PDA

View Full Version : Dbe


larryessick
12-12-2011, 06:14 PM
Interesting discussion concerning DBE and the potential in 3.0 to recreate historical events where earlier versions have caused organizers to generate special rules. Equally interesting discussion concerning the likelihood that 3.0 organizers will simply ban the DBE rules by fiat as tournament standards in the same way current tournament organizers substitute their preferences for dismounting rules.

It would seem best if Phil Barker can come to agreement with principle tournament organizers and that ruling by fiat be avoided. I think it is unlikely that tournament organizers will be in a rush to play rules that they believe are unbalancing and detrimental to the tournament environment.

On the other hand, most of the discussion concerning DBE is speculative at the moment and does not reflect any actual play testing -- at least not that would be obvious to this forum in any case.

Would it be possible to suspend the discussion until play tests are reported and the impacts of DBE in actual games can be observed?

kontos
12-12-2011, 06:31 PM
Interesting discussion concerning DBE and the potential in 3.0 to recreate historical events where earlier versions have caused organizers to generate special rules. Equally interesting discussion concerning the likelihood that 3.0 organizers will simply ban the DBE rules by fiat as tournament standards in the same way current tournament organizers substitute their preferences for dismounting rules.

It would seem best if Phil Barker can come to agreement with principle tournament organizers and that ruling by fiat be avoided. I think it is unlikely that tournament organizers will be in a rush to play rules that they believe are unbalancing and detrimental to the tournament environment.

On the other hand, most of the discussion concerning DBE is speculative at the moment and does not reflect any actual play testing -- at least not that would be obvious to this forum in any case.

Would it be possible to suspend the discussion until play tests are reported and the impacts of DBE in actual games can be observed?

Larry, is playtesting ALWAYS needed? Credit must be given that very experienced players need not playtest certain things to determine their impact on the game. I don't need to taste something to determine its rancid. The smell usually gives it away. DBE's, as I've stated in another post, are forced upon us by a basing convention outside of DBA and the rules for them are a poor compromise that has little or no basis in history. It is also inconsistent in the new 3.0 support rules where voluntary double elements receive a +1 support and only the lead element is destroyed (Psiloi being the exception).

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 06:54 PM
While I am in general a great supporter of Phil, I do not think he cares what tournament organizers think.

Dave Schlanger is perhaps the organizer of more Big Battle Tournaments than anyone in the world and he presented Phil with a request to make the BB rules be better by following the rules that he has used in 11 years of games, at least 3 times a year. Dave made a careful presentation of what he, and now others, have done to change the rules (actually use the 2.0 rules) to make Tournaments better. Phil chose to ignore these suggestions.

We also presented objections to the dismounting rules from a Tournament perspective and he only modified the rule to make it a by element action, and not allow a move in bound with dismount. Not enough.

I am sure he will not negotiate with GMs to change the Double Deep element rules.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 06:57 PM
Larry, is playtesting ALWAYS needed? Credit must be given that very experienced players need not playtest certain things to determine their impact on the game.

I think so.

I look at myself and I've been playing this and other ancient/medieval rules for almost 30 years. Makes me a baby compared to some.

I have lots of experience and have had the good fortune of playing in a lot of places both in Europe and the US. I have a pretty good idea about the pros and cons of many of the things that are being questioned.

And yet, sometimes concerns that appear earth shattering when viewed in isolation don't prove to be when taken in the full context of the game.

One example is over in the HotT forum where a question came up concerning Wb v Sp. Looked at on only its own merits the poster makes an excellent point. But, put into the context of a whole game the perceive imbalance goes away.

I'm wondering if this isn't the case here with DBE.

I noted early that DBE counting as 2 elements lost means that we have hardly any work to do to break an army with DBE. On the surface that is true.

But, does it work out that way in actual games? Does the +1 rear support give enough added strength to make it a sucker's game to target the DBE as I've supposed will likely happen?

In this case I don't think we can rely on our abundance of experience in DBA specifically or in other DB games more generally or in wargames as a whole. I don't think that our intellectual exercise is really sufficient.

As a result, I really do think that play testing is needed.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 07:08 PM
While I am in general a great supporter of Phil, I do not think he cares what tournament organizers think.

Well, if my past experiences with Phil Barker are any indicator then I will agree with you entirely on this point.

I don't think that alters the situation though even if it makes it easier to justify taking a "the heck with it, we'll do what we want" approach.

I come at this from two sides. My former life as one with some authority in ancient/medieval stuff encourages me to side with the organizers and understand that their motives are not to be antagonistic but instead to create the best gaming experience for the players.

My present life as a mere player of games causes me to ask that organizers refrain as much and as often as possible from making such rules. If all I ever did was buy and read the rules and, because of that, I selected and built armies -- if that were the situation then, when I went to a tournament, I would go expecting that the rules would be played exactly as they are written.

I would have room for understanding that my interpretation of some passage that is maybe less clear might differ from the tournament umpire's. But a rule denying me a +1 rear support to my DBE or prohibiting my dismounting at a point beyond the first bound would really fluster me. More if I had chosen my army with one of those rules figuring deeply into my strategies and tactics.

So, I'm just asking players and umpires and organizers alike to do what we've been asked to do. Instead of speculating on what an impact is let's put the figures on the table and play the game.

If our fears are borne out in practice then let's make note of that. As I mentioned in the thread on blades, intentionally try to screw it all up in order to make our fears into self-fulfilling prophecies. See if it really is how we think it is going to be.

Save the more drastic alternatives for if they become necessary.

Xavi
12-12-2011, 07:17 PM
If he negotriated with tournament organizers he would find that

1. BUAs and rivers could (should?) be deleted from the book
2. Only dismount in first bound
3. 30" boards are not the creation of the devil


Those for sure. Then there are a thousand ways to score results. I do not like the wadbag method at all, for example. What he would find is that it tends to be a strong dislike for tournaments that score draws highly (except in some very limited scopes). Scorig system has more to do with games dragging on into unfinished results than any rules in te book.

And on top of that, each tournament has its own nuances for other issues, but those are the main ones I can think about right now. The "no BUAs, no rivers dismout first bound only" are simply copy-pasted in all the Spanish tournaments (15+ tournaments in the circuit per year)

Cheers,
Xavi

kontos
12-12-2011, 08:16 PM
I think so.

I look at myself and I've been playing this and other ancient/medieval rules for almost 30 years. Makes me a baby compared to some.

I have lots of experience and have had the good fortune of playing in a lot of places both in Europe and the US. I have a pretty good idea about the pros and cons of many of the things that are being questioned.

And yet, sometimes concerns that appear earth shattering when viewed in isolation don't prove to be when taken in the full context of the game.

One example is over in the HotT forum where a question came up concerning Wb v Sp. Looked at on only its own merits the poster makes an excellent point. But, put into the context of a whole game the perceive imbalance goes away.

I'm wondering if this isn't the case here with DBE.

I noted early that DBE counting as 2 elements lost means that we have hardly any work to do to break an army with DBE. On the surface that is true.

But, does it work out that way in actual games? Does the +1 rear support give enough added strength to make it a sucker's game to target the DBE as I've supposed will likely happen?

In this case I don't think we can rely on our abundance of experience in DBA specifically or in other DB games more generally or in wargames as a whole. I don't think that our intellectual exercise is really sufficient.

As a result, I really do think that play testing is needed.

Fair enough, Larry. Playtesting MAY soothe some of the heartburn I have with 3.0 but, for me, it is not about whether 3.0 is a decent game. I MAY even like it but it isn't the DBA I've been playing and love so much. To me 3.0 is like speed chess and 2.2 is traditional chess. They are both chess but the play similarity ends there. To me, there was no reason to speed up the movement rates and change the game so dramatically even having to come up with special rules because of the new rates. There ARE some good changes in 3.0 that could have been easily incorporated into a 2.3 version. That would have been perfect, again, for me. 3.0 is the child of a political vendetta (possibly) and an overreaction to game results real and perceived by the author in 1% of all the DBA games being played. The result is not what I wanted to see. My dislike of 3.0 is my personal opinion and cannot be argued for that very reason. 3.0 will have its future determined by the community that plays it for however long they play it. I will not be one of them.

john meunier
12-12-2011, 08:27 PM
I agree with the call for play testing, and I'd argue the play testing should be predominantly against historical opponents.

I also suppose we need to keep in mind that not every element in the game is equal. It may be that DBEs are handicapped in some ways, especially in an open, but that does not make the rules bad.

Persian 8 Bw will be very vulnerable to other Bw in a open tournament. But against Greek spears, the Bw fighting at +3 against Sp might stand up a bit better in hand-to-hand combat.

I like the +1 for these elements conceptually.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 08:34 PM
Frank,

I empathize with you but that isn't what is.

What is is 3.0. So my view is that we try to grasp it and get our heads around it.

I've watched this same phenomenon with respect to ancient/medieval rules for almost 30 years -- as I'm sure others have as well and even longer.

I don't play DBMM because, honestly, it sucks. I don't play FoG because, honestly, it sucks. I don't play Warrior because, honestly, it sucks. DBM was better. WRG 7th and 6th were better. FoG doesn't have a predecessor, but it is just a retread in a pretty package nonetheless -- sort of a WAB meets Armati meets Warrior Frankenstein monster.

In the case of DBMM and FoG and Warrior I have played them and not liked them. But, the incremental changes in DBM and 6th thru 7.5th all had the same sort of reactions from players. Sometimes me included.

Yet, in the end they turned out not so bad. Different, but not so bad. And, for the most part I ended liking them.

I think this is more the case with DBA. 3.0 is different, but not bad. It isn't throwing out the baby with the bath water. So, I think, it deserves the effort to give it a go and to see by means of experience.

kontos
12-12-2011, 08:44 PM
I am a realist and I am stubborn. IF the community of gamers I play with goes the road of 3.0, stubborness will lose out to the social enjoyment DBA gaming provides. If local DBA gaming goes by the wayside the community reaps the benefit as I will have a lot of armies to sell, some of which are rather well painted if I may say so. :up

larryessick
12-12-2011, 08:55 PM
Well, the good thing is that in the local community there is no reason for gaming to go by the wayside. Local communities always have the option to just continue on with whatever rules they most enjoy.

In Germany there is still a dedicated group of WRG 6th players, in England too as best as I can determine. While many are now veritable greybeards they manage to game somewhat regularly nonetheless.

Lobotomy
12-12-2011, 11:37 PM
3. 30" boards are not the creation of the devil

Untrue!!! Look who was the first advocate of them. :silly

Doug
12-15-2011, 04:15 AM
Let's all get in line to purchase all those nice DBA armies that will be on eBay in the next 6 months :)

Lydia
12-15-2011, 08:07 AM
Let's all get in line to purchase all those nice DBA armies that will be on eBay in the next 6 months :)

You'll have to prise my Nikephoreans out of my cold dead hands :) DBA2.2 with the pavisiers rule for me! And by way of nailing my colours to the mast I'll be painting Babylonians some time soonish, and EAP at some stage.

peleset
12-15-2011, 09:58 PM
Amen to that brother!

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h220/peleset/15mm%20Historical/Neo-Babylonian/Neo-BabylonionChaldeanAramaeanormilitiaarchers2Bw.jpg

Pillager
12-27-2011, 09:48 AM
If all I ever did was buy and read the rules and, because of that, I selected and built armies -- if that were the situation then, when I went to a tournament, I would go expecting that the rules would be played exactly as they are written.


Happened to me in 7th Edition times and put me off tournaments before I even started. Having to go to a meeting to learn the rules changes to be used, when one hardly has experience with them as written, stinks.

Doug
12-27-2011, 07:59 PM
Amen to that brother!

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h220/peleset/15mm%20Historical/Neo-Babylonian/Neo-BabylonionChaldeanAramaeanormilitiaarchers2Bw.jpg

very nice! I used to have the same Essex figures in my Neo-Babylonian DBM army I sold off to Django in about 2001. :up

peleset
12-28-2011, 12:11 AM
Yes they are. The big shields and the pointy helmets do seem to impress.
Seen from front on I can understand why they may have disconcerted their enemies with feelings of inadequacy.

Although, that may just be me :)