defender swaps even with first move when the set up was 4BW from center.

The closer deployment would make defender swaps more crucial if anything, assuming the defender obliges and sets up to the minimum distance from the centre. You could effectively start ZOCing (or "danger zoning") enemy in the first turn. Anyway, will be interesting playtesting to see how this works, if I run my Carthaginians and get defender, I think I'll set the elephants back behind the lines.

Bob Santamaria
12-12-2011, 05:34 AM
I will try to get a game in this week, if need with myself.

On first reading, I am not too happy with the treatment of deeper elements. Even with the additional factor, the fact that they count as losing two elements seems to be too much.

I will give my Thebans a run against my Thessalians.

Adrian

snowcat
12-12-2011, 05:51 AM
I will try to get a game in this week, if need with myself.

On first reading, I am not too happy with the treatment of deeper elements. Even with the additional factor, the fact that they count as losing two elements seems to be too much.

I will give my Thebans a run against my Thessalians.

Adrian

Perhaps counting as 1.5 might be more balanced. So you could lose 2 double elements and still be in the game, needing to lose 3 double elements (or 2 double elements + 1 single element) to lose the game. May be worth playtesting as an alternative is the proposed rule is a tad brutal.

Another way of doing this would be to treat the first double element lost as a single element toward victory purposes, but with successive double elements counting as two. This would reflect a less immediate, more gradual shattering of morale. ie the army's morale could absorb the loss of the first double element, but is terribly vexed by a second. :)

Xavi
12-12-2011, 05:55 AM
I suppose the thing is that I rerad the line prolonguing the flank to be the HORIZONTAL one, not the vertical one depicted by Bob. will have to re-read it since it seems I blundered it here :)

I do think that all the changes in combat factors, recoils, pursuits et al are marginal. So are the terrain & deployment rules. The rising imperium of the Kn elements (because the opposition became weaker "just because") is something I do not favour, though.

What is really a MASSIVE change is how the elements move around. I remain unsure if this will kill the game in Spain or not. Will need to playtest but my first reaction is not very positive.

Xavi

Bob Santamaria
12-12-2011, 06:46 AM
Perhaps counting as 1.5 might be more balanced. So you could lose 2 double elements and still be in the game, needing to lose 3 double elements (or 2 double elements + 1 single element) to lose the game. May be worth playtesting as an alternative is the proposed rule is a tad brutal.

Another way of doing this would be to treat the first double element lost as a single element toward victory purposes, but with successive double elements counting as two. This would reflect a less immediate, more gradual shattering of morale. ie the army's morale could absorb the loss of the first double element, but is terribly vexed by a second. :)

A simpler solution would be to keep double elements as an aesthetic matter - they get no bonus in combat and no additional penalty for loss

snowcat
12-12-2011, 06:50 AM
A simpler solution would be to keep double elements as an aesthetic matter - they get no bonus in combat and no additional penalty for loss

Ah, there is that. ;)

Alan Saunders
12-12-2011, 07:20 AM
On first reading, I am not too happy with the treatment of deeper elements. Even with the additional factor, the fact that they count as losing two elements seems to be too much.



My view is that they just seem unnecessarily fiddly for the minimal benefit gained from including them.

Alan Saunders
12-12-2011, 07:23 AM
A simpler solution would be to keep double elements as an aesthetic matter - they get no bonus in combat and no additional penalty for loss

I'd leave them as aesthetic elements as well. In HOTT they'd be over-depth and, as has been discussed many times, would have certain advantages and disadvantages in terms of recoils and pursuit. But DBA has different rules with regard to recoil distances, so I'm not quite sure if that would hold true.

Doug
12-12-2011, 08:43 AM
Like Dave and Bob, as one of the testers am happy to see the rules finally out there. I would caution though that there is no guarantee that this will be the final version!

The move to flank contact rules just need a diagram. I am confident this will be included. It will then be entirely clear.

Phil has changed his views on the effectiveness of camels, sorry camel-users. And I do like some of the changes to follow-up. Once elephants or pike get into combat they should be hard to stop for either general!

I much prefer the break off rules, which cuts some cheese out, and I think Psiloi etc are improved, as are (marginally) LH.

The larger boards, if used, and more restricted deployment areas, will make initial manoeuvre very important, and players will soon learn not to deploy as far forward as possible.. unless they are relying on a 'charge' strategy.

The DBE is I think a sop to the push for pavisiers, and Phil reckons deep wedges as per his beloved Byzantines, were extremely effective vs infantry. I suspect some of the Byzantine armies will be very gimmicky, but vulnerable. the 2 element loss will be painful. It will be a risky but potentially high return army design strategy.

I think the terrain rules are a big improvement, and hopefully we will see much less predictability in layouts.

Language (IMHO) is much improved but still difficult in places. Overall, I think on the whole it is 3 steps forward, 1 back.

I urge everyone to give the rules a try and not just pick on one element in the text, the holistic approach needs to be tested and so far it has given me some really good games. I am hoping that intensive play testing in the next couple of weeks will see some good stuff that can be funnelled back through one or more of the testers.

And for those who didn't see the sausages being made, I reckon Bob, Andreas and David S. deserve a huge vote of thanks for their intensive testing and lobbying.

winterbadger
12-12-2011, 10:05 AM
Like Dave and Bob, as one of the testers am happy to see the rules finally out there. I would caution though that there is no guarantee that this will be the final version!

If feedback is being solicited, I would assume (hope!) that this is *not* intended to be the final version!

The move to flank contact rules just need a diagram. I am confident this will be included. It will then be entirely clear.

A clear diagram (like Bob's IMO) would make it clear. This sort of definition of space around a unit is always hard with words alone.

The DBE is I think a sop to the push for pavisiers, and Phil reckons deep wedges as per his beloved Byzantines, were extremely effective vs infantry. I suspect some of the Byzantine armies will be very gimmicky, but vulnerable. the 2 element loss will be painful. It will be a risky but potentially high return army design strategy.

The problem with DBE is (IMO) twofold: it breaks one of the basic structures of the game that made it simple and appealing (that all armies had the same number of elements, and all elements were equally valued), and it "breaks" history, in that (IMO) such uber-units didn't exist. Did Byzantines fight in wedges? Yes, according to some writers; did this cause them to lose a larger portion of their army at once if the wedge-fighting troops were defeated? Not that I'm aware of.

I urge everyone to give the rules a try and not just pick on one element in the text, the holistic approach needs to be tested and so far it has given me some really good games. I am hoping that intensive play testing in the next couple of weeks will see some good stuff that can be funnelled back through one or more of the testers.

If people want to test out the current rules, I would agree they should test them as a whole, not just the bits they like and not others. But there's some point to saying, after doing that, "This rule works, but this doesn't." Rules aren't written holistically, after all.

And for those who didn't see the sausages being made, I reckon Bob, Andreas and David S. deserve a huge vote of thanks for their intensive testing and lobbying.

Anyone who volunteers for what sounds like a pretty thankless task deserves a round of applause, and that includes both those you've named and many others, including you, Doug, and DK! :up

Martyn
12-12-2011, 11:15 AM
Have had a look through, but not studied the detail of the rule changes nor play tested, so I won’t make any comment on those aspects.

However, I am disappointed that the strict adherence to an artificial word or page count has been retained together with the very close multi sentenced paragraph layout. We know that a clearer and more easily read alternative is possible. It is a shame that this opportunity was not taken to reformat.

Also, I note that there is no Glossary identified which again would help clarity.

Looking forward to trying the rules.

kontos
12-12-2011, 12:34 PM
I agree Martin. It is a shame there is a lot of useful space being used to clarify and justify each element depiction in the game leaving no space to clarify rules. Valuable space was also used for various "political" reasons and agendas as well as referencing now defunct rules systems - who cares? And really, I need rules to govern when I can change the die I use? :rolleyes

As for the rest, I have my opinions and they shall remain mine since I haven't, and in all likelihood, will not, playtest 3.0 as written.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 01:44 PM
And really, I need rules to govern when I can change the die I use?

This does seem silly but is rooted in past behavior by unscrupulous players who maintain a number of dice, some of which are loaded to produce specific results, and change them surreptitiously depending on how the game is going.

That this happens is recognized by tournament organizers who provide dice at their comps and require that only provided dice be used. And, while more urban legend at present than observed fact it does have its basis rooted in past experience.

I find the reference a bit silly and expect it will likely be ignored by the vast majority of players. But the sentiment behind it I can agree with in its entirety.

kontos
12-12-2011, 01:55 PM
That is fine, Larry, but cheaters are cheaters and no rule is going to stop them. Shall we limit everyone to one measuring device? One DZ marker? Yes, it is appalling it even has to be addressed, but, in a rules format cramped for space, those lines could have been put to better use. Let the community police its own. :up

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 02:20 PM
That is fine, Larry, but cheaters are cheaters and no rule is going to stop them. Shall we limit everyone to one measuring device? One DZ marker? Yes, it is appalling it even has to be addressed, but, in a rules format cramped for space, those lines could have been put to better use. Let the community police its own. :up

Good points, Frank. In the 20 years I have been running DBA events in both Midwest and East conventions, only once did we have a case of a player using "loaded" dice. I suppose the only fair way to deal with dice is for the organizers to collect all dice and give them out randomly to the players :(

It seems to me, and others too have argued that at least in the USA we can trust the players. Is the dice "suggestion" formulated for English players?

As others have noted too, there are some parts of the game that can be overridden by organizers of tournaments and individuals in social games. The dice rule is one, for sure. Organizers have forbidden dismounting after first bound which concerns a core rule. Different size boards have been allowed. BUAs have been banned. Phil's idiosyncrasies can certainly be ignored. Organizers can say that double based elements count as a single element for combat and loss, for example, just as they ban dismounting.

In Phil's defense, we should allow him to put in his pet peeves, it is his game. He uses the phrase, "figures are affixed to a THIN rectangular base." He does not like thick bases. Will we forbid any army with thick bases? I do not think so. These "suggestions" take up very little space and would not help with space if omitted so why worry about them.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 02:25 PM
That is fine, Larry, but cheaters are cheaters and no rule is going to stop them.

Yeah, you are right. But I suspect that it does no harm to leave it in just as I suspect most people will simply ignore it.

I view many of Barker's statements in this light. For example, he has regularly opposed prefabricated measuring devices insisting instead that card stock be used. Does that mean people cannot or do not use rulers, measuring tapes or prefabricated tools?

Similarly his comment on basing materials.

These are all trivial things. Easy and fun to poke at but probably not nearly important enough to worry over.

ferrency
12-12-2011, 02:28 PM
It seems to me, and others too have argued that at least in the USA we can trust the players. Is the dice "suggestion" formulated for English players.

None of this matters.

"Cheating" is defined as breaking the rules. No rule can stop cheating, because by definition, cheaters break the rules.

Anyone who is willing to break a rule that matters certainly won't care about breaking a rule that says "don't cheat." And as others have pointed out: you don't need more than one die in order to cheat using a loaded die, so this particular anti-cheating rule is particularly pointless.

The only thing Phil's "use only one die" rule does is place unnecessary restrictions on those of us who don't cheat (particularly those most interested in following the letter of the rules as closely as possible).

Alan

kontos
12-12-2011, 04:17 PM
Perhaps counting as 1.5 might be more balanced. So you could lose 2 double elements and still be in the game, needing to lose 3 double elements (or 2 double elements + 1 single element) to lose the game. May be worth playtesting as an alternative is the proposed rule is a tad brutal.

Another way of doing this would be to treat the first double element lost as a single element toward victory purposes, but with successive double elements counting as two. This would reflect a less immediate, more gradual shattering of morale. ie the army's morale could absorb the loss of the first double element, but is terribly vexed by a second. :)

Again DBA was stuck with a basing from another game and suffers. To gain a +1 at the expense of half way towards losing the game is ludicrous. I don't know if you've noticed, but only Psiloi are destroyed if they support any other elements. SO it is even less disastrous to charge in with your supported Wb against those pesky Blades since you will only lose the lead element if doubled. So then, why should DBEs be forced to count as 2 elements lost because of an unrelated basing convention? All his justification for "deep wedges" is smoke and mirrors to justify this nonsense. Alexander's Companions charged in deep wedges too and they are 3Kn.

Kingo
12-12-2011, 04:23 PM
Again DBA was stuck with a basing from another game and suffers. To gain a +1 at the expense of half way towards losing the game is ludicrous. I don't know if you've noticed, but only Psiloi are destroyed if they support any other elements. SO it is even less disastrous to charge in with your supported Wb against those pesky Blades since you will only lose the lead element if doubled. So then, why should DBEs be forced to count as 2 elements lost because of an unrelated basing convention? All his justification for "deep wedges" is smoke and mirrors to justify this nonsense. Alexander's Companions charged in deep wedges too and they are 3Kn.

Spot on mate! I can see the DBE rules being left out by convention like the dismounting rules in tourmaments

Victor
12-12-2011, 04:48 PM
Spot on mate! I can see the DBE rules being left out by convention like the dismounting rules in tourmaments

I for one like the new double element rules. I have never liked the anachronistic use of double elements that had no game effect apart from lumbering a player with an overly deep element. Now with the +1, but at the cost of 2 elements lost if destroyed is a lot better solution. At least we can now use DBA to refight battles like Leuctra which is something DBA has never been able to do in the past, without fiddling with the rules/lists.

The new double element rule is one of the great rules upgrades amongst others, such as lowering Bd factors vs shooting, no loss of second rank warbands, LH virtually never being out of command, psiloi tweaks etc.

kontos
12-12-2011, 05:08 PM
I for one like the new double element rules. I have never liked the anachronistic use of double elements that had no game effect apart from lumbering a player with an overly deep element. Now with the +1, but at the cost of 2 elements lost if destroyed is a lot better solution. At least we can now use DBA to refight battles like Leuctra which is something DBA has never been able to do in the past, without fiddling with the rules/lists.

The new double element rule is one of the great rules upgrades amongst others, such as lowering Bd factors vs shooting, no loss of second rank warbands, LH virtually never being out of command, psiloi tweaks etc.

Leuctra? You could fight that in DBA now. Double rank your spear and gain a +1 over the enemy at your point of attack. Now you can't UNLESS you are Theban with an 8Sp DBE, which means NO ONE ELSE is allowed to do it. This is an improvement? Leuctra wasn't won with a new element type; it was won with tactics. I fail to see your point of view on this and disagree on the DBE in 3.0 as written.

Victor
12-12-2011, 05:35 PM
Leuctra? You could fight that in DBA now. Double rank your spear and gain a +1 over the enemy at your point of attack. Now you can't UNLESS you are Theban with an 8Sp DBE, which means NO ONE ELSE is allowed to do it. This is an improvement? Leuctra wasn't won with a new element type; it was won with tactics. I fail to see your point of view on this and disagree on the DBE in 3.0 as written.

If DBA 2.2 as written allows the refight, then why have people who've written scenario's for Leuctra have felt the need for special rules? This is not just my opinion, see here;
http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/battles/leuctra/scenleuktracjb.html
and here
http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/battles/leuctra/scenleuctracj.html
and here
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mcnelly/ancient/dba_leuctra371.htm

There is no need for "special rules" now, with the new double element rules.

winterbadger
12-12-2011, 05:53 PM
I've never been a big fan of DBEs. I think DBEs would be grand in a tactical game, but in one on the scale of DBA, where elements are probably already way too deep for what they historically represent, it seems to me that they distort the geometry of the game even further than its already strained boundaries.

That said, having thought about it, I can see that this is perhaps not the worst possible way they could be implemented. Yes, it gives the using army extra elements, but they can only use them as supports and they lose them if they lose the supported element. I think that having special rules for them, like DK's pavisier rule (http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/variants/Pavisiers.html), is a better route to go if we have to have them to accommodate DBMM, but if I were able to stomach some of the other changes I wouldn't have overmuch heartburn with this. I think this actually weakens the armies that have them, because they are *forced* into taking a risk that they might not always choose to. Maybe that's historical, maybe it's not.

In the end, it comes down to admitting that the basic DBA element types aren't rich enough to model, even broadly, all of the variation in historical armies (or at least all the variation that the author wants to represent). It's just an "army list special rule" of a sort.

One thing I will disagree with my good friend kontos about. Leuctra was not just tactics--it was a systemic *change* in tactics; before Leuctra, no one in Greece seems to have used massive formations like this. Afterwards, they became more common (and led to the creation of the pike phalanx). So it's not as if Epiminandos and Cleombrotas had the same bag of tricks available to them. Epi created a new trick--afterwards more people tried it, but up to that point, the Thebans should be (IMO) a kind of special case.

Martin Smith
12-12-2011, 06:05 PM
It seems to me, and others too have argued that at least in the USA we can trust the players. Is the dice "suggestion" formulated for English players?



.........suggesting????
Martin (Smith, as English as it gets)

kontos
12-12-2011, 06:19 PM
One thing I will disagree with my good friend kontos about. Leuctra was not just tactics--it was a systemic *change* in tactics; before Leuctra, no one in Greece seems to have used massive formations like this. Afterwards, they became more common (and led to the creation of the pike phalanx). So it's not as if Epiminandos and Cleombrotas had the same bag of tricks available to them. Epi created a new trick--afterwards more people tried it, but up to that point, the Thebans should be (IMO) a kind of special case.

According to some, that is beyond the "granularity" of this game. We don't have special rules for the Romans who "created" or, better yet, perfected a new fighting method. They are simply Blade. Some armies, i.e the Byzantines, suffer from not allowing a special element for their historical usage and suffer from the watered down generic element types. So the Thebans should be any different? Don't get me wrong, the impact of Leuctra was far reaching for its time. I also have no issue with "special elements". What I have issue with is why some and not others and the DBE rule, as written, is a failed compromise and not a decision faced by the commander on the field. OUR choice to send in supported warband (in 2.2) or OUR choice to support our Blade line with Psiloi against Warband or Knights has consequences within the game system. DBEs are forced down our throat for no justifiable reason other than we need a special rule because they are based on a DBM convention and we don't want to rebase our armies. Really?

Alan Saunders
12-12-2011, 06:31 PM
.........suggesting????
Martin (Smith, as English as it gets)

Maybe he means Australians. After all, we're all apparently convicts, and not to be trusted :)

(I say 'we'; actually I'm as English as you are, at least until next year.)

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 06:41 PM
I have not seen any final lists with double deep elements so I do not know if any are being crammed down my throat. That is, are they required for armies I want to use. There are some 400 armies and I doubt a majority will have DDEs probably less than 10%, so maybe they will not impact me at all.

Moreover, easy enough for Tournament Organizers to just call them single elements for combat and loss. Maybe the Stooges will do an event at Historicon where the armies must have a DDE so we can see how they work.

Martin, my comment was wondering in print where Phil got the need for the dice rule? He does not know what goes on in US, Oz, or the continent; he only knows games in the UK so what is the reason for a player using 1 die for the whole game?

Ammianus
12-12-2011, 06:42 PM
I have to admit that dice issue has floored me. Surely players don't really do this? (stunned)

a cynic writes...
12-12-2011, 07:42 PM
I wonder if sometime in the last few years Phil lost to a youngster who turned up with an Warhammer style bucket of dice, with numbers on.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 08:13 PM
IMO Phil could say what he is wanting to say without leaving the sense that he is imposing an arbitrary requirement on players and risking what is actual practice of having people ignore this section of the rules.

Our preference is that a player select one die to use for all purposes while playing the game and that the die selected have spots instead of numbers and that these be easily readable by their opponent. We recognize that there have been issues with unfair dice in the past and this seems the best way to prevent such excesses. However, players are prone to replacimg die that they believe are behaving badly and so are permitted to do so with their opponent's concurrence. Likewise, tournament organizers are likely to provide dice that they require participants to use.

kontos
12-12-2011, 08:20 PM
IMO Phil could say what he is wanting to say without leaving the sense that he is imposing an arbitrary requirement on players and risking what is actual practice of having people ignore this section of the rules.

Our preference is that a player select one die to use for all purposes while playing the game and that the die selected have spots instead of numbers and that these be easily readable by their opponent. We recognize that there have been issues with unfair dice in the past and this seems the best way to prevent such excesses. However, players are prone to replacimg die that they believe are behaving badly and so are permitted to do so with their opponent's concurrence. Likewise, tournament organizers are likely to provide dice that they require participants to use.

Better yet, take all the opinion and side discussions out of the rules and do what, I feel, the better authors do and end the book with "Designer's Notes".

larryessick
12-12-2011, 08:39 PM
Better yet, take all the opinion and side discussions out of the rules and do what, I feel, the better authors do and end the book with "Designer's Notes".

That might in fact be better but then begs the issue of how to introduce the need for using a d6 to play the game.

In this case I think your objection is one of style. What I had hoped to convey was a difference of substance.

Stylistically there is a lot about Barker's rules that I struggle with. But authors have the right to follow whatever style they prefer.

In the area of substance I think there is room for improvement by avoiding things that appear to be entirely arbitrary or eliminating things that are likely to be ignored by the players.

Lobotomy
12-12-2011, 11:45 PM
Oh, let's stir things up a bit. ;)

With the new deployment rules, one is limited to just over 7BW in the center of your line to place everything but Cv, LH or Ps, as all the rest cannot be within 4BW of either side edge, this being on the "standard" 24" board. Start stacking your elements. It might turn me into a heretic!! :eek We looked at this when we played tonight and it makes things quite constricted. It will definitely encourage starting much further from the center line than 2BW in order to unstack your elements.

Also, an interesting note, that Phil has taken out of the rules the requirement that shooters fire at each other, absent they being in each other's DZ (Danger Zone, the new name for the "Barker"). Though he did narrow the arc of fire to 1/2BW to each side of an element.

kontos
12-12-2011, 11:47 PM
Oh, let's stir things up a bit. ;)

With the new deployment rules, one is limited to just over 7BW in the center of your line to place everything but Cv, LH or Ps, as all the rest cannot be within 4BW of either side edge, this being on the "standard" 24" board. Start stacking your elements. It might turn me into a heretic!! :eek We looked at this when we played tonight and it makes things quite constricted. It will definitely encourage starting much further from the center line than 2BW in order to unstack your elements.

Also, an interesting note, that Phil has taken out of the rules the requirement that shooters fire at each other, absent they being in each other's DZ (Danger Zone, the new name for the "Barker"). Though he did narrow the arc of fire to 1/2BW to each side of an element.

Also, do not forget you can now fire on enemy elements providing overlap support if shooting qualifications are met. I happen to like that rule IMHO.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 11:50 PM
Also, an interesting note, that Phil has taken out of the rules the requirement that shooters fire at each other, absent they being in each other's DZ (Danger Zone, the new name for the "Barker").

Did you get the same copy of the rules that I got?

If not, Bows and WWg must shoot at a target in their DZ or, if not, shooting at them, otherwise choose any eligible target.

I've already mentioned this to Bob as an obtuse part of the rules that takes a bit of hard reading to understand. But, the piece that reads, if not, shooting at them, means shooters must shoot shooters.

Doug
12-12-2011, 11:58 PM
Martin, my comment was wondering in print where Phil got the need for the dice rule? He does not know what goes on in US, Oz, or the continent; he only knows games in the UK so what is the reason for a player using 1 die for the whole game?

No idea, I do know in the 'serious' comps here in oz, the organiser supplies dice. The issue was hotly debated at the time, but in the end it was a case of removing any perception of being dudded by an uneven dice - whether deliberate or not.. Why allow even the faintest hint of suspiocion to exist when your opponent seems to roll nothing but sixes.

I have seen a player pull out their lucky dice (purple dice David?) for especially important rolls, and while 99.99999% of the time it isn't a loaded die.. who knows what percentage of the time it is an old bashed up die with corners rubbed off in the dice bag and happens to have developed a bias?

Bob Santamaria
12-13-2011, 12:55 AM
Not the way I read it, Bob.

"An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges."

In a standard "close the door" situation from a parallel battleline, the element does not meet the requirement. Am I missing something? Tell me if I am.

I agree - as the draft is written one may not close the gate. Is that intended?

Bob Santamaria
12-13-2011, 12:59 AM
The faster move and expanded command radius mean LH really fly about. I agree the camp is not as juicy as it used to be, but LH can get to it more easily than before.

The command radius is so large for LH as to be almost meaningless - isn't it (2000p) 80cm. It is only barely possible to be that far apart. Perhaps just getting rid of a command radius for LH would be simpler.

Adrian

Doug
12-13-2011, 01:16 AM
I agree - as the draft is written one may not close the gate. Is that intended?

You are confusing flank edge with front edge. As written, moving to 'hard-flank' an element is legal provided no part of your flanking element is in front of the element to be flanked.

Macbeth
12-13-2011, 01:44 AM
I do know in the 'serious' comps here in oz, the organiser supplies dice.

Fair enough that my DBA with a twist competitions in May don't get to be labled "Serious" but I always thought Landwaster was up there :p

I have seen a player pull out their lucky dice (purple dice David?) for especially important rolls

My purple die has been an instrumental part of many of my most epic failures as often as it might have been the major contributor to my victories - the Lucky Green Dice was I think more prone to be helpful but alas it is no more - at MOAB the hairline cracks finally separted and the dice (which I have had since my early teenage "Traveller" playing days) is no more.

To be fair - when the purple dice was ravaging your Teutons I did offer to take it away and use one of yours - to my vague memory I continued to roll high ;)

Cheers

Alan Saunders
12-13-2011, 01:47 AM
The command radius is so large for LH as to be almost meaningless - isn't it (2000p) 80cm. It is only barely possible to be that far apart. Perhaps just getting rid of a command radius for LH would be simpler.

Adrian

It possibly has an effect in big battles, but otherwise seems redundant, yes. There's still a 1PIP extra cost if the general is in woods and similar, though.

Doug
12-13-2011, 01:52 AM
Fair enough that my DBA with a twist competitions in May don't get to be labled "Serious" but I always thought Landwaster was up there :p

I was actually more referring to comps using other rulesets, but I wouldn;t have minded organiser provided dice at the last Landwaster!


My purple die has been an instrumental part of many of my most epic failures as often as it might have been the major contributor to my victories - the Lucky Green Dice was I think more prone to be helpful but alas it is no more - at MOAB the hairline cracks finally separted and the dice (which I have had since my early teenage "Traveller" playing days) is no more.

Hmm.. any dice with cracks in it can hardly be deemed to be a cube - and therefore shouldn't be used :) In some seriousness, as I said, the older and odder a die shape, the less likely is it to be truly balanced. There is a reason casino dice are manufactured to such stringent standards.


To be fair - when the purple dice was ravaging your Teutons I did offer to take it away and use one of yours - to my vague memory I continued to roll high ;)
Cheers

Yep, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

David Brown
12-13-2011, 02:32 AM
Poor old Camels.

PB is really fixed on his revisionist view of CM.

I'd suggest; they can break off (if mtd inf can), can deploy on the wings and maybe even they should go from being Mounted to Foot.

regards

DB

David Brown
12-13-2011, 02:41 AM
Break offs, I reckon Ax and Ps should be able to as well.

Fits their role as I imagine it, and gives Ax some minor special power to colour them.

The important Bd vs Sp interaction looks interesting, with the Bd now impetuous in that fight. One to play test straight away.

The mods to Hd look good.

db

Macbeth
12-13-2011, 02:48 AM
There is a reason casino dice are manufactured to such stringent standards.


However those standards are based on the theory that said die will be hurled the length of a table and strike a vertical board at the end.

One of the greatests services Milsims provided to dodgy players was to market the "perfectly balanced" Casion dice for wargaming.

These dice have no bevilling on their edges and are large (relative to other commercially avaialble dice). As such they are well suited to a strategic "Drop" with a desired face upwards.

Any test of said dice will reveal a perfectly balanced dice that somehow keeps rolling high.

But we are talking about the complement ofthe 99.999999999999999% of gamers here and perhaps wasting time and ink on the most minor of problems.

Cheers

David Brown
12-13-2011, 02:57 AM
Hmmmm 8Bw as pavise / spara protected chaps gain nothing in a fire-fight v other Bw and at such low-factor coin-tosses the non-8Bw will seek this out every time.

Does the game really gain anything by adding the chrome of the close combat edge of the world overlap? If it must stay it should exclude BUA/Camp defenders and attackers.

db

David Brown
12-13-2011, 03:03 AM
Almost time to stop running up these posts, one final one, can the experienced play-testers give us their view on the terrain set-up rules, what have the battlefields and side selection done in terms of making interesting and balanced games?

regards

david b

About to set up some lead.

Doug
12-13-2011, 03:04 AM
Hmmmm 8Bw as pavise / spara protected chaps gain nothing in a fire-fight v other Bw and at such low-factor coin-tosses the non-8Bw will seek this out every time.

Does the game really gain anything by adding the chrome of the close combat edge of the world overlap? If it must stay it should exclude BUA/Camp defenders and attackers.

db

Phil was most concerend to minimise nasty tricks like positioning elements so you couldn't overlap them. Also to minimise the edge of the world effects..

Victor
12-13-2011, 03:07 AM
Break offs, I reckon Ax and Ps should be able to as well.

Fits their role as I imagine it, and gives Ax some minor special power to colour them.

The important Bd vs Sp interaction looks interesting, with the Bd now impetuous in that fight. One to play test straight away.

The mods to Hd look good.

db

The horde one is interesting, factor reduced to +2 vs foot, not impetuous, and not quick killed by shooting. Not sure if it makes them more attractive though, the reduction in CF is big.

Doug
12-13-2011, 03:07 AM
One of the greatests services Milsims provided to dodgy players was to market the "perfectly balanced" Casion dice for wargaming.

These dice have no bevilling on their edges and are large (relative to other commercially avaialble dice). As such they are well suited to a strategic "Drop" with a desired face upwards.

Which is why I moan about players who don't 'roll' dice. Dropping and spinning to get a better than standard odds result is much too easy. (For Education - look up 'Dice Tricks' on YouTube.)

Dice cups that rattle, or dice towers I say!

Stephen Webb
12-13-2011, 03:09 AM
Dice cups that rattle, or dice towers I say!


DICE BOXES rule!

larryessick
12-13-2011, 08:25 AM
You are confusing flank edge with front edge. As written, moving to 'hard-flank' an element is legal provided no part of your flanking element is in front of the element to be flanked.

I agree that there is confusion of front and flank edges.

I disagree that to move into front edge to side edge contact that no part of your element can be in front of the element to be flanked.

An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges.

There is an "or" in this rule, which I've highlighted by making it red underlined.

So there are two conditions under which an element can move into contact with an enemy's flank (side) edge. First is if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that enemy element's flank edge.

There seems to be confusion on what opposite side means. But, on one side of a line prolonging the flank edge is the enemy element. The opposite side is the one that does not contain the enemy element.

There also seems to be confusion on what is meant by prolonging that edge. Since the edge being talked about is the enemy's flank edge, it is the only edge that can be intended.

So, the line in the first case runs along the enemy element's side edge -- the one that we intend to contact. Obviously, where our friendly element is in relation to the enemy's front edge is irrelevant and we can still move from a prolonged line into contact with an enemy's flank.

The second condition is for elements that are partly behind and partly to the side of the enemy element. These can move into flank (side) edge contact but not into rear edge contact.

Elements that are entirely behind can move into rear edge contact.

Honestly, I can't see how this is confusing except that people want it to be. The rule is rather plainly stated.

larryessick
12-13-2011, 08:35 AM
Dropping and spinning to get a better than standard odds result is much too easy.

There is more of this in competitions than some of us would like to admit. I've even had people make accusations when using a dice cup -- instead asking that dice be rolled from the hand.

Indeed, there is no perfect solution. But, the best available is probably organizer provided dice that remain at the table (rather than travel with the player) and that are rolled using a dice tower that is also provided.

This is outside the scope of the rules to dictate and outside the finances of many comps to provide.

Some would attribute it all to original sin, others to human nature. It is certainly a legitimate observation that people do cheat. In fact, a common attitude is that If you're not cheating, you're not trying while another is It is only cheating if you get caught.

I don't think there is any easy way to handle that, seeming, reality.

Xavi
12-13-2011, 09:00 AM
Honestly, I can't see how this is confusing except that people want it to be. The rule is rather plainly stated.

Because people get a numb mind after more than 2 sentences in berkerese? Let alone a whole rulebook? Happened to me before. Will happen to me in the future fort sure. I am not the only one, I would say.

Easy.

Xavi

Ammianus
12-13-2011, 09:08 AM
#115, thanks for clarifying Larry, it helps & #117: I'm right there with you on failing to understand certain passages (I attribute that to my rapidly dwindling brain cells).

Martyn
12-13-2011, 09:10 AM
I agree that there is confusion of front and flank edges.

I disagree that to move into front edge to side edge contact that no part of your element can be in front of the element to be flanked.

An element can move into close combat against an enemy flank edge only if it starts entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge or if partly on the opposite sides of lines prolonging both flank and rear edges.

There is an "or" in this rule, which I've highlighted by making it red underlined.



This rule identifies when an element can contact the flank of another, what it means is that if any part of the element is directly in front of the enemy element then it can not contact the flank. In other words it does not start entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge. The 'or' is when the element is behind the enemy element.

This is a classic example of a diagram meaning so much more. For an illustration look at the diagram on page 71 of HoTT (can anybody import that page, I have tried but my IT skills are pretty basic).

Xavi
12-13-2011, 09:22 AM
Just download the whole thing and go to page 71 :)

http://www.wrg.me.uk/HISTORY/HOTT2.pdf

OR

Check this image ;)
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x181/xrequejo/DBA/HOTTp71.jpg

Xavi

kontos
12-13-2011, 09:28 AM
As the saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Take note PB.

larryessick
12-13-2011, 09:36 AM
This rule identifies when an element can contact the flank of another, what it means is that if any part of the element is directly in front of the enemy element then it can not contact the flank. In other words it does not start entirely on the opposite side of a line prolonging that edge. The 'or' is when the element is behind the enemy element.

This is a classic example of a diagram meaning so much more. For an illustration look at the diagram on page 71 of HoTT (can anybody import that page, I have tried but my IT skills are pretty basic).

Martyn,

You are incorrect.

Look at the diagram Xavi downloads. Note element C. It is in front of element A and can also contact element A's flank.

Both elements B and C are in front of element A. But C is on the opposite side of the line extending A's flank. B is not. Thus C can contact flank, B cannot.

C's ability to contact A's flank does not change if we move it over a bit to corner to corner contact as would happen in a long line of elements.

If we move B to frontal contact and C to overlap, C is still in front of A but entirely on the opposite side of a line extending A's flank. And C can still move into flank contact.

I think that the problem might be that I am discussing elements that meet criteria as C while you are discussing elements that are like B. In current DBA B could move to contact with A irrespective of where it starts (except if in the ZOC, er DZ) provided it has sufficient movement.

Frankly, that is too liberal and has needed to be changed forever. If that is what the whine is about then time to go out for cheese and crackers, um, biscuits, crisps? Whatever they're called in England. ;)

larryessick
12-13-2011, 09:37 AM
As the saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Take note PB.

Barker is author of HotT too. So, I think he knows. :up

larryessick
12-13-2011, 09:38 AM
Because people get a numb mind after more than 2 sentences in berkerese?

Yeah, they say the same thing about reading my postings. :D

kontos
12-13-2011, 10:06 AM
Barker is author of HotT too. So, I think he knows. :up

OK. Then he forgot. Having knowledge and using it are two separate things.

Martyn
12-13-2011, 10:22 AM
Martyn,

You are incorrect.

No I am not

Look at the diagram Xavi downloads. Note element C. It is in front of element A and can also contact element A's flank.

That's what I said

Both elements B and C are in front of element A. But C is on the opposite side of the line extending A's flank. B is not. Thus C can contact flank, B cannot.

Ditto

C's ability to contact A's flank does not change if we move it over a bit to corner to corner contact as would happen in a long line of elements.

I didn't say it did

If we move B to frontal contact and C to overlap, C is still in front of A but entirely on the opposite side of a line extending A's flank. And C can still move into flank contact.

Yes, and?

I think that the problem might be that I am discussing elements that meet criteria as C while you are discussing elements that are like B.

Not particularily

In current DBA B could move to contact with A irrespective of where it starts (except if in the ZOC, er DZ) provided it has sufficient movement.

Not often is there an element with sufficient movement to avoid the ZoC, starting from directly infront of an element and being able to contact the flank.

Frankly, that is too liberal and has needed to be changed forever. If that is what the whine is about then time to go out for cheese and crackers, um, biscuits, crisps? Whatever they're called in England. ;)

No, that is not what it is about. I am seeking clarity and understanding of the current draft wording. Down here it would be a pint and a pasty, me 'ansom.:silly

ferrency
12-13-2011, 10:51 AM
With the new deployment rules, one is limited to just over 7BW in the center of your line to place everything but Cv, LH or Ps, as all the rest cannot be within 4BW of either side edge, this being on the "standard" 24" board.

Has anyone attempted to deploy, say, Hussites with bad going and a BUA restricting the deployment zone yet? Is this worse than DBA 2.2 or only "just as bad"?

Alan

larryessick
12-13-2011, 11:06 AM
No I am not

Well, if we're saying the same thing then obviously you aren't. :D

I will admit, I missed the "directly" bit in your previous post. :o

Martyn
12-13-2011, 11:11 AM
Well, if we're saying the same thing then obviously you aren't. :D

I will admit, I missed the "directly" bit in your previous post. :o

I think we agree, don't we :???

One thing we can all agree on is the value of a diagram.

larryessick
12-13-2011, 11:13 AM
Has anyone attempted to deploy, say, Hussites with bad going and a BUA restricting the deployment zone yet? Is this worse than DBA 2.2 or only "just as bad"?

Alan

Alan,

Not yet. But, the terrain rules are just plain bad. Not in their intent, but in terms of replicating ancient/medieval battlefields they do not do the job.

OTOH, ancient/medieval battlefields are pretty boring for the most part. I'd venture that if people reading listed 10 well known battles and took a look at the terrain it would all be pretty much the same:

A hill, river or other hard to pass terrain element on one or both flanks.
A broad, relatively clear, central area in which to deploy, preferably uphill of your enemy.
A secure rear for camp and baggage.

While there are exceptions, say Hannibal's attack on the Romans at Trasimene which ends with the lake (a waterway) in the Roman rear as they turn to face Hannibal's downhill ambush, most of the time if the battle is a set piece the terrain is pretty much consistent through all of history.

Larry

kontos
12-13-2011, 11:24 AM
Alan,

Not yet. But, the terrain rules are just plain bad. Not in their intent, but in terms of replicating ancient/medieval battlefields they do not do the job.

OTOH, ancient/medieval battlefields are pretty boring for the most part. I'd venture that if people reading listed 10 well known battles and took a look at the terrain it would all be pretty much the same:

A hill, river or other hard to pass terrain element on one or both flanks.
A broad, relatively clear, central area in which to deploy, preferably uphill of your enemy.
A secure rear for camp and baggage.

While there are exceptions, say Hannibal's attack on the Romans at Trasimene which ends with the lake (a waterway) in the Roman rear as they turn to face Hannibal's downhill ambush, most of the time if the battle is a set piece the terrain is pretty much consistent through all of history.

Larry

Then boring, but efficient, it should be and stop all these random placement gyrations. Was this done to appease the whiners who had all Knight armies and couldn't stomp over the poor Thracians, or whatever, because they went into terrain favorable to them as the defender? 3.0 appears to heavily favor the attacker with random terrain, choice of board edge and no defender swaps. Start looking for AGG 4 armies!!!! :silly

Xavi
12-13-2011, 11:34 AM
Next time the Aztecs put a lot of terrain in front of my Italian condotta, I will argue to my opponent that his terrain is ahistorical :D

Xavi

larryessick
12-13-2011, 11:45 AM
Next time the Aztecs put a lot of terrain in front of my Italian condotta, I will argue to my opponent that his terrain is ahistorical :D


As well you should!

Make sure there is plenty of cold beer around while making that observation. :2up

Xavi
12-13-2011, 12:07 PM
Another thing

Last sentence page 8
A group can only move straight ahead or wheel by pivoting around a front corner. No other changes in frontage, direction or facing can be made except to slide sideways less than 1BW to line up when in an enemy DZ.

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1089/nuevaimagendemapadebitsxx.png

Is this correct? Quite a change if this is the case!!

Howeever, in the last sentence of page 9 we have this:
Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

Is the text in page 8 independent from the text in page 9 or should they be read together?

ferrency
12-13-2011, 12:13 PM
Is the text in page 8 independent from the text in page 9 or should they be read together?

That is a big change.

Read together, it seems to me that your line can slide more than 1/2BW, but if you do, this is not "the minimum necessary" and therefore counts against your movement allowance for the turn.

Alan

winterbadger
12-13-2011, 12:15 PM
Is the text in page 8 independent from the text in page 9 or should they be read together?

OK, I think PB writes in a way that is needlessly unclear and cramped, but give him a break! Why would two sentences that deal with the same topic, however far apart they may be in the book, ever be read independent of each other? What is unclear about the sentence you've left out, which reads "When opposing groups contact, the moving group conforms with as many elements as possible"? In no conceivable way does your left-hand image under "3" reflect conforming "with as many elements as possible".

Xavi
12-13-2011, 12:24 PM
I am passing doubts in the Spanish forum. Most of those doubts are not mine :) Will forward your answer to the guy that asked the question. thanks!

However, if there was an extra element in the contacting group (in the right extreme, to be precise) could you chose where you get an overlap, in the leftmost extreme or the rightmost extreme?

Cheers,
Xavi

Doug
12-13-2011, 08:21 PM
I agree that there is confusion of front and flank edges.

I disagree that to move into front edge to side edge contact that no part of your element can be in front of the element to be flanked.

No, you can never move from in front of an enemy element to flank. Trust me on this one, it is a geometric impossibility to not be entirely beyond a line prolonging the enemy flank edge and also be partly in front of the element.

Doug
12-13-2011, 08:27 PM
Another thing

Is the text in page 8 independent from the text in page 9 or should they be read together?

they need to be read together.

The intent is that moves of up to a BW may be made to line up, but they must be the MINIMUM necessary to line up - so you can't enter the DZ and slide any way you like - you must slide the minimum.

pozanias
12-13-2011, 08:58 PM
No, you can never move from in front of an enemy element to flank. Trust me on this one, it is a geometric impossibility to not be entirely beyond a line prolonging the enemy flank edge and also be partly in front of the element.

Doug,

See element "C" in Xavi's diagram a few pages back. I think this is what Larry is referring to. We have now clarified the difference between "in front" and "directly in front".

Doug
12-13-2011, 09:41 PM
Doug,

See element "C" in Xavi's diagram a few pages back. I think this is what Larry is referring to. We have now clarified the difference between "in front" and "directly in front".

Electrons died for that ? :)

kontos
12-13-2011, 09:45 PM
Electrons died for that ? :)

How many died for 3.0, Doug? ;)

larryessick
12-13-2011, 10:11 PM
Electrons died for that ? :)

Do electrons have a life? Or, even, a half-life?

But, to answer the question of my understanding Martyn's posts and the "closing the door" discussion, I have always been talking about elements in roughly C's position. I thought others were as well and cannot (could not) understand how they might think the 3.0 wording prevented such elements from making flank contact.

It is probably my fault for not understanding what is meant by "closing the door."

Doug
12-13-2011, 10:25 PM
How many died for 3.0, Doug? ;)

None of course :) But there were cerainly a few shuttling around the place in the playtest conversations..

Lobotomy
12-13-2011, 10:50 PM
Did you get the same copy of the rules that I got?

If not, Bows and WWg must shoot at a target in their DZ or, if not, shooting at them, otherwise choose any eligible target.

I've already mentioned this to Bob as an obtuse part of the rules that takes a bit of hard reading to understand. But, the piece that reads, if not, shooting at them, means shooters must shoot shooters.

Larry,

Your initial comment was more than unnecessary. I do not read the rule as you do. If it is my bound, I get to choose what I want to shoot at first. I compared the earlier versions of the rules and prior to the June 24 draft, the rule specifically said shooters have to shoot at each other. That was expressly removed after that for the more cryptic language you cite, what we disagree over. The problem is that the rules give the player who's bound it is the choice of what to shoot at. To then require that player to shoot at the other player's shooters, given the current construction, violates this rule. And then why did PB make the change, or was it only to reduce the number of words?

larryessick
12-13-2011, 11:12 PM
Larry,

Your initial comment was more than unnecessary. I do not read the rule as you do. If it is my bound, I get to choose what I want to shoot at first. I compared the earlier versions of the rules and prior to the June 24 draft, the rule specifically said shooters have to shoot at each other. That was expressly removed after that for the more cryptic language you cite, what we disagree over. The problem is that the rules give the player who's bound it is the choice of what to shoot at. To then require that player to shoot at the other player's shooters, given the current construction, violates this rule. And then why did PB make the change, or was it only to reduce the number of words?

I'm sorry, it was in my still being a bit testy moments. But, it is somewhat of a legitimate question because we might be looking at different documents. That is why I quoted the rule as it appears in my copy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I do not read the rules as you do." I can't tell if this is a general comment or specific to the shooting rule. Regarding shooting priorities I understand that the clearer "must shoot shooters" wording is not there. But the rule is still there.

It is just a shift in shooting priorities. Priority 1 is ANY element in the DZ. Note that this does not have to be shooters -- if they are in the DZ along with other enemy elements, it can be whichever the owning player chooses.

Priority 2 is shooters. Priority 3 is whatever you want it to be.

Like I said, I've mentioned this to Bob in an email as being very badly worded. I noted to him that it took several reads and familiarity with Barker to get to the meaning.

I haven't checked the shooting thread but it looked like they had finally come to the conclusion that I've given regarding priorities.

I'm sorry you took the first line as especially caustic. A bit so no doubt. But I really hadn't thought it too much so -- particularly because I knew who I was responding to.

Edit:

I was in the shooting thread and it suddenly occurred to me how your reading was different from mine and why. The first and third priorities don't require shooters to shoot shooters. They don't even require it if we come back around to enemy shooters that we've ignored and let them nominate our own shooters for their shots. The second priority if strictly read says that I don't have to shoot them if they don't shoot me. So, if I come to a situation where there are multiple eligible targets not in my DZ I can ask my opponent, "Is your bow shooting my bow?" If they reply, "No," I can avoid the bow v bow shooting by nominating some other enemy element for my own shot. Or, I could say, "Well, yes it is because I'm shooting it," causing my opponent's bow to have to shoot back at mine. If my opponent says, "Yes," I'm stuck shooting them whether I really want to or not.

I really don't think that was what Phil Barker intended but I might be completely wrong. In any case, as I said, I had already mentioned this to Bob as being a problematic section.

Would we agree the priority should be 1) shooters in our DZ, 2) other enemy in our DZ, 3) shooters outside our DZ but in arc and 4) others outside our DZ but in arc? Should 1 and 2 be reversed? I can see the case to be made that blade would be more of a threat than archers so ought to be the target if I prefer, so I'll shoot them and just defend vs the enemy bow.

Kingo
12-14-2011, 12:18 AM
Played three games today against Alex Novakov.

Firstly.....if you throw ones as per 2.2, you do'nt deserve much :D

We liked the Terrain system and nearly all the changes that we came across with Romans V Celts.

No sure about the Roman blades following up, we will be trying the Successors next week.

When roman blades follow up Ps must follow them if they are directly behind them supporting them. (Is this correct?), thats the way we see it.

BUA's are rubbish :silly

Doug
12-14-2011, 12:38 AM
Played three games today against Alex Novakov.

Firstly.....if you throw ones as per 2.2, you do'nt deserve much :D

We liked the Terrain system and nearly all the changes that we came across with Romans V Celts.

No sure about the Roman blades following up, we will be trying the Successors next week.

When roman blades follow up Ps must follow them if they are directly behind them supporting them. (Is this correct?), thats the way we see it.

BUA's are rubbish :silly

Good to hear the sky hasn't fallen... and yes, supporting psiloi must follow up. Are you going to make it to Cancon?

Kingo
12-14-2011, 12:59 AM
Good to hear the sky hasn't fallen... and yes, supporting psiloi must follow up. Are you going to make it to Cancon?

No, its too hot when Cancon is on, my transplanted kidney has to work overtime, :rotfl

Alan Saunders
12-14-2011, 01:13 AM
Barker is author of HotT too. So, I think he knows. :up

Not really. He wrote the original concepts - of the authors it was Richard Bodley Scott who expanded them into something that has clarity. As far as I am aware, Phil Barker's contribution to HOTT 2.0 was mostly to sign it off and approve army lists.

It's nice to see odd ideas from HOTT having crept into DBA 3.0 though - defender moving first, for example. I can remember discussing that back in 2001 ...

Alan Saunders
12-14-2011, 01:24 AM
Phil was most concerend to minimise nasty tricks like positioning elements so you couldn't overlap them. Also to minimise the edge of the world effects..

The edge of the board wording doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I need a diagram:

"An element with a flank edge or corner within ½ BW of a battlefield edge counts as overlapped on that flank"

Does that mean if my rear edge (and therefore two rear corners) is against the edge of the board) I'm overlapped on both flanks?

I quite like it as an idea, as it makes anchoring a line on the edge of the board a slightly riskier tactic. But I would restrict it to the side edges, not the players' base edges. Saying that, if you stick your side edge between just over 1/2 and just under 1 BW from the edge, then you still can't be overlapped on that flank*, and this rule doesn't apply. I do it it HOTT from time to time :)

*You can possibly be contacted, though. But the moving into gap rules scare me, so I haven't really looked that possibility up :)

Doug
12-14-2011, 01:34 AM
No, its too hot when Cancon is on, my transplanted kidney has to work overtime, :rotfl

We can supply an icebox for your kidney to rest in between games :)

Doug
12-14-2011, 01:37 AM
The edge of the board wording doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I need a diagram:

"An element with a flank edge or corner within ½ BW of a battlefield edge counts as overlapped on that flank"

Does that mean if my rear edge (and therefore two rear corners) is against the edge of the board) I'm overlapped on both flanks?

Yes! :)

I quite like it as an idea, as it makes anchoring a line on the edge of the board a slightly riskier tactic. But I would restrict it to the side edges, not the players' base edges. Saying that, if you stick your side edge between just over 1/2 and just under 1 BW from the edge, then you still can't be overlapped on that flank*, and this rule doesn't apply. I do it it HOTT from time to time :)

*You can possibly be contacted, though. But the moving into gap rules scare me, so I haven't really looked that possibility up :)

Yeah, I pointed this out in the playtest group some time ago, and asked for consistency, but no response as yet. It's not unsurprising, sometimes you raise things, you don't get a direct answer, and there they are in the next draft!

larryessick
12-14-2011, 02:06 AM
Not really. He wrote the original concepts - of the authors it was Richard Bodley Scott who expanded them into something that has clarity. As far as I am aware, Phil Barker's contribution to HOTT 2.0 was mostly to sign it off and approve army lists.

I think we've had this conversation before. HotT lists two Barkers and one Bodley Scott.

larryessick
12-14-2011, 02:14 AM
Does that mean if my rear edge (and therefore two rear corners) is against the edge of the board) I'm overlapped on both flanks?

Are you certain this is a bad thing?

In ancient battles if an army was pressed too close to their baggage the fight was almost always lost to them.

Wouldn't this replicate an army running out of room and so being extremely fragile and prone to breaking in the face of the enemy's onslaught?

I suppose the risk of recoiling past the base edge might be thought sufficient for this. But, the same fiddly anchoring of lines against the board edges on the flanks can be elements of anchoring the army on one's base line.

So why shouldn't that have similar, or even more dire, consequences?

One other observation. Both you and your opponent will likely be counting as overlapped to the flank if your lines are parallel to table edges. Pays to attack and defend a bit obliquely.

Alan Saunders
12-14-2011, 02:24 AM
I think we've had this conversation before. HotT lists two Barkers and one Bodley Scott.

Let me clarify. Two Barkers and a Bodley Scott wrote HOTT 1.0 which, as a model of clarity was up there with DBA, DBM and al the other DBx systems.

HOTT 2.0 was a rework of HOTT 1.0. But of all of the versions of all of the DBx games it's probably the one that had the least input from either Barker. And, for better or worse, it shows.

It's a set for those of us labouring under the educational handicap of being under 50 years of age ... :) It even has diagrams and a glossary.

Alan Saunders
12-14-2011, 02:31 AM
Are you certain this is a bad thing?



Not at all. I'm not sure about camp followers or elements attacking a camp getting it, though. Or, indeed, any elements operating near their opponent's base-edge, since they hardl have their backs against the wall.

I suspect it comes down to the intent of the rule, which we don't always know. I suspect it's designed to keep the battle in the centre and away from the flanks of the playing area. A certain amount of normal activity takes place near a player base-line, and I'm not convinced the mechanism should be penalising this.

(I must confess that, as a rule, it's one that would sit well in in any hypothetical rework of HOTT, but that really does have a lot of player baseline activity, so would possibly not be appropriate there.)

Xavi
12-14-2011, 03:49 AM
Actually if you are 1/2 BW from ther border of the world and I attack them, I will be 1/2 edge from the boarde rof the world as well 99% of the time. If might be that you can prevent me from creeping around your battle line for cime *ME* to be 1/2 BW form the border of the world whiole you are not. We do that all the time with ZOC in 2.2. So, this means that most of the time both combatants will count as overlapped, por only the one trying to break through a flank guard will be.

I am not sure at all the "automatic overlap" is a good thing.

Xavi

Doug
12-14-2011, 04:43 AM
Actually if you are 1/2 BW from ther border of the world and I attack them, I will be 1/2 edge from the boarde rof the world as well 99% of the time. If might be that you can prevent me from creeping around your battle line for cime *ME* to be 1/2 BW form the border of the world whiole you are not. We do that all the time with ZOC in 2.2. So, this means that most of the time both combatants will count as overlapped, por only the one trying to break through a flank guard will be.

I am not sure at all the "automatic overlap" is a good thing.

Xavi

I like it.. it does go some way to stopping people using the board as the edge of the world. Whis is very artificial.

Xavi
12-14-2011, 04:49 AM
Maybe I did not say it properly. Let's try again.

Now it is EASIER to defend the edge of the world than before, since the one attempting to outflank your position is likely to face a -1 overlap while you can position yourself to avoid it easily enough.

The final result can be the opposite of what the rule tried to do.

Xavi

Martyn
12-14-2011, 05:22 AM
Good to hear the sky hasn't fallen... and yes, supporting psiloi must follow up. Are you going to make it to Cancon?

Doug, I want to clarify the rule on who pursues particularly with regard to Bd and supporting Ps.

Within the pursuit section of the rules the phrase ‘or that could provide’ is a bit impenetrable. Does that apply to only the element types listed earlier in that paragraph (so Wb or Pk supporting for example) or to any element that provides support. I take it from your comment that you consider it to be the latter

In the example of a line of three Bd with a supporting Ps behind the middle one we have a variety of possible outcomes depending on the order of combat;
1. if the central Bd win and therefore pursue, does the Ps also pursue thereby depriving the flanking Bd of the Ps support, or does the Ps not pursue which deprives all three Bd of their support?
2. if one of the flanking Bd win and pursue does the supporting Ps also pursue? If we accept that the rule includes supporting Ps then the wording of the rule would suggest it should. So does the Ps move sideways and forwards to line up directly behind the pursuing Bd? This then deprives the central and opposite flank Bd of the support.

I have no axe to grind on this but the rule and its implementation are, to me, not clear.

Doug
12-14-2011, 05:32 AM
Doug, I want to clarify the rule on who pursues particularly with regard to Bd and supporting Ps.

Within the pursuit section of the rules the phrase ‘or that could provide’ is a bit impenetrable. Does that apply to only the element types listed earlier in that paragraph (so Wb or Pk supporting for example) or to any element that provides support. I take it from your comment that you consider it to be the latter

In the example of a line of three Bd with a supporting Ps behind the middle one we have a variety of possible outcomes depending on the order of combat;
1. if the central Bd win and therefore pursue, does the Ps also pursue thereby depriving the flanking Bd of the Ps support, or does the Ps not pursue which deprives all three Bd of their support?
2. if one of the flanking Bd win and pursue does the supporting Ps also pursue? If we accept that the rule includes supporting Ps then the wording of the rule would suggest it should. So does the Ps move sideways and forwards to line up directly behind the pursuing Bd? This then deprives the central and opposite flank Bd of the support.

I have no axe to grind on this but the rule and its implementation are, to me, not clear.

I agree it is not clear. I believe the intent to be 1. with the Psiloi directly behind pursuing, as anything else would seem quite odd..

This is one not brought up by the playtest group, as this draft is the first one to have Blade pursuing.

Martyn
12-14-2011, 05:55 AM
I agree it is not clear. I believe the intent to be 1. with the Psiloi directly behind pursuing, as anything else would seem quite odd..

This is one not brought up by the playtest group, as this draft is the first one to have Blade pursuing.

Thanks Doug.

This does bring up a point on how to best respond/feed back to Phil. We know that Phil does not take much notice of what is said here and Sue monitors the Yahoo group but does not interact with it. Is there much point in individuals emailing (I know that is what Sue requested but you can imaging the weight of emails that she is going to receive) or would it be better for one or more of the playtesters to act as liaison?

Bob has previously offered to act as a liaison but with all the fuss generated over his job description I'm not sure if that is happening. Is it better to have a single point of contact or should there be multiples, with various playtesters acting as liaison, possibly on a geographic basis for convienience.

If we adopt that approach how will it be best for the playtesters to collate the queries/comments/suggestions. It is getting hard to keep a track of all of the discussions going on and it is not fair on the playtesters to expect them to do all the hard work.

I just feel we need to be more organised in getting our concerns/suggestions understood and this will hopefully give more weight to the playtesters feed back if they have the additional input from the community at large.

Doug
12-14-2011, 06:10 AM
Thanks Doug.

This does bring up a point on how to best respond/feed back to Phil.
If we adopt that approach how will it be best for the playtesters to collate the queries/comments/suggestions. It is getting hard to keep a track of all of the discussions going on and it is not fair on the playtesters to expect them to do all the hard work.

I just feel we need to be more organised in getting our concerns/suggestions understood and this will hopefully give more weight to the playtesters feed back if they have the additional input from the community at large.

I think you make a fair point. I would be happy to create an 'Issues Register' and lodge them with the playtest group. This seems like a good first one.

larryessick
12-14-2011, 10:36 AM
I want to offer some thoughts on the "edge of the world" issue. I don't think that there is much probability that any of it will get into DBA but I do think it is important to discuss on its merits as history.

I've previously asserted that terrain on most battlefields is actually pretty boring with one or both flanks resting on some sort of defensible terrain and the center being mostly open ground with the defending army uphill if that is at all possible for them.

I've also asserted that when an army got pressed too far back towards its own camp/baggage that it was prone to breaking under the pressure of the enemy assault.

I believe these are both true for most battles throughout the ancient/medieval period.

Functionally, this does represent a sort of "end of the world" phenomenon for these armies.

The problem comes in, to a large degree, with light horse and cavalry armies that used large, strategic out flanks in order to trap an opponent. This was sometimes attempted by foot armies with separate armies converging on a predetermined point but the difficulties of coordination and the speed of march make this less common for our armies.

But, once trapped, the defender would choose the same boring terrain if they could.

What happens if we put one board size inside a larger board size?

The inner square is the battle ground and gets terrain, holds the camps, is where armies deploy, etc. The outer square is the ground immediately outside of the battle ground where, if a defending army is pushed, it is likely to break due to the pressure.

Neither player can intentionally go into the extra space of the larger square except with light horse or cavalry. Others forced into the extra space due to combats takes a predetermined negative (-1 or -2) to their combat factor. Troops that normally pursue do not need to do so.

As a matter of history, do my assumptions mirror what most observe to be true? As a matter of gaming, does something like my suggestion have the right effect on the game?

pozanias
12-14-2011, 01:46 PM
What happens if we put one board size inside a larger board size?

The inner square is the battle ground and gets terrain, holds the camps, is where armies deploy, etc. The outer square is the ground immediately outside of the battle ground where, if a defending army is pushed, it is likely to break due to the pressure.

Neither player can intentionally go into the extra space of the larger square except with light horse or cavalry. Others forced into the extra space due to combats takes a predetermined negative (-1 or -2) to their combat factor. Troops that normally pursue do not need to do so.



I think this is a pretty neat idea. However, I think that a 30" board already solves the problem of 'edge of the world' -- and it is a simpler (and well tested) solution. I think edge of the world is a huge problem with 24" boards. I think it is a virtual non-issue with 30" boards.

Gascap
12-14-2011, 02:29 PM
<snip>

What happens if we put one board size inside a larger board size?

<snip>

As a matter of history, do my assumptions mirror what most observe to be true? As a matter of gaming, does something like my suggestion have the right effect on the game?

Why stop with one inside the other? We could put one inside the other inside the other inside the other, and sell them to tournament-goers and tourists. ;)

http://www.natashascafe.com/images/products/semodoll.jpg

30" boards mostly solve the edge of the world problem.

JM

larryessick
12-14-2011, 02:46 PM
Well, if larger table sizes solve the problem for most players and if larger table sizes allow armies to deploy in line without needing to double up ranks and if that is both permitted by the rules and what players prefer....

then why worry about an edge of the world combat factor that isn't going to creep into any but a very few games or any of the peripheral issues that may arise from the edge of the world rules?

Why not just use the larger boards. Phil Barker wins because he gets to include a mechanism that he thinks is effective. Players win because they get to use the remedy they've developed and find effective. Win, win.

That's good, right? :2up

elsyr
12-14-2011, 02:55 PM
then why worry about an edge of the world combat factor that isn't going to creep into any but a very few games or any of the peripheral issues that may arise from the edge of the world rules?

One could look at this from the other side and say that if larger boards are a simple solution to a perceived edge of the world problem, then why bother to include additional rules that complicate the game and introduce the potential for abuse? Either way will work, but if the stated goal of the product is to minimize the rules ...

Doug

kontos
12-14-2011, 03:00 PM
Well I raised this question on the Yahoo site. There is, in the rules, NO adjustment for deployments from the 24" to 30" boards. While this has no effect on the mounted elements in the "outside" area, the "inside" restrictions become looser as everything is measured from the board edge. This will allow the foot portion of the army to spread out effectively cancelling the advantage the 30" board was intended to provide to more mobile armies. ;)

Kingo
12-14-2011, 03:30 PM
I have both sizes of board, many people like smaller (it fits in my campervan). Why not just dice to return like in WRG 6th?. Simple. :up:D

pozanias
12-14-2011, 04:19 PM
then why worry about an edge of the world combat factor that isn't going to creep into any but a very few games or any of the peripheral issues that may arise from the edge of the world rules?



I'm not "worried". I think your idea is an improvement over 24" boards. I just think 30" boards are an even better solution.

larryessick
12-14-2011, 04:20 PM
This will allow the foot portion of the army to spread out effectively cancelling the advantage the 30" board was intended to provide to more mobile armies.

So, that is the heart of the objection.

I feel it necessary to go back to some of the things I posit before making the suggestion. One of them is that strategic maneuver doesn't really change the choice of battlefield.

The import of this is that the battlefield should not be giving an advantage to more mobile armies and was in fact intentionally selected, when possible to do so, with the goal in mind of minimizing any perceived advantage.

I can see the objection from a game playing perspective. But what about the evidence of history?

Doug
12-14-2011, 04:23 PM
Well, if larger table sizes solve the problem for most players and if larger table sizes allow armies to deploy in line without needing to double up ranks and if that is both permitted by the rules and what players prefer....

then why worry about an edge of the world combat factor that isn't going to creep into any but a very few games or any of the peripheral issues that may arise from the edge of the world rules?

Why not just use the larger boards. Phil Barker wins because he gets to include a mechanism that he thinks is effective. Players win because they get to use the remedy they've developed and find effective. Win, win.

That's good, right? :2up

One thing that is noticeable about most rule sets is that we (players) willingly trade depth for width as most sets reward outflanking the opponent, yet classical battles are not noted for these sorts of things, and depth is very important. I am not sure we should be looking to deploy wide and shallow. It makes it very difficult to do Carrhae or Chalons, or any number of Steppe battles.

larryessick
12-14-2011, 04:32 PM
One thing that is noticeable about most rule sets is that we (players) willingly trade depth for width as most sets reward outflanking the opponent, yet classical battles are not noted for these sorts of things, and depth is very important.

Doug,

This is wrong! Most classical battlefields attempted to fill the entire gap between two bits of defensible terrain or, where two bits did not exist, to anchor on one and attack from the other. Most of the time armies were more than willing to sacrifice depth for width exactly for the reason we do it -- to prevent being outflanked.

Larry

Pavane
12-14-2011, 04:38 PM
Well I raised this question on the Yahoo site. There is, in the rules, NO adjustment for deployments from the 24" to 30" boards. While this has no effect on the mounted elements in the "outside" area, the "inside" restrictions become looser as everything is measured from the board edge. This will allow the foot portion of the army to spread out effectively cancelling the advantage the 30" board was intended to provide to more mobile armies. ;)
The simple solution to board size variations is to measure forward deployment limits from the centreline instead of the baseline.

kontos
12-14-2011, 04:40 PM
Doug,

This is wrong! Most classical battlefields attempted to fill the entire gap between two bits of defensible terrain or, where two bits did not exist, to anchor on one and attack from the other. Most of the time armies were more than willing to sacrifice depth for width exactly for the reason we do it -- to prevent being outflanked.

Larry

Isn't this the very answer to the question you posed to me, Larry?

"The import of this is that the battlefield should not be giving an advantage to more mobile armies and was in fact intentionally selected, when possible to do so, with the goal in mind of minimizing any perceived advantage.

I can see the objection from a game playing perspective. But what about the evidence of history?"

larryessick
12-14-2011, 04:55 PM
Isn't this the very answer to the question you posed to me, Larry?

Well it is an answer, and it cited some selective battles. But I'd suggest that everyone look at those battles a bit more closely. ;)

Doug
12-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Well it is an answer, and it cited some selective battles. But I'd suggest that everyone look at those battles a bit more closely. ;)

I suggest you have a look at some others... Crusader battles are quite instructive.

larryessick
12-14-2011, 06:15 PM
Is the objection one of how cavalry armies play when the full range of DBA rules are used or that DBA doesn't permit replication of historical battles?

If it is that in any game with the full range of DBA rules in effect -- terrain placement, deployment and so on -- that cavalry armies are disadvantaged that is one discussion.

If it is that in a constructed game designed to replicate an actual battle that we can't get a decent refight it is another discussion.

If it is the former then I agree but I contend it is the result of the terrain rules more than any other factor.

As for my specific objection to the initial contention, it has to do with the assertion that we trade depth for breadth where classical armies traded breadth for depth. None of these battles being cited seem to indicate that whatsoever.

Si2
12-14-2011, 08:49 PM
I played three games tonight - two of them over in three bounds, one in four.

I liked the way that if you placed terrain in your own board half, you could then place your forces on it and own it.

Did feel like an entirely different game because you can deploy in depth.

More playing needed...

Anatolians beat the Sumerians in four bounds, where in 2.2 it took nine games, including one three hour epic!

EIR vs AncBrit was a win each way over two games.
Ax mashing Wb in one and Wb mashing Bd in the other.

SI2

snowcat
12-14-2011, 09:08 PM
Re the number of bounds in your games, did you find any of the game results coming a bit too quickly? Or did it still feel right (or at least OK)?

Lobotomy
12-14-2011, 09:54 PM
Well I raised this question on the Yahoo site. There is, in the rules, NO adjustment for deployments from the 24" to 30" boards. While this has no effect on the mounted elements in the "outside" area, the "inside" restrictions become looser as everything is measured from the board edge. This will allow the foot portion of the army to spread out effectively cancelling the advantage the 30" board was intended to provide to more mobile armies. ;)

Frank,

I think your comment ignores what I recall is the very first comment on the post by Bob that PB is using the new deployment rules to AVOID including the 30" boards in the rules by opening up the flanks more. So what you say, while true, avoids what PB appears to by trying to accomplish.

kontos
12-14-2011, 10:03 PM
Frank,

I think your comment ignores what I recall is the very first comment on the post by Bob that PB is using the new deployment rules to AVOID including the 30" boards in the rules by opening up the flanks more. So what you say, while true, avoids what PB appears to by trying to accomplish.

I agree. I just threw it out there to see if anyone who playtested 30" boards made the adjustments or, if not, how did it affect the army deployments. I really have no opinion on it as I will not be playing it. It was just curiosity. :up

Wm.E.Reseigh
12-14-2011, 10:41 PM
I think you make a fair point. I would be happy to create an 'Issues Register' and lodge them with the playtest group. This seems like a good first one.

I like this idea very much. Perhaps we might even come to a consensus on some issues, and the chosen playtesters who frequent this forum could pass it on jointly. That ought to attract some notice from the author. This is similar to what we did with the warband changes made a couple of years ago, if somewhat larger in scope.

texus maximus
12-15-2011, 12:57 AM
Would anyone be interested in a re-fight of the "Punic Peril" campaign from a while ago, but this time with the new 3.0 army lists and using the 3.0 rules? It might be a structured and entertaining way to test out the new rules/lists and see what difference it makes in the progress of the campaign.

For those who did not follow it on the Forums as it as it was played, here is the original concept created by John Meunier:

"I'm looking for six players who are interested in taking part in a a Second Punic War campaign moderated through Fanaticus.

Six powers will compete for dominance:

II/32 Later Carthaginian
II/39a Ancient Spanish
II/11 Gallic
II/33 Polybian Roman
II/8a Bruttian
II/9 Syracusan

Players will be randomly assigned to control one of the six powers. You do not need to own the armies to play. The players will take the role of ruler (tribal chief, king, Senate, etc.) of the power. Players will take conduct diplomacy and control strategic movement of armies.

There are two options for the adjudication of table top battles.

1) Campaign moderator conducts all battles and writes up reports after each.
2) Campaign moderator assigns a player to conduct battles, who then report results.

Option 1 removes any risk of inadvertent bias effecting the outcome of the battle. Option 2 gives players more to do."

I personally like Option 2, because it would involve more people in fighting the battles. The players who conduct the battles would need to post some detailed turn-by-turn battle reports so others can critique and make comments on how the rules work. And no re-fights of battles because of rules errors discovered after play, because the games are likely to be one long series of errors!

Doug
12-15-2011, 01:44 AM
Hi Guys,

I have created an 'issues register' so that issues reported here (and on the DBA yahoo group) can be reported back to Phil and the other playtesters for consideration. I have also attempted to identify where there needs to be a clarification, or simply where there are a lot of concerns or heat about the change.

I have asterisked the ones that (may) require clarification.

1. Blade pursuit and effect on supporting Psiloi *
2. Terrain sizes *
3. Edge of board factors
4. Cramped deployment areas
5. Single element moving for 0 PIPs as first Tactical Move *
6. The problem of double loss Double Elements

Macbeth
12-15-2011, 02:32 AM
:p:pDoug,

something for the issues register at your discretion and I am sure you will agree this is dear to your heart following Landwaster :D

It is way too easy for a Sp or Bw based army to "Shut Down" something like your Ayyubids with the current terrain rules

If I read it correctly an arable player can

Step 1
Choose a Road as compulsorycompulsory

Step 2
Choose a waterway as first optional make sure the WW is maximum size

Set this first optional piece up parallel to the compulsory. I cannot see a way that this cannot happen with linear terrain

Step 3
Choose a non bad-going piece if possible (gentle hill) or the smallest piece of bad going that you can

Terrain is done

Invader must now choose one of the two ends of the road as their base edge

One flank is then anchored against the WW and is 300 - 400 paces from the edge.

It should be a snap to move the overhang from the other flank to the sweet spot (just over 1/2 BW from the other board edge) and just drive the horsemen backwards.

I am appalled with myself :outrage as I have never seen myself as someone that figures out the "fiddles" in a set of rules and yet this one jumped out at me.

I am sure that this wasn't the intent of the rules - and if I didn't think the current rules favour the attacker too much I would say that making the invader choose an edge where a road starts is too restrictive.

Even more Evil although I am not sure if it is correct or legal

Step 1 - choose a compulsroy road

Step 2 - choose an optional waterway that runs perpendicular to the road this one needs to be the minimum size

Step 3 - choose the terrain you want to deploy in and place it in the opposite quarters to the waterway (you have a 50% chance of this )

Assuming that the invader must choose an edge where a road starts and cannot be opposite the waterway then you can drive the invaders deployment completely.

I am hoping to get a few games under my belt in the Xmas/Nuyeer break

Cheers

Bob Santamaria
12-15-2011, 03:25 AM
:p:pDoug,

I am hoping to get a few games under my belt in the Xmas/Nuyeer break

Cheers

You aren't going to be in Sydney or around Jervis Bay during that period are you? I would love to give you a game Dave.

Adrian

Kingo
12-15-2011, 02:44 PM
Would anyone be interested in a re-fight of the "Punic Peril" campaign from a while ago, but this time with the new 3.0 army lists and using the 3.0 rules? It might be a structured and entertaining way to test out the new rules/lists and see what difference it makes in the progress of the campaign.

For those who did not follow it on the Forums as it as it was played, here is the original concept created by John Meunier:

"I'm looking for six players who are interested in taking part in a a Second Punic War campaign moderated through Fanaticus.

Six powers will compete for dominance:

II/32 Later Carthaginian
II/39a Ancient Spanish
II/11 Gallic
II/33 Polybian Roman
II/8a Bruttian
II/9 Syracusan

Players will be randomly assigned to control one of the six powers. You do not need to own the armies to play. The players will take the role of ruler (tribal chief, king, Senate, etc.) of the power. Players will take conduct diplomacy and control strategic movement of armies.

There are two options for the adjudication of table top battles.

1) Campaign moderator conducts all battles and writes up reports after each.
2) Campaign moderator assigns a player to conduct battles, who then report results.

Option 1 removes any risk of inadvertent bias effecting the outcome of the battle. Option 2 gives players more to do."

I personally like Option 2, because it would involve more people in fighting the battles. The players who conduct the battles would need to post some detailed turn-by-turn battle reports so others can critique and make comments on how the rules work. And no re-fights of battles because of rules errors discovered after play, because the games are likely to be one long series of errors!

MEE! :D please

Martyn
12-15-2011, 02:48 PM
Hi Guys,

I have created an 'issues register' so that issues reported here (and on the DBA yahoo group) can be reported back to Phil and the other playtesters for consideration. I have also attempted to identify where there needs to be a clarification, or simply where there are a lot of concerns or heat about the change.

I have asterisked the ones that (may) require clarification.

1. Blade pursuit and effect on supporting Psiloi *
2. Terrain sizes *
3. Edge of board factors
4. Cramped deployment areas
5. Single element moving for 0 PIPs as first Tactical Move *
6. The problem of double loss Double Elements

A few clarifications to add to your list (some have been raised before but for completeness I have repeated);

1. How far can a gentle hill etc extend into an adjacent quarter and can it be more than one quarter.
2. Clarify priority for shooting (a bow and non bow both in DZ)
3. Friction kills on pushback or not actually pushed back.
4. Pursuit up to bad going or not at all.
5. For which rules is PB intending to add diagrams

Some other rule questions:

1. Why no roads to a WW, how do you get to off load ships, how do you get to the beach ;)
2. Why not make breaking off available to all, subject only to moving faster than frontal contact enemy.

winterbadger
12-15-2011, 03:21 PM
1. Why no roads to a WW, how do you get to off load ships, how do you get to the beach ;)

Presumably for whatever reason roads can now go near, but need not lead into, a BUA. What BUA is going to be *near* a road but not have the road go through it?

larryessick
12-15-2011, 04:09 PM
1. Why no roads to a WW, how do you get to off load ships, how do you get to the beach

I don't see this as a particularly big issue.

If the site was a normal loading/unloading point then a small community would build up and the road would then lead to the BUA. Otherwise roads between coastal communities were likely to run roughly parallel with the coast and any trips to the beach were likely to be along trails from those roads to the water. These are easily subsumed as part of the normal good going.

Final reason is probably game related. Placing a road forces the invader to choose one terminus or the other as their base edge. Invader cannot force defender to take the side with a WW. Placing a road that ends in a WW forces the attacker to take the WW side.

I suspect that is too advantageous to a Littoral army that could then just offload attackers at the attacker's camp for an easy win.

larryessick
12-15-2011, 04:13 PM
Presumably for whatever reason roads can now go near, but need not lead into, a BUA. What BUA is going to be *near* a road but not have the road go through it?

:???

P6 in LINEAR TERRAIN FEATURES

a road can end prematurely by joining another road (or cross it) or end at a BUA

Roads cannot pass thru a BUA but can end at one.

Doug
12-15-2011, 05:18 PM
MEE! :D please

You can sign me up as well thanks! (If you are still short) - Preferences would be Carthaginian or Syracuse..

a cynic writes...
12-15-2011, 05:33 PM
Roads cannot pass thru a BUA but can end at one.

er...no. Given that's how towns often start that would be mad. If you look at the last line on page 6:

"If a BUA is also used, 1 road must pass through it or less than 1BW from it."

john meunier
12-15-2011, 05:36 PM
I personally like Option 2, because it would involve more people in fighting the battles. The players who conduct the battles would need to post some detailed turn-by-turn battle reports so others can critique and make comments on how the rules work. And no re-fights of battles because of rules errors discovered after play, because the games are likely to be one long series of errors!

Good luck with the campaign. I'm glad my idea continues to live on.

My one word on Option 2 is that everyone needs to understand that sometimes battles will go badly.

When I allowed others (not the GM) to play battles I got some e-mails from the owners of losing armies who feared conspiracies.

Bob Santamaria
12-15-2011, 05:48 PM
I will hopefully get a game or two of this over the weekend. Until then, I am not going to say anything.

Martyn
12-15-2011, 06:38 PM
Hi Guys,

I have created an 'issues register' so that issues reported here (and on the DBA yahoo group) can be reported back to Phil and the other playtesters for consideration. I have also attempted to identify where there needs to be a clarification, or simply where there are a lot of concerns or heat about the change.

I have asterisked the ones that (may) require clarification.

1. Blade pursuit and effect on supporting Psiloi *
2. Terrain sizes *
3. Edge of board factors
4. Cramped deployment areas
5. Single element moving for 0 PIPs as first Tactical Move *
6. The problem of double loss Double Elements

Picking up on a couple of point that have been discussed here in the past that would beefit from clarity;

Elephants recoiling into another element destroys that element, what happens to the elephant, does it continue its recoil, does it stop where it contacts the other element or is it destroyed?

Elephant1 recoiling into the flank of a combat involving another Elephant2. In v3 both elephants die but what about the element in combat with El2.
Do we need confirmation of something like all elements in the recoil zone of an element are considered to be affected by the recoil.

Martyn
12-15-2011, 06:43 PM
I don't see this as a particularly big issue.

If the site was a normal loading/unloading point then a small community would build up and the road would then lead to the BUA. Otherwise roads between coastal communities were likely to run roughly parallel with the coast and any trips to the beach were likely to be along trails from those roads to the water. These are easily subsumed as part of the normal good going.

Final reason is probably game related. Placing a road forces the invader to choose one terminus or the other as their base edge. Invader cannot force defender to take the side with a WW. Placing a road that ends in a WW forces the attacker to take the WW side.

I suspect that is too advantageous to a Littoral army that could then just offload attackers at the attacker's camp for an easy win.

In the great scheme of things it is a trivial point.

Just a quick correction, the invader has to select one of the board edges that the road joins, but also is not allowed to select the edge opposite a WW. So assuming a single road straight across the battlefield, the invader would have to select the WW edge. A good way of restricting an invaders options and perhaps a good reason for not having a Rd to a WW.

Macbeth
12-15-2011, 07:01 PM
Remember that an invader is only constrained to edges with a road when the road is a compulsory terrain feature.

A littoral commander will have to be more clever if they want to force the invader to deploy with the water at their back :D

Cheers

Macbeth
12-15-2011, 07:06 PM
One more issue for the register then I promise not to look for problems until I have played a few games ....


In a corner of some foreign field there is a camp and a BUA belonging to one army. The enemy has an artillery piece and is bringing it to bear on the El general.

In desperation the Camp Followers and the Denizens sally forth and attack this Art.

During the confused melee around the cannons the Camp Followers are beaten but not doubled, the Denizens are doubled.

So the Camp Followers are destroyed, but the Denizens just recoil.

From the point of view of an Art general and all around fan of big guns/catapults/trebuchets etc

This is Not Consistent, Not Right and Not Cool :2up

Cheers

larryessick
12-15-2011, 07:27 PM
"If a BUA is also used, 1 road must pass through it or less than 1BW from it."

Ah, missed it.

So roads can continue thru the BUA or end at the BUA as the defender prefers.

Thanks for correction.

larryessick
12-15-2011, 07:30 PM
Just a quick correction, the invader has to select one of the board edges that the road joins, but also is not allowed to select the edge opposite a WW.

Thanks for noting that.

snowcat
12-15-2011, 07:32 PM
Not how I read it. :???

Martyn
12-16-2011, 01:11 PM
How about a Glossary so all terms can be defined in one place.

larryessick
12-16-2011, 01:55 PM
Not how I read it. :???

Not how I read it either, but I'm still working on being nice to people. :up

Here is the exact rule from 3.0:

If the defender has used a compulsory road, the invader’s base edge must be one of the edges the road joins.

So, it is correct that the invader does not need to choose where the road joins the edge unless the road is compulsory. That's easy enough.

The rule continues,

If not, the invader can choose any edge as his base edge except that opposite a waterway.

So, "if not" means if the invader did not take a compulsory road edge. Any edge "except" that opposite a waterway means that invader cannot force defender to have the waterway to their back (what Martyn says).

However, taken together, neither Bob's illustration nor my effort to force armies to deploy back to the WW exist. And I think that is the key thing to observe.

snowcat
12-16-2011, 08:59 PM
Not how I read it either, but I'm still working on being nice to people. :up

Here is the exact rule from 3.0:

If the defender has used a compulsory road, the invader’s base edge must be one of the edges the road joins.

So, it is correct that the invader does not need to choose where the road joins the edge unless the road is compulsory. That's easy enough.

The rule continues,

If not, the invader can choose any edge as his base edge except that opposite a waterway.

So, "if not" means if the invader did not take a compulsory road edge. Any edge "except" that opposite a waterway means that invader cannot force defender to have the waterway to their back (what Martyn says).

However, taken together, neither Bob's illustration nor my effort to force armies to deploy back to the WW exist. And I think that is the key thing to observe.

I take the "If not" to mean "If the defender has NOT used a compulsory road..." See your Linear Terrain Features thread for my fuller explanation.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 01:10 AM
Another thing

Last sentence page 8


http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1089/nuevaimagendemapadebitsxx.png

Is this correct? Quite a change if this is the case!!

Howeever, in the last sentence of page 9 we have this:


Is the text in page 8 independent from the text in page 9 or should they be read together?

The leftmost element in your diagram is moving OUT of alignment when the group shifts to the left. Therefore the only allowable direction is to shift rightwards.

Alan Saunders
12-25-2011, 01:24 AM
A few clarifications to add to your list (some have been raised before but for completeness I have repeated);

1. How far can a gentle hill etc extend into an adjacent quarter and can it be more than one quarter.


I didn't think that was particularly unclear. It seems to be a case of 'anything not forbidden is permitted'. The hill must be in the quarter diced for, but doesn't have to be entirely within it, so it can be in one or more other quarters as well. Other area features must be entirely within the quarter rolled.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 01:26 AM
You DBA players seem to be suffering from a lack of knowledge of how DBMM plays. Instead of viewing 3.0 from the perspective of "why has it changed from 2.x" you should realize that it is incorporating DBMM mechanisms which have proved superior to the previous DBM mechanisms. DBA is meant now to be the starter version of DBMM. Suck it up and live with it.

Re board sizes -- DBMM still suffers from not only non-linear scaling between 15mm and 25mm, but also from funky scaling between the full scale game and the "200" game.

I solved the 200 scale problem to my satisfaction.

It seems to me that the tiny board size in DBA should allow for Steppe type armies to force the use of a wider board as a Terrain Choice.

Alan Saunders
12-25-2011, 02:27 AM
It seems to me that the tiny board size in DBA should allow for Steppe type armies to force the use of a wider board as a Terrain Choice.

Interesting.

I have a few 2' x 2' cloths. They are legal HOTT/DBA playing areas.

You turn up at my house to play DBA. You bring a 'steppe army'. Will you also bring a wider board with you as well, or am I expected to own one myself just in case? Should I cut some more cloths, just in case?

Bob Santamaria
12-25-2011, 08:08 AM
You DBA players seem to be suffering from a lack of knowledge of how DBMM plays. Instead of viewing 3.0 from the perspective of "why has it changed from 2.x" you should realize that it is incorporating DBMM mechanisms which have proved superior to the previous DBM mechanisms. DBA is meant now to be the starter version of DBMM. Suck it up and live with it.

Re board sizes -- DBMM still suffers from not only non-linear scaling between 15mm and 25mm, but also from funky scaling between the full scale game and the "200" game.

I solved the 200 scale problem to my satisfaction.

It seems to me that the tiny board size in DBA should allow for Steppe type armies to force the use of a wider board as a Terrain Choice.

Why should I acquire knowledge of a game I do not like, and which is played by a community which I neither like nor trust?

It is this sort of mentality and the appalling development process that has created so much angst and ill will towards DBA 3.

A shame really, because DBA 3 seem largely to me to be an improvement. Pity that DBA 3 was not treated as a process whereby the best for DBA was the aim, instead of the insulting approach of treating it as a DBMM auxiliary, which is simply not fair to the reality of the DBA community.

DBA needs to be treated as an end in itself.

Richard Lee
12-25-2011, 08:42 AM
[snip]
DBA needs to be treated as an end in itself.

Yes. DBA was the original 'DBx' game, which was then adapted for DBM, HotT and DBR. DBMM has a built-in option to have small games (DBMM100). If people want an introductory game for DBMM then I recommend DBMM100 to them.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 11:24 AM
>DBA needs to be treated as an end in itself.

Ya'll have an immense capacity for ignoring reality.

re Steppe boards -- yes, the board extension is a terrain piece so I have to bring it.

Do I get a 6" extension on each side, or maybe an option to do 12" on a single side? Do I place it last, or does it go down first? Is it empty, or subject to having other terrain placed upon it? Food for development.

Bob Santamaria
12-25-2011, 06:07 PM
I think Pillager lives under a bridge

Bob Santamaria
12-25-2011, 06:10 PM
[QUOTE=Pillager;137230]>DBA needs to be treated as an end in itself.

Ya'll have an immense capacity for ignoring reality.

QUOTE]

As far as I can tell the only people who play DBMM 2 are the same ones that would play a game based on an outline of PB's vomit on a canvas, and also tell everyone that it was official and that everything else was somehow obsolete and worthless. A Stalinist mentality basically; an application of "democratic centralism" to wargaming.

They can play what they want - but I will not stand for DBMM imperialism here, as much as I think that BW movement is a good thing for DBA.

A

Pillager
12-25-2011, 08:32 PM
>game based on an outline of PB's vomit on a canvas

Don't you remember that he suggested this method for creating a terrain cloth? The Chunky bits are Bad Going.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 08:33 PM
Spend the $20 on a copy of DBMM2.0 out of respect for Phil's lifetime contributions. It WILL help you to understand the DBA rules.

EDIT: Whether you LIKE what you learn is another thing entirely. But you will be able to piss & moan with _accuracy_

Doug
12-25-2011, 08:43 PM
Why should I acquire knowledge of a game I do not like, and which is played by a community which I neither like nor trust?

It is this sort of mentality and the appalling development process that has created so much angst and ill will towards DBA 3.

A shame really, because DBA 3 seem largely to me to be an improvement. Pity that DBA 3 was not treated as a process whereby the best for DBA was the aim, instead of the insulting approach of treating it as a DBMM auxiliary, which is simply not fair to the reality of the DBA community.

DBA needs to be treated as an end in itself.

And it is a shame that you respond to someone who seems determined to troll Fanaticus and see how many people he can upset.

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.

But your attitude is typical of many - statements such as 'don't like and trust' - nice condemnation of your fellow gamers. What - are they all thieves? Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all.

larryessick
12-25-2011, 09:29 PM
Ya'll have an immense capacity for ignoring reality.

Pillager, I just want to welcome you to the Fanaticus Forum. You make me look like one of the good ol' boys club.

Alan Saunders
12-25-2011, 10:06 PM
>
re Steppe boards -- yes, the board extension is a terrain piece so I have to bring it.

Do I get a 6" extension on each side, or maybe an option to do 12" on a single side? Do I place it last, or does it go down first? Is it empty, or subject to having other terrain placed upon it? Food for development.

Hi Pillager,

I suspect that even a 12" extension, empty or otherwise, won't be enough in your case - not if you can't find anyone willing to let you play with them using it. You could always play solo, though - I hear there are websites and magazines with plenty of advice and aids to help you do that :)

dicemanrick
12-25-2011, 10:06 PM
You DBA players seem to be suffering from a lack of knowledge of how DBMM plays. Instead of viewing 3.0 from the perspective of "why has it changed from 2.x" you should realize that it is incorporating DBMM mechanisms which have proved superior to the previous DBM mechanisms. DBA is meant now to be the starter version of DBMM. Suck it up and live with it.

Re board sizes -- DBMM still suffers from not only non-linear scaling between 15mm and 25mm, but also from funky scaling between the full scale game and the "200" game.

I solved the 200 scale problem to my satisfaction.

It seems to me that the tiny board size in DBA should allow for Steppe type armies to force the use of a wider board as a Terrain Choice.

Suck it up?? Now you're telling me that DBA is so inferior to DBMM that I have to learn DBMM??? Are you drinking???

DBMM is NOT played on this side of the pond...do you know that?

We want to play DBA and don't care a rat's ass about DBMM.

Doug
12-25-2011, 10:08 PM
As far as I can tell the only people who play DBMM 2 are the same ones that would play a game based on an outline of PB's vomit on a canvas, and also tell everyone that it was official and that everything else was somehow obsolete and worthless. A Stalinist mentality basically; an application of "democratic centralism" to wargaming.

They can play what they want - but I will not stand for DBMM imperialism here, as much as I think that BW movement is a good thing for DBA.

A

Well, no. We don't tell everyone else that what they play is worthless. And we are certainly not some sort of Stalinist collective. This is just a complete nonsense. I support wholeheartedly people who play all sorts of games. A look in my study at the range of toys there would show you that I play plenty more than DBMM.

This sort of comment does you no favours at all Adrian, you come across as intolerant and paranoid. 'Imperialism' - hilarious. DBA is a separate game, has always been a separate game, and will continue to be a separate game.

As has been pointed out, if you want a smaller/faster game with all the DBMM rules, there is a perfectly good one in DBMM100 in the rules.

Doug
12-25-2011, 10:10 PM
Suck it up?? Now you're telling me that DBA is so inferior to DBMM that I have to learn DBMM??? Are you drinking???

DBMM is NOT played on this side of the pond...do you know that?

We want to play DBA and don't care a rat's ass about DBMM.

Actually, it is played in the US, but it is kept very quiet ;)

It's someone trolling an anti-DBA3 sock puppet...

Pillager
12-25-2011, 10:32 PM
Pillager, I just want to welcome you to the Fanaticus Forum. You make me look like one of the good ol' boys club.

Having a grand time stirring up the paranoia around here :2up

Richard Lee
12-26-2011, 04:03 AM
Actually, it is played in the US, but it is kept very quiet ;)

It's someone trolling an anti-DBA3 sock puppet...

By the way, the 'ignore' button on Fanaticus is an extremely useful feature. Before I started using it this morning I felt anti-DBMM rage, which is silly because I am sure that DBMM has a lot of merit for those who want to play it. I have even tried a couple of solo games of DBMM100, in the past. Now I feel a lot calmer about DBMM.:)

Strange thing is that I never thought that I would want to use the 'ignore' feature on Fanaticus. I don't even use it on the Frothers website, which has always had a different atmosphere from the traditional way that we have always posted here.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-26-2011, 01:20 PM
I want to give DBMM 100 a try, but felt the need to be tutored into the game. I have yet to find some players to show me the game.

kontos
12-26-2011, 04:37 PM
By the way, the 'ignore' button on Fanaticus is an extremely useful feature. Strange thing is that I never thought that I would want to use the 'ignore' feature on Fanaticus. I don't even use it on the Frothers website, which has always had a different atmosphere from the traditional way that we have always posted here.

Sad to say I feel the same way. I have relented and am using that feature. Its a shame. For a long time I have felt Fanaticus was safe from the ills of other forums. Evidently not. :sick

Doug
12-26-2011, 05:38 PM
I want to give DBMM 100 a try, but felt the need to be tutored into the game. I have yet to find some players to show me the game.

If you would like I can post on the DBMM list and see if there are any Angelenos playing the game? I would recommend having an experienced player step you through it, as the main frustration I had was not remembering a crucial rule and then feeling like the game had been ruined.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-26-2011, 06:57 PM
Sure Doug, let me know if you find anyone in my area who wants to show me a game of DBMM100. I have no interest in FOG, WAB, or other ancients games, other than DBA, of course

guthroth
12-26-2011, 07:17 PM
Can someone tell me where the ignore feature is please ?

Pete

a cynic writes...
12-26-2011, 07:29 PM
Can someone tell me where the ignore feature is please ?

Pete

User CP (left on the menu at the top)
then "edit Ignore List" (about halfway down the menu on the left).

Pillager
12-26-2011, 07:38 PM
No reason to fear DBMM100. DBMM is a lot like DBA3.0 only with more details which make sense. But still Barkerese, and lots of it. Movement of so many elements requires more detail on group related rules.

DBA arguments about things like "should Blade have to Pursue" are moot because some armies have blades that do, some have blades which don't, according to historical rationales. The extra detail of classes takes care of that. And different responses for classes requires more verbiage.

dicemanrick
12-26-2011, 11:16 PM
Actually, it is played in the US, but it is kept very quiet ;)

It's someone trolling an anti-DBA3 sock puppet...

Doug...I have a guilty secret....I BOUGHT and have PLAYED DBMM.....


I should have said it's not played in Tournaments in the US.:D

Doug
12-27-2011, 01:41 AM
Doug...I have a guilty secret....I BOUGHT and have PLAYED DBMM.....


I should have said it's not played in Tournaments in the US.:D

Yep.. I am told it is played secretly in dark basements - with players being given a special password to enter... and taught the secret handshake so thet can recognise other players.. ;)

But we are here to discuss DBA, not any other ruleset ..