PDA

View Full Version : DBE's (6Cv)


Tony Wilson
12-23-2011, 11:12 AM
Breaking all the rules.
I have not play tested this.
I am commenting on a period about which I know nothing whatsoever, outside of the Army list books,
and,
its an attack on Phils long time favorites - the Byzantines.
I shall surely be burned as a heretic!

It would seem that a very likely contender for the 6Cv DBE
will be "thematic kavallarioi" (10 ranks deep as per "the book"), these are described as "part time territorials".

On the other hand the explicitly 5 rank deep "tagmatic kavallarioi" -full time professional soldiers are surely going to remain 3CV.

So - fighting the Arab hordes (or Sassanid Levy -whichever is more appropriate), the territorials will be more effective than the professionals (+1 for the DBE)
and,
in all cases the loss of the territorial unit will be more demoralizing(2 elements) than the loss of the professionals.

...or am I missing something here?

(I shall go and prepare my own auto-da-fe).

michael guth
12-23-2011, 11:37 AM
Phil's well intentioned but misguided attempt to give some benefit for being on the double depth base which can sometimes be a detriment to maneuverability. Sadly, it also leads to pscyhopathic double based Swiss halberdiers, who will rip the heck out of your infantry....

Maybe Burmese elephants should be DBE as well, they always seem to attack in long columns in the Warrior games I've seen....

kontos
12-23-2011, 11:38 AM
Breaking all the rules.
I have not play tested this.
I am commenting on a period about which I know nothing whatsoever, outside of the Army list books,
and,
its an attack on Phils long time favorites - the Byzantines.
I shall surely be burned as a heretic!

It would seem that a very likely contender for the 6Cv DBE
will be "thematic kavallarioi" (10 ranks deep as per "the book"), these are described as "part time territorials".

On the other hand the explicitly 5 rank deep "tagmatic kavallarioi" -full time professional soldiers are surely going to remain 3CV.

So - fighting the Arab hordes (or Sassanid Levy -whichever is more appropriate), the territorials will be more effective than the professionals (+1 for the DBE)
and,
in all cases the loss of the territorial unit will be more demoralizing(2 elements) than the loss of the professionals.

...or am I missing something here?

(I shall go and prepare my own auto-da-fe).

I am with you on that as the Byzantines are my long time favorite as well. I also do not understand why a higher proportion of Byzantine Heavy Cavalry are not classified as Knights. But, who am I? ;)

Bobgnar
12-23-2011, 12:34 PM
You all may be correct but can we wait until the at least Phil's lists are actually available before we begin the Rants?

winterbadger
12-23-2011, 01:04 PM
You all may be correct but can we wait until the at least Phil's lists are actually available before we begin the Rants?

Yes, by all means, let's have no discussion of things that are not finished--that might, possibly, conceivably, 1 time out of 100, lead to reconsideration, or even a change.

And that would never do! :rotfl

kontos
12-23-2011, 01:09 PM
You all may be correct but can we wait until the at least Phil's lists are actually available before we begin the Rants?

Why is every discussion questioning or challenging anything to do with 3.0 automatically labeled a "Rant" by you, Bob? Is Phil that powerful that if we strike a rock twice, we shall not see the Promised Land?

winterbadger
12-23-2011, 01:21 PM
Is Phil that powerful that if we strike a rock twice, we shall not see the Promised Land?

Candidate for 2011 Best Insertion of an Exodus Reference Into a Fanaticus Post. :2up

Tony Wilson
12-23-2011, 04:59 PM
Bob I have great respect for your position here and the work that you do, but my "rant" was not directed at the yet-to-be-released-lists;
but, at a potentially perceived problem in the released-for-comment rules.

In particular the DBE in which he actually mentions Byzantine cavalry by name.

It is no skin off my nose if they appear with triple based cavalry, it's not my period (Chariots + WoTR), and I don't get to play in competition, so I'm not likely to get trampled by them, but no-one else seemed to have made the point.

I also have to agree with Kontos, in that if we wait until lists are finalized and released before making such comment, it will be too late. They will have be set in stone and handed down as tablets from the mountain.

jcpotn
12-23-2011, 06:35 PM
Why is every discussion questioning or challenging anything to do with 3.0 automatically labeled a "Rant" by you, Bob? Is Phil that powerful that if we strike a rock twice, we shall not see the Promised Land?

Thou shalt see the Promised Land but entereth not without a copy of 3.0 in hand. :D

David Constable
12-24-2011, 05:48 AM
Why is every discussion questioning or challenging anything to do with 3.0 automatically labeled a "Rant" by you, Bob? Is Phil that powerful that if we strike a rock twice, we shall not see the Promised Land?

Yes.

Phil is GOD, what he says goes, and God made man in his own image.

The promised land should be a very helpful update for 2.2, but we shall have to look in a different direction for that.

Me I have just bought a load of 3mm ACW.

David Constable

Bobgnar
12-24-2011, 03:26 PM
I just wonder why people want to devote energy to discussing hypothetical aspects of 3 when there are so many actual things to discuss or rant about.

I think of Rant when I read words that imply the writer will be "burned as a heretic!" so assuming a counter view is so vile to do that, and words written in Bold Face, more demoralizing, and use of "pscyhopathic" and accusations directed at Phil "well intentioned but misguided attempt "

I only question the use of wording that is rantish. I await the publishing of the army lists to see the options allowed to specific armies.

michael guth
12-24-2011, 09:47 PM
Its not 'hypothetical', its in the rules. It's not 'hypothetical', its in the army lists.

Every time someone posts the least positive comment about 3.0 on the DBA forum you seem to have to stand up and cheer.

In contrast, whenever someone points out how 3.0 has major problems with game scale, movement, terrain, combat, BUA, double moves, 'pursuit', historical justification, or shooting you condemn them by claiming that the critics are wasting energy on some sort of minor issue.

I used the term 'psychopathic blades' to point out that blades now move further relative to the board size, and set up closer in than in x.x. Adding a point to the combat factor for being double based is game breaking. I think it was Larry Essick's 12 year old son, who after several playtests of regularly based blades came to the conclusion that, 'blades are the bomb.' DBE blades would be the atomic bomb.

I use the term 'misguided' because the real problem is the existence of DBE to begin with. Relative to frontage, the base depth of a single element is already enough to represent 30 or 40 ranks of troops. The DBE for cavalry can only be seen then as a holdover for visual appeal, not for historical simulation.

Sorry if I offended you. I am looking forward to the day when the DBA 3.0 players start their own website for what is a completely different game from DBA 2.2.

Lobotomy
12-24-2011, 11:34 PM
Its not 'hypothetical', its in the rules. It's not 'hypothetical', its in the army lists.

Every time someone posts the least positive comment about 3.0 on the DBA forum you seem to have to stand up and cheer.

Mike, you unfairly malign Bob. He has stated his preferences and views. I do not believe he has ever attacked your opinion the way you attack his. IN the spirit of the season, I think you owe him an apology.

I do see Bob as a cheerleader for 3.0. He has stated why and is entitled to his opinion having been in the development process and a tireless supporter of DBA and all of us. I have to wonder if we would have such a vibrant community without him. I know I do not believe so.

And as for another forum, this is where DBA is discussed. If Chris did not feel it was worth having, then why did he start a section of the forum dedicated to it. I think the answer is self-evident, Chris was responding to the opinion of the group.

If you do not wish to participate in the discussion of 3.0, by all means feel free to not comment, and ignore any posts about 3.0. You choose to do otherwise.

winterbadger
12-25-2011, 01:59 AM
Larry, I don't think Mike has anything to apologise for.

Bob is an unashamed partisan of 3.0. Whatever is the current version of 3.0. It doesn't matter what the problems with it are, Bob will cheer for it and question the motivations of any one who criticises it.

That's not rational--it's enthusiastic. Nothing wrong with enthusiasm--it's just not based on reason or logic but on emotion. Let's stop pretending it is a reasonable or discussion-oriented stand.

Mike isn't attacking anyone. What is the most inflammatory thing Mike has said in this thread? He called Phil's DBE rules "well intentioned but misguided". That warrants an apology? Um, Bob, Larry, you have had too much glogg and need to go clear your head. Go have a cold shower.

Happy Xmas, everyone.

Tony Wilson
12-25-2011, 12:48 PM
As the original poster/ranter please allow me to apologize to all, if my import was unclear.

Yes indeed I expect to be "burnt as a heretic", but for speaking out on an area (Thematic Byzantine armies) in which my knowledge is confined solely to the information in the army lists, (while addressing a room full of -if not experts- at least those whose understanding is more profound).
and
for daring to raise a word against an army which -to the best of my knowledge- has been a favorite of Phil's since at least the days of the Airfix purple primer.

I certainly did not want to appear "anti-3.0", there are several new ideas that - without play testing -I rather like the sound of. There are certainly aspects about which I might "rant" - my poor Auxilia heavy armies can find little to rejoice about - but having had no chance to bring it to the field I shall hold my peace.

Even the DBE's, where one is looking at Theban sacred band or Persian Immortals, I find the idea of the plus 1 good, but the (seemingly likely) Byzantine example appears to run "the wrong way round", which I find particularly odd given the writers prediliction for this particular army.

Over the years (and I do not mean just on these pages) many have - probably quite rightly- been taken to task for speaking out against serious students of a topic while they themselves had no more than "glanced at an Osprey book". Phil has previously stated (in Slingshot at least) that Army lists are a particularly poor way to present research, and insightful comment was invited after testing -which I have not done, so I must plead guilty to all of these lapses your Honor.

Seasons greetings to all, you may apply the match now.

Bobgnar
12-25-2011, 06:00 PM
I still do not under stand this burning concern. Why all the references to other people treating you as a heretic, that is, wanting to harm you???

People write here all the time about things they know little about. Moreover you make a very informed comment on the differences between Militia and Regular cavalry. Why not just make your points with out all the self-deprecation?

winterbadger
12-25-2011, 08:27 PM
I still do not under stand this burning concern. Why all the references to other people treating you as a heretic, that is, wanting to harm you???

It's a joke, Bob. Humour? You know? I suspect that you have made a careful study of it. :D

http://watchesinmovies.info/img/f/GoodMorningVietnam_Rolex.jpg

People write here all the time about things they know little about. Moreover you make a very informed comment on the differences between Militia and Regular cavalry. Why not just make your points with out all the self-deprecation?

Maybe because it's the way he feels comfortable expressing himself. Why does it bother you so much?

Pillager
12-26-2011, 08:17 PM
I just wonder why people want to devote energy to discussing hypothetical aspects of 3 when there are so many actual things to discuss or rant about.


I've come to the conclusion that Fanaticus contains a large percentage of [DELETED].

I hoped to find information on how 3.0 works in this sub-forum, but at least 75% of the word count is anti-3.0 vitriol. The 3.0 haters are coming into the sub-forum for the sole purpose of ****ting on the floor, and pissing on the people who want to understand what 3.0 is about because they think that by doing so they can somehow prevent 3.0 from coming into existance.

**** em !

Doug
12-27-2011, 08:11 PM
As the original poster/ranter please allow me to apologize to all, if my import was unclear.

No it wasn't - and you made a fair point, which I will pass on to Phil. I have not yet seen the draft Byzantine list, so I don't know the answer.

I think Bob is just frustrated that as soon as anyone raises a question about 3, there seem to be a number of people who immediately applaud loudly at the thought that it is 'broken'.

I had hoped that the DBA3 sub-forum could be where people raised concerns and feedback without hysteria, triumphalism or schadenfreude.

kontos
12-27-2011, 08:38 PM
No it wasn't - and you made a fair point, which I will pass on to Phil. I have not yet seen the draft Byzantine list, so I don't know the answer.

I think Bob is just frustrated that as soon as anyone raises a question about 3, there seem to be a number of people who immediately applaud loudly at the thought that it is 'broken'.

I had hoped that the DBA3 sub-forum could be where people raised concerns and feedback without hysteria, triumphalism or schadenfreude.

And many people raised concerns and feedback without hysteria, triumphalism or schadenfreude and were accused of being rabble rousers, resistant to change and tournament players (as if that were a cancer) so let's not throw stones. We all live in cyberspace glass houses, so to speak. ;)
Some posts were, indeed, more passionate than others, however; looking past the emotion there was some merit in many of the issues being raised. Had everyone focused on the issues instead of the passion, it may have been more of a constructive dialogue.

Doug
12-27-2011, 08:53 PM
And many people raised concerns and feedback without hysteria, triumphalism or schadenfreude and were accused of being rabble rousers, resistant to change and tournament players (as if that were a cancer) so let's not throw stones. We all live in cyberspace glass houses, so to speak. ;)
Some posts were, indeed, more passionate than others, however; looking past the emotion there was some merit in many of the issues being raised. Had everyone focused on the issues instead of the passion, it may have been more of a constructive dialogue.

I don't think my response could be construed as anything other than positive. I undertook to raise the issue - (which is a fair comment) with Phil, I have emailed it to Phil and the test group, and sent Tony a copy.

If people feel they have been shouted down when they have raised issues with 3, that has certainly never been my intent, (and I dare say Bob's).

But to be honest, it gets very tiring when it feels like you are doing your best for both sides, and yet there is so much misinformed and occasionally malicious sniping (from certain individuals with different intentions and agendas I suspect).

Every so often I guess we become the voice of frustration instead of reason. Especially when dealing with lots of spurious objections/assertions/opinions.

If that's the case then I apologise for anything I have said that has offended anyone. I just want to ensure we get the best possible set of rules in DBA3, and simply saying it is broken, isn't a particularly constructive path forward when we know it is coming.

So I think collectively, we all need to work to get the best version we can.

kontos
12-27-2011, 09:03 PM
I don't think my response could be construed as anything other than positive. I undertook to raise the issue - (which is a fair comment) with Phil, I have emailed it to Phil and the test group, and sent Tony a copy.

If people feel they have been shouted down when they have raised issues with 3, that has certainly never been my intent, (and I dare say Bob's).

But to be honest, it gets very tiring when it feels like you are doing your best for both sides, and yet there is so much misinformed and occasionally malicious sniping (from certain individuals with different intentions and agendas I suspect).

Every so often I guess we become the voice of frustration instead of reason. Especially when dealing with lots of spurious objections/assertions/opinions.

If that's the case then I apologise for anything I have said that has offended anyone. I just want to ensure we get the best possible set of rules in DBA3, and simply saying it is broken, isn't a particularly constructive path forward when we know it is coming.

So I think collectively, we all need to work to get the best version we can.

I agree, Doug. If 3.0 fails, we ALL lose.

larryessick
12-28-2011, 05:52 PM
I think it was Larry Essick's 12 year old son, who after several playtests of regularly based blades came to the conclusion that, 'blades are the bomb.' DBE blades would be the atomic bomb.

It is my daughter that is 12. My son is 14. And, I concur that DBE are a problem and that Mike rightly points out that there is no reason to have them except as a visual hold-over from other systems (WRG, DBM/MM).

This is a concern of mine regarding DBA in general -- that at the scale it retains mechanisms from previous efforts that have no relevance at DBA's scale.

DBA is essentially a corps level representation. Rear support of any type has no relevance in a corps level game.

Doug
12-28-2011, 08:36 PM
It is my daughter that is 12. My son is 14. And, I concur that DBE are a problem and that Mike rightly points out that there is no reason to have them except as a visual hold-over from other systems (WRG, DBM/MM).

This is a concern of mine regarding DBA in general -- that at the scale it retains mechanisms from previous efforts that have no relevance at DBA's scale.

DBA is essentially a corps level representation. Rear support of any type has no relevance in a corps level game.

How would DBE Blades be 'da bomb' in a game system where Kn are common? It is still 3-3 with a quick kill to the Kn, and the Bd lose 2 losses at a time.

David Constable
01-02-2012, 05:19 AM
Might I please be permitted to differ with both Kontos and Doug.

What happens if somebody is trying out DBA3.0 and does not like it (me), surely I am entitled to hope it fails.

And what happens if DBA 3.0 does not fail, and the hobby splits.
Now I have asked (for that reason) the SoA about a meeting being run with separate competitions for 2.2 and 3.0, because meeting organizers need to know if both competitions would score points.

I would prefer DBA2.2 modified, but am preparing for DBA3.0 to at least be a limited success.

David Constable

Doug
01-02-2012, 07:32 AM
Might I please be permitted to differ with both Kontos and Doug.

What happens if somebody is trying out DBA3.0 and does not like it (me), surely I am entitled to hope it fails.

And what happens if DBA 3.0 does not fail, and the hobby splits.
Now I have asked (for that reason) the SoA about a meeting being run with separate competitions for 2.2 and 3.0, because meeting organizers need to know if both competitions would score points.

I would prefer DBA2.2 modified, but am preparing for DBA3.0 to at least be a limited success.

David Constable

I think it is a little premature to be lobbying for competitions to be held in a rule-set that has not yet been superseded, and the final version of any replacement not agreed.

Nobody is suggesting you can't go on enjoying DBA 2.2, just as people continue to play Warrior or WRG 6th or Gush's Renaissance Rules. To say 'the hobby splits' is surely a bit exaggerated., the hobby is split anyway, there must be at least 7 different popular Ancients rules in common usage.

But surely for the health of the hobby, it is much better for people to enjoy the same version, and have a single competition with 30 players than two competitions with 15 each?

I would hope that any annoyances in 3 were less annoying than the things that you wanted changed in 2.2, and that many of the improvements were a good thing.

I also hope that people are prepared to step out of their 'comfort zone' and realise that changes are going to happen, and give them a try, rather than try to hold on to something that no longer matches what the author thinks is the best simulation (given the obvious constraints).

mdsanderson
01-02-2012, 11:06 AM
Not to be argumentative but to give you some feeling as to at least one persons (mine) view of V3.



I think it is a little premature to be lobbying for competitions to be held in a rule-set that has not yet been superseded, and the final version of any replacement not agreed.

******I do not think it is premature because V3 is not the game I want to be involved with. I assist in running 2 small DBA tournaments per year. It is unlikely that I will every run a V3 tournament as I see the conforming issue as being a tournament judge's nightmare. ***

I would hope that any annoyances in 3 were less annoying than the things that you wanted changed in 2.2, and that many of the improvements were a good thing.

******Personally I did not have any major announces with V2.2. I played the game as put forth. A few items where of questionable reasoning but not of great import. V3 has made major changes in the system. Personally I do not believe these changes represent a better game just different. More complexity with very questionable gamey fixes to problems that did not exist. The author certainly is within his rights to go off in a different direction but please do not tell me he is producing a better game as this is not my belief.******


I also hope that people are prepared to step out of their 'comfort zone' and realise that changes are going to happen, and give them a try, rather than try to hold on to something that no longer matches what the author thinks is the best simulation (given the obvious constraints).

******As you can see I am not prepared to step out of my comfort zone into a zone that I do not believe is an improvement. Doing something differently does not constitute a better gaming experience for me. The changes in V3 are a departure from what I thought was an outstanding gaming system, it had it's faults but most actual rules anomalies had been hammered out in the years since it's release. That all starts over again with a set of rules I do not feel represents a game I can relish playing. *****

Mike Sanderson

winterbadger
01-02-2012, 11:24 AM
"changes are going to happen"

Not in this neck of the woods they aren't. If there are any changes, they'll come when the players who enjoy the game think a (minor) adjustment needs to be made, not when someone decides they are going to force a wholesale change of a system that is, for the most part, working just fine, down everyone's craw.

To be clear, I don't think PB is trying to force anyone on anything; I think we've all agreed that he doesn't care who plays his game and who doesn't. The forcing I see is from posters to this board who simply cannot accept that others do not share their taste for change.

David Constable
01-02-2012, 12:01 PM
The problem for organizers of competitions is that they will need some idea from the SoA how they are going to deal with the situation. Now they do not need it now, but possibly by May/June they might, the SoA need to be thinking about it now.
In the U.K. the most people we had at a competition was 24 in 2011, average about 16, so numbers are critical.

Split/separate use you preferred word, but it is going to happen, some will only play 2.2 or 3.0, some both.

You say for the health of the hobby everybody should use the same version, OK let it be 2.2, not serious, no we have to let people use the version they want too.

Version 3.0 is a complete re-write, not what I would have liked, 2.2 with explanation would have suited me.

It will be interesting to hear what happens, I am collecting my initial order of 3mm A.C.W. and paints at Penarth, that will be my comfort zone.

David Constable

Pillager
01-02-2012, 07:53 PM
"changes are going to happen"

Not in this neck of the woods they aren't. If there are any changes, they'll come when the players who enjoy the game think a (minor) adjustment needs to be made, not when someone decides they are going to force a wholesale change of a system that is, for the most part, working just fine, down everyone's craw.

To be clear, I don't think PB is trying to force anyone on anything; I think we've all agreed that he doesn't care who plays his game and who doesn't. The forcing I see is from posters to this board who simply cannot accept that others do not share their taste for change.

OTOH there exists a group of xenophobic Luddites who don't want to let any new players join in their reindeer games.

Unless you are saying that pirate copies of the out of print 2.2 will be printed and distributed under the table. Which is a different sort of conspiracy.

David Constable
01-02-2012, 08:16 PM
It is not that difficult to get pirated copies sent via the internet, you could do a direct scan in PDF.

Copies of DBA2.2 will not be a problem in the future. People will want to keep DBA2.2 alive. It would be nice if Phil etc let John Curry produce and sell the permitted parts (rules and army lists).

David Constable

Doug
01-02-2012, 09:33 PM
Not to be argumentative but to give you some feeling as to at least one persons (mine) view of V3.



I think it is a little premature to be lobbying for competitions to be held in a rule-set that has not yet been superseded, and the final version of any replacement not agreed.

******I do not think it is premature because V3 is not the game I want to be involved with. I assist in running 2 small DBA tournaments per year. It is unlikely that I will every run a V3 tournament as I see the conforming issue as being a tournament judge's nightmare. ***

I would hope that any annoyances in 3 were less annoying than the things that you wanted changed in 2.2, and that many of the improvements were a good thing.

******Personally I did not have any major announces with V2.2. I played the game as put forth. A few items where of questionable reasoning but not of great import. V3 has made major changes in the system. Personally I do not believe these changes represent a better game just different. More complexity with very questionable gamey fixes to problems that did not exist. The author certainly is within his rights to go off in a different direction but please do not tell me he is producing a better game as this is not my belief.******


I also hope that people are prepared to step out of their 'comfort zone' and realise that changes are going to happen, and give them a try, rather than try to hold on to something that no longer matches what the author thinks is the best simulation (given the obvious constraints).

******As you can see I am not prepared to step out of my comfort zone into a zone that I do not believe is an improvement. Doing something differently does not constitute a better gaming experience for me. The changes in V3 are a departure from what I thought was an outstanding gaming system, it had it's faults but most actual rules anomalies had been hammered out in the years since it's release. That all starts over again with a set of rules I do not feel represents a game I can relish playing. *****

Mike Sanderson

That doesn't seem argumentative to me.. enjoy whatever game you choose to play Mike! :up

Doug
01-02-2012, 09:37 PM
"changes are going to happen"

Not in this neck of the woods they aren't. If there are any changes, they'll come when the players who enjoy the game think a (minor) adjustment needs to be made, not when someone decides they are going to force a wholesale change of a system that is, for the most part, working just fine, down everyone's craw.

"Someone" being the rules author? bit of a dismissive approach..

To be clear, I don't think PB is trying to force anyone on anything; I think we've all agreed that he doesn't care who plays his game and who doesn't. The forcing I see is from posters to this board who simply cannot accept that others do not share their taste for change.

I personally have no interest in 'forcing' anyone to do anything. Enjoy your gaming.

Doug
01-02-2012, 09:39 PM
It is not that difficult to get pirated copies sent via the internet, you could do a direct scan in PDF.

Copies of DBA2.2 will not be a problem in the future. People will want to keep DBA2.2 alive. It would be nice if Phil etc let John Curry produce and sell the permitted parts (rules and army lists).

David Constable

I consider this to be in very poor taste (and I suspect a contravention of the rules of the forum in encouraging illegal behaviour).

Play whatever you will, but pirating someone's work is pretty poor form.

David Constable
01-03-2012, 08:44 AM
I consider this to be in very poor taste (and I suspect a contravention of the rules of the forum in encouraging illegal behaviour).

Play whatever you will, but pirating someone's work is pretty poor form.

If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I suggested that John Curry publish DBA2.2 with Phil's permission, he has done so with 6th and the Purple Primer.

Illegal copies on the internet are a problem, I have seen a photocopy in use in the U.K. once, when it was extremely difficult to get a printed copy.

Far from advocating pirating copies, I was suggesting printing to avoid pirating.

It is your type of post that has caused the recent poll in the first place.

David Constable

Doug
01-03-2012, 09:07 AM
If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I suggested that John Curry publish DBA2.2 with Phil's permission, he has done so with 6th and the Purple Primer.

Illegal copies on the internet are a problem, I have seen a photocopy in use in the U.K. once, when it was extremely difficult to get a printed copy.

Far from advocating pirating copies, I was suggesting printing to avoid pirating.

It is your type of post that has caused the recent poll in the first place.

David Constable

Actually what you wrote was:

"It is not that difficult to get pirated copies sent via the internet, you could do a direct scan in PDF.

Copies of DBA2.2 will not be a problem in the future. "

You then went on to say you hope John Curry will get permission to reprint. But your phrases - quoted directly and in fill above sound like a direct encouragement to piracy. Good luck with your poll.

Martyn
01-03-2012, 02:18 PM
I agree, Doug. If 3.0 fails, we ALL lose.

Yes, it helps no one.
My approach is to try and get some clarity to make v3 as good as possible, whether that is good enough is another argument. v3 is going to happen regardless of individual opinion, it would help if those who have no interest in making v3 better would maintain a dignified silence.

David Constable
01-03-2012, 04:35 PM
Yes, it helps no one.
My approach is to try and get some clarity to make v3 as good as possible, whether that is good enough is another argument. v3 is going to happen regardless of individual opinion, it would help if those who have no interest in making v3 better would maintain a dignified silence.

Hello Martyn

Not sure if DBA3.0 fails it helps or not, on balance since most people are already using DBA2.2 it would help. Also then it would be worth fully updating the WADBAG guide.

If DBA3.0 is successful then the players who do not like it will have to choose between no DBA, or using an alternative set.

Those coming to DBA3.0 from new will accept it, but how many will be playing DBA2.2 because of their local opponents.

David Constable

broadsword
01-03-2012, 04:39 PM
Pillager, you know if you want information on how DBA 3.0 works, download it, and play it. You'll see pretty quickly how it works (and doesn't). It seems odd that you think fanaticus is full of ******* based on the discussions not meeting your expectations. Last I looked, fanaticus isn't sold to anyone with any kind of warranty.

Some of what you read here is total crap. Some is brilliant. Few here would ever concur on which is which.

Martyn
01-03-2012, 06:46 PM
Hello Martyn

Not sure if DBA3.0 fails it helps or not, on balance since most people are already using DBA2.2 it would help. Also then it would be worth fully updating the WADBAG guide.

If DBA3.0 is successful then the players who do not like it will have to choose between no DBA, or using an alternative set.

Those coming to DBA3.0 from new will accept it, but how many will be playing DBA2.2 because of their local opponents.

David Constable

It depends on your definition of failure. To me v3 will fail if does not convince the majority of the the existing community to play.

v3 is coming, ignoring comparison with v2, it is a game that is fun to play and therefore will attract a lot of followers. Being the 'latest' version it is also going to attrack most of the new blood unless they are introduced by existing players only to v2.2.

The better v3 is the greater the appeal to the existing community and therefore the less damage is done to that community, that is why to fail is only going to be bad and will create deeper splits.

There are going to be some who just don't want v2.2 to be changed (other than in relatively minors ways) and they will probably never accept v3. That is why I set the target at the majority.

winterbadger
01-03-2012, 06:55 PM
V 3.0 is going to come, agreed. Whether it survives or not is, I suggest, less of a cut and dried matter. One can say that it's a great game in itself, but it's not question of whether it's a game in itself when the question is one of whether or not the community that plays the existing version of DBA is splintered or not. Since I don't care for 3.0 and would prefer to see the community be split as little as possible, I would prefer to see 3.0 get rejected by the majority of existing DBA gamers. Then it won't be taught to many new gamers, and the community will stay whole.

Myself, I don't assume that {the people who were happy with 2.2 and only wanted minor changes, if any} are necessarily the minority, as Martyn seems to do.

David Constable
01-04-2012, 05:35 AM
PART CUT

Myself, I don't assume that {the people who were happy with 2.2 and only wanted minor changes, if any} are necessarily the minority, as Martyn seems to do.

Speaking to people in the U.K. during 2011 the general impression I got was that most only wanted explanation and minor changes. I do not think they wanted the complete re-write that it ended up as.

The success or failure of DBA3 might well go down to what individuals prefer in their local playing group, and if competition organizers are prepared to put on both DBA2.2 and DBA3 games. I strongly suspect that choice of rules for competitions in 2012 is going to be a big problem for organizers in the latter part of 2012, and possibly into the early part of 2013.

David Constable

Martyn
01-04-2012, 05:44 AM
V 3.0 is going to come, agreed. Whether it survives or not is, I suggest, less of a cut and dried matter. One can say that it's a great game in itself, but it's not question of whether it's a game in itself when the question is one of whether or not the community that plays the existing version of DBA is splintered or not. Since I don't care for 3.0 and would prefer to see the community be split as little as possible, I would prefer to see 3.0 get rejected by the majority of existing DBA gamers. Then it won't be taught to many new gamers, and the community will stay whole.

I am aware that this forum is only a sample of the larger DBA playing world. It is an influential and vocal group populated by experienced and wise practitioners (current poster excluded, now I have buttered you all up), but is a minority. Even within Fanaticus there are only about 200 who have posted ten or more times and only a third of those registered have posted at all.

At the recent PAWS event there were 24 (I stand to be corrected) players who attended but I think there are far fewer UK based regular posters (this is my interpretation of membership not a scientific analysis, so may be open to correction).

How many of the silent majority are going to have any fixed idea of the pros and cons of v3 or will they just ‘upgrade’ to the latest version as a matter of routine. Therein lies my concern that if v3 fails we may find ourselves cast adrift as a minority whilst the rest of the world moves on.

Myself, I don't assume that {the people who were happy with 2.2 and only wanted minor changes, if any} are necessarily the minority, as Martyn seems to do.

I also do not assume that those who are happy with 2.2 are in the minority. I don’t remember anyone asking for v3, the majority would be happy with a v2.3. What I suggested was that those who will reject v3 on the basis that v2.2 is ok are in the minority, most will be prepared to give v3 a go. Whether they carry on is another matter and in that success rate lies the failure or otherwise of v3.

Martyn
01-04-2012, 05:49 AM
Speaking to people in the U.K. during 2011 the general impression I got was that most only wanted explanation and minor changes. I do not think they wanted the complete re-write that it ended up as.

There was no clamour for a v3 but alot of desire for a v2.3.


The success or failure of DBA3 might well go down to what individuals prefer in their local playing group, and if competition organizers are prepared to put on both DBA2.2 and DBA3 games. I strongly suspect that choice of rules for competitions in 2012 is going to be a big problem for organizers in the latter part of 2012, and possibly into the early part of 2013.

David Constable

At this stage it is too early to be second guessing what the comps are going to do. There will undoubtably be a period of adjustment once v3 is out, but with the contiunally slipping time scale it looks as if it is going to be later rather than sooner.

winterbadger
01-04-2012, 09:22 AM
How many of the silent majority are going to have any fixed idea of the pros and cons of v3 or will they just Ďupgradeí to the latest version as a matter of routine. Therein lies my concern that if v3 fails we may find ourselves cast adrift as a minority whilst the rest of the world moves on.

I guess this is what I don't get. If 3.0 fails, why would people who were happy (mostly) with 2.2 move on to some other rules? Even if most people who now play 2.2 give 3.0 a try, I would assume that if 3.0 is a failure, those people will just revert to playing 2.2, and continue teaching new players 2.2. Why would they throw their hands in the air and give up on DBA entirely?

Yes, people who had started with 3.0 might say "Yikes, don't like this, going to try something different," but, honestly, if they are starting off with 3.0, know no 2.2 players, and don't interact with the existing DBA community at all...well, there can't be very many people like that. There aren't that many DBA players as it is--newbie DBAers who don't interact with current DBAers must be as rare as hen's teeth.

Martyn
01-04-2012, 01:46 PM
I guess this is what I don't get. If 3.0 fails, why would people who were happy (mostly) with 2.2 move on to some other rules? Even if most people who now play 2.2 give 3.0 a try, I would assume that if 3.0 is a failure, those people will just revert to playing 2.2, and continue teaching new players 2.2. Why would they throw their hands in the air and give up on DBA entirely?

I go back to my definition of failure. If we end up with a large portion of the community following each version it creates all sorts of problems for the community at large.

I base this on the fact that I donít think that v3 will ever be bad enough for the majority to reject it, I am hoping it will be good enough for the majority to accept it.

Yes, people who had started with 3.0 might say "Yikes, don't like this, going to try something different," but, honestly, if they are starting off with 3.0, know no 2.2 players, and don't interact with the existing DBA community at all...well, there can't be very many people like that. There aren't that many DBA players as it is--newbie DBAers who don't interact with current DBAers must be as rare as hen's teeth.

If by community you mean fanaticus (and the Yahoo group) there are a lot of DBAers out there that donít interact much with this community. How many clubs are there that play DBA on an occasional basis because one or two members are fans, but if they are not active they will go in which ever direction they fancy and often that means upgrading as a matter of habit. If they do engage more widely it may be at comps which makes it harder for organisers to respond appropriately in the post v3 world.

This is all rather an acedemic discussion, we will need to deal with the fall out once v3 is released based on how it is recieved at that time.

winterbadger
01-04-2012, 02:36 PM
I go back to my definition of failure. If we end up with a large portion of the community following each version it creates all sorts of problems for the community at large.

Agreed, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

I base this on the fact that I donít think that v3 will ever be bad enough for the majority to reject it, I am hoping it will be good enough for the majority to accept it.

Well, I think that depends on what one means by community, and I think you are selectively defining that to fit your argument.

If we're talking about the community that currently plays DBA and participates in some combination of message boards, discussion groups, and/or tournaments, then I beg leave to doubt that that community is going to split over the rules. It just doesn't seem to me to be very likely. I think most of them are going to reject 3.0 in the end, with a few playing it for a while as a curiosity in the same way that a few occasionally play DBR or DBM.

If by community you mean fanaticus (and the Yahoo group) there are a lot of DBAers out there that donít interact much with this community. How many clubs are there that play DBA on an occasional basis because one or two members are fans, but if they are not active they will go in which ever direction they fancy and often that means upgrading as a matter of habit. If they do engage more widely it may be at comps which makes it harder for organisers to respond appropriately in the post v3 world.

It seems as if your definition of "community" is anyone who ever plays DBA. That, to me, is not a very useful definition, as it neither meets a common understanding of what the word means in a larger sense nor stands as much of a basis either for measurement or for impact.

Casual players who don't interact with the mass of other DBA players don't really matter much. I don't mean to denigrate them, but their imapct on the life of the game or on the community of people who regularly play and discuss the game is close to nil. *That* group is the group that I mean by community. If a couple of players who don't play the game more than once or twice a year, don't run events, don't contribute to discussions about the rules, don't regularly engage with others about DBA--if they switch from 2.2 to 3.0 or give up on DBA altogether, that really won't matter to the mass of DBA players at all.

The people who play regularly, who organise competitions and other events, who proselytize for the game, who discuss it here or in other venues, those are the DBA community. *That* is what it would be a pity to lose. But I see no real likelihood of losing that. I think 3.0--the way it has been approached and they way it is being "promoted" by some of its fans--could go a long way to damaging that community, but in the end I think whether 3.0 succeeds or fails, the community will go on.

Martyn
01-04-2012, 04:23 PM
but in the end I think whether 3.0 succeeds or fails, the community will go on.


It is fitting to conclude on that sentiment, I hope that you are right.

dicemanrick
01-04-2012, 08:53 PM
I go back to my definition of failure. If we end up with a large portion of the community following each version it creates all sorts of problems for the community at large.

I base this on the fact that I donít think that v3 will ever be bad enough for the majority to reject it, I am hoping it will be good enough for the majority to accept it.



If by community you mean fanaticus (and the Yahoo group) there are a lot of DBAers out there that donít interact much with this community. How many clubs are there that play DBA on an occasional basis because one or two members are fans, but if they are not active they will go in which ever direction they fancy and often that means upgrading as a matter of habit. If they do engage more widely it may be at comps which makes it harder for organisers to respond appropriately in the post v3 world.

This is all rather an acedemic discussion, we will need to deal with the fall out once v3 is released based on how it is recieved at that time.

Many local DBA players are not on Fanaticus, or may well be lurkers, but the majority of the players who run/ref the DBA games at all the US cons are on Fanaticus. They are the one who will ultimately decide the fate of 3.0, and they are the ones that Phil has to convince to run DBA 3.0 games...face it, if no one runs a 3.0 game, then the uncomitted ones won't have much of a choice, will they?

Sure, they can always play at home, but they will still see what's played at the cons.

Doug
01-05-2012, 01:04 AM
Many local DBA players are not on Fanaticus, or may well be lurkers, but the majority of the players who run/ref the DBA games at all the US cons are on Fanaticus. They are the one who will ultimately decide the fate of 3.0, and they are the ones that Phil has to convince to run DBA 3.0 games...face it, if no one runs a 3.0 game, then the uncomitted ones won't have much of a choice, will they?

Sure, they can always play at home, but they will still see what's played at the cons.

I think it is potentially misleading to say there was a groundswell of demand for a 2.3 with a couple of tweaks. From my conversations with the usual suspects who used to rock up to the nationals and to the local NSW/ACT comps, yes, everyone had something they would change about 2.2 - some peope it was terrain placement, some people, it was conforming, dismounting, BUA , army lists, Horde, 8Bw, DBE Kn, and so on.

The thing was that though lots of people liked the idea of some changes they didn't all like the idea of the SAME changes.

I think the important thing to remember is that Phil didn't start this process because he was responding to external demands for change. He started it because he thought 3 would be an improvement and be better aligned with his (changed) understanding of how an ancient battle could best be represented.

broadsword
01-07-2012, 12:21 PM
I believe that the correct way to play the DB 8Sp, is to replace one other 4Sp with some kind of inferior type, to reflect the tranfser of mass into the centre, and away from the wings. What if each such element was balanced with a 3Sp that had +3/+3? So for each 8Sp, you had to take an under-loaded Sp element as well?

FWIW, I think the 8Sp is drifiting away from what it was trying to represent, namely a choice as to whether to load up the centre, and try to flank the enemy instead.