PDA

View Full Version : DBA 3.0 playtesting at Cold Wars?


Pillager
01-18-2012, 01:50 AM
Anything ?

pozanias
01-18-2012, 02:14 AM
I encourage you to run a 3.0 event at Cold Wars using the latest draft. I think a schedule has been set for some time, but I'm sure there will be room in the DBA area for something additional. If not an event, perhaps you could set up a walk-up table for test games.

Pillager
01-18-2012, 04:40 AM
I can only conclude that if the "regular" DBA organizers have not already done so, it is due to their personal bias against it.

Since the draft 3.0 is available, a fair process would be to make sure that it was offered with equal availability.

larryessick
01-18-2012, 06:57 AM
I can only conclude that if the "regular" DBA organizers have not already done so, it is due to their personal bias against it.

Since the draft 3.0 is available, a fair process would be to make sure that it was offered with equal availability.

I take exception to this.

It is not a typical activity to run test games at conventions and the regular DBA organizers should not be expected to organize such regardless of their personal feelings.

I don't think bias figures into it at all.

To the contrary, the current rules are 2.2 and I think it entirely reasonable that any and all events be run using that version of the rules.

Mark's suggestion that you run a 3.0 demo or testing table is more than reasonable. It doesn't seem at all wrong that the person wanting something should be expected to do at least the major share of the work.

Martin Smith
01-18-2012, 07:01 AM
I can only conclude that if the "regular" DBA organizers have not already done so, it is due to their personal bias against it.

Since the draft 3.0 is available, a fair process would be to make sure that it was offered with equal availability.

The clue is in the word 'draft'. ie not published/unfinished. I wouldn't dream of running a tournament until the rules are published, myself.
Martin

pozanias
01-18-2012, 08:36 AM
I can only conclude that if the "regular" DBA organizers have not already done so, it is due to their personal bias against it.

Since the draft 3.0 is available, a fair process would be to make sure that it was offered with equal availability.

Its not a matter of bias, its.a matter of preference. I don't know if you have attended an East Coast convention before -- but typically there are as many different versions of 2.2 being played as there are GMs. Some have 24" boards some 30". Some have dismounting in the first bound, some anytime, some not at all. Anyway you get the point.

When 3.0 is released, I expect some tournaments will be run using 3.0, some using 2.2+ but it would be fair to say the most of the regular GMs have chosen to support the idea of 2.2+ at this time (but not necessarily to the exclusion of 3.0). Personally, I was open to running and playing in 3.0 tournaments until a few days ago. But I still wish for others that 3.0 is a good game. I don't wish to deprive anyone else of their enjoyment.

David Schlanger
01-18-2012, 08:55 AM
Anything ?

Pillager,

I manage the DBA schedule at Cold Wars. If you would like to run some sort of playtesting of 3.0, or if anyone else would... I would be happy to add it to the DBA schedule. The first version of the schedule has already been submitted for the PEL, but we can still add events and work to support them.

Thanks,
DS

michael guth
01-18-2012, 08:56 AM
Again, there is no such thing as a 'regular DBA organizer'. David Schlanger is keeping the DBA schedule. There was a large 3.0 megagame at the last convention.

You to can become a regular DBA organizer. Somewhere on the news and notices thread there is a schedule of times for DBA events. There are gaps in the schedule. Write to David Schlanger, tell him which slot you want to hold your event in, and what your event will be, and he will give you the ok, and you can post your announcement on this site and the DBA Yahoo site.

You might order a plaque for the winner and maybe an unpainted army for a prize.

Look forward to seeing you there.

larryessick
01-18-2012, 09:08 AM
I am presently negotiating for the opportunity to attend Cold Wars this year. I am not at all interested in playing any 3.0 games if I manage to make it.

Although I am clearly opposed to 2.2+ and in favor of 3.0 when published and even if 3.0 were published prior to Cold Wars, I still would not be interested in playing any 3.0 games. It is simply too soon and not yet the appropriate time for such things.

I reiterate what I previously said and echo what others are saying, if it is something that you (Pillager) want to organize and run then do so.

pozanias
01-18-2012, 12:00 PM
Once again Larry, if I could hug you I would.

I truly do want for 3.0 to be fun for whomever chooses to play it. And as far as I'm concerned it will always be welcomed at any conventions where I have any influence (and I have no reason to believe anyone else in the 2.2+ group feels differently -- but each individual only speaks for themselves).

Martyn
01-18-2012, 12:21 PM
Is it my imagination or has peace broken out on two of the DBA 3.0 threads.:eek

Pinch me quick in case I am dreaming. :p

larryessick
01-18-2012, 01:00 PM
Is it my imagination or has peace broken out on two of the DBA 3.0 threads.:eek

Pinch me quick in case I am dreaming. :p

More like a cease fire.

There are still missiles being lobbed over the border and airstrikes may still be called in to deal with things.

But, for the moment it is down to a low rumbling.

larryessick
01-18-2012, 01:02 PM
Once again Larry, if I could hug you I would.

And once again it would be premature. ;)

Bobgnar
01-18-2012, 03:05 PM
I will do my scheduled Duplicate Tournament with 3.0. I am supplying the armies and terrain and boards. One game in 25mm and one in 15mm.

As we get closer I will post more info,

dbawilliam
01-18-2012, 03:45 PM
I never knew Mark had a problem with "premature hugging" ... isn't there a pill for that ?:rotfl

Lobotomy
01-18-2012, 09:41 PM
I will do my scheduled Duplicate Tournament with 3.0. I am supplying the armies and terrain and boards. One game in 25mm and one in 15mm.

As we get closer I will post more info,

Bob,

Given the lack of availability of the rules, and who knows what version will be out, are you sure this is a good idea. The large battle we played at Fall In was workable because of the space the armies took up. With only 12 elements, there will be substantial space to allow for all kinds of problems to crop up in unfinished rules. I think this is particularly true since another post from Phil indicated they will not be finished until this fall (9-10 months from now). Just my 2 cents.

Roland Fricke
01-18-2012, 11:10 PM
Just so everyone knows, Bob Dave and I typically have to turn in the preliminary DBA schedule 8-12 weeks in advance of the convention in order to be on the con website. We do post here lookng for events but usually only after the previous con has happened on order to keep focus on the upcoming con. There's almost always space for more events but getting in the convention listing becomes difficult on short notice.

I just wanted to clearly state that so nobody thinks we discouraged certain events. In general we are very open to derivatives and tounament styles of DBA, our roles mostly being to try and mediate time slot conflicts and duplication of events.

dicemanrick
01-19-2012, 12:18 AM
Bob,

Given the lack of availability of the rules, and who knows what version will be out, are you sure this is a good idea. The large battle we played at Fall In was workable because of the space the armies took up. With only 12 elements, there will be substantial space to allow for all kinds of problems to crop up in unfinished rules. I think this is particularly true since another post from Phil indicated they will not be finished until this fall (9-10 months from now). Just my 2 cents.

Bob, will you use 2.2 army lists (since 3.0's not done yet?) and will the new "pick a couple of allies" stands be permitted?

Bobgnar
01-19-2012, 01:01 AM
Thanks Larry, Rich and Roland for good comments.

I will supply the armies and terrain as has been the case with the Duplicate Tournaments I have done in the past. Maybe I confused people to think of matched pairs.

In the classic Duplicate Tournament, there are 2 battles represented and each player takes both sides of both. Trojans and Achaians. Hussites and Imperials. The terrain and initial setups are the same for all games. Dick Bryant once asked me why DBA cannot be played like Duplicate Bridge. This is my answer. Once I even programmed the PIP rolls so everyone had the same in each round.

So if 8 players, there are 2 of each game layout, 2 of each army. I have done 16 players with 4 armies of each, and 4 layouts. Happy to do that if enough people will face the evils of 3.0 :) I will be using the 32" inch board option for 15mm and the 48" boards for the 25mm game so the Big Moves are somewhat mitigated.

The rules will be available on line and on site. All we need are the battle rules. Indeed, the printed version may not be ready until Historicon (or later) but that is because of the extensive work Phil is putting into the army lists, if he would just get off Yahoo. The core of the battle rules will be pretty final by then. If problems come up, there will be a chance to give input. I think all the problems will be known by then, most are known already. These two games are pretty simple, however.

Hope someone will give this a try.

Pillager
01-19-2012, 05:42 AM
I never said run a 3.0 TOURNAMENT.

The large number of DBA players present represents the only way to reach those who don't follow the internet discussions.

They should be given a format to try out the rules; best with some matched pairs which will showcase contentious changes, and someone familiar with the 3.0 process who knows Phil's intentions, who can answer questions.

Seems to have been done in Colorado, complete with a survey form.

The GMs who shirk this due to their personal preference for 2.2 are taking it upon themselves to disenfranchise the "silent" and possible "majority."

larryessick
01-19-2012, 06:47 AM
The GMs who shirk this due to their personal preference for 2.2 are taking it upon themselves to disenfranchise the "silent" and possible "majority."

The "GMs" have no responsibility in this regard. You, on the other hand, do if it is of concern to you.

Pavane
01-19-2012, 09:34 AM
I never said run a 3.0 TOURNAMENT.

The large number of DBA players present represents the only way to reach those who don't follow the internet discussions.

They should be given a format to try out the rules; best with some matched pairs which will showcase contentious changes, and someone familiar with the 3.0 process who knows Phil's intentions, who can answer questions.

Seems to have been done in Colorado, complete with a survey form.

The GMs who shirk this due to their personal preference for 2.2 are taking it upon themselves to disenfranchise the "silent" and possible "majority."
Baloney. GMs are under no obligation to run anything. At the same time GMs can run any tasteful game they want.

larryessick
01-19-2012, 10:08 AM
Baloney. GMs are under no obligation to run anything. At the same time GMs can run any tasteful game they want.

Absolutely!

I had a few more vitriolic and incendiary words but am working on being more civil. :up

Rong
01-19-2012, 11:08 AM
Originally Posted by Pillager
I never said run a 3.0 TOURNAMENT.

The large number of DBA players present represents the only way to reach those who don't follow the internet discussions.

They should be given a format to try out the rules; best with some matched pairs which will showcase contentious changes, and someone familiar with the 3.0 process who knows Phil's intentions, who can answer questions.

Seems to have been done in Colorado, complete with a survey form.

The GMs who shirk this due to their personal preference for 2.2 are taking it upon themselves to disenfranchise the "silent" and possible "majority."
Bob IS running a 3.0 at Cold Wars, a duplicate. :2up

Roland Fricke Just so everyone knows, Bob Dave and I typically have to turn in the preliminary DBA schedule 8-12 weeks in advance of the convention in order to be on the con website. We do post here lookng for events but usually only after the previous con has happened on order to keep focus on the upcoming con. There's almost always space for more events but getting in the convention listing becomes difficult on short notice.

I just wanted to clearly state that so nobody thinks we discouraged certain events. In general we are very open to derivatives and tounament styles of DBA, our roles mostly being to try and mediate time slot conflicts and duplication

I am running a derivative on Sunday, DBA-RRR, :2up using DBA 2.2 ruleset with the RRR additions. Anyone can, just have to be the early bird and when on the forum, when the convention scheduler asks for games\tournaments, you simply reply what you would like to have in the schedule.:up

john svensson
01-19-2012, 12:31 PM
"Baloney. GMs are under no obligation to run anything." Very true Will, but I don't think it was in the spirit of 'volunteerism' that the original question was asked to begin with..... in Swedish the slang term would be he was talking "snack"......
Can I be mildly disrepectful in non-English languages? :??? John S.

Pavane
01-19-2012, 12:48 PM
"Baloney. GMs are under no obligation to run anything." Very true Will, but I don't think it was in the spirit of 'volunteerism' that the original question was asked to begin with..... in Swedish the slang term would be he was talking "snack"......
Can I be mildly disrepectful in non-English languages? :??? John S.
If I read the post out of context, then I apologise. The Ignore List prevents one from following the complete conversation, but it is soothing to the soul. Thanks for pointing this out.

I read the last sentence to mean that GMs have a moral obligation to run DBA 3.0 tournaments, which I disagree with.

Roland Fricke
01-19-2012, 07:36 PM
I read the post the same way and I don't believe I misinterpreted the intent. I won't quote it as many here are ignoring it. Obviously he feels that organizers amd GMs are overcompensated and not living up to their responsibilities. :rotfl

GMs and oganizers owe nothing. We do what we do because we like doing it.

And anyone is welcome to do the same.

And I played in the 3.0 playtest Bob ran at FallIn which I scheduled in a prime timeslot all by itself.

Rong
01-19-2012, 08:18 PM
Well the question has to be asked, How many conventions has he organized, how many tournaments has been a GM for. :up

Pillager
01-19-2012, 09:36 PM
"Baloney. GMs are under no obligation to run anything." Very true Will, but I don't think it was in the spirit of 'volunteerism' that the original question was asked to begin with..... in Swedish the slang term would be he was talking "snack"......
Can I be mildly disrepectful in non-English languages? :??? John S.

The word you are looking for is "smack."

So... 3.0 might die on the vine due to lack of "representation" for Phil at conventions...

I don't know 3.0 well enough to do the representation, and attending would be difficult anyway.

BTW, an integrative solution would be to allow players to use whichever version they agree upon. If they don't agree then the version stated by the organizers is the default. Someone might want to un-ignore this idea.

Pavane
01-19-2012, 10:05 PM
So... 3.0 might die on the vine due to lack of "representation" for Phil at conventions...
No. DBA 3.0 might die on the vine due to lack of interest.

If none of the thousands of attendees at Cold Wars wants to run a demo game of DBA 3.0, it just means that very few people want to give up their time to promote or play an unfinished work when the excellent DBA 2.2 is available. The majority of people, including myself, will judge DBA 3.0 after it is published in its final form and have bought a copy to evaluate.

Pillager
01-19-2012, 10:20 PM
I think the relevant statistic is how many of the hundred(s) of DBA players at a convention do not follow this internet squabble but would like to see what 3.0 has to offer, especially early enough that they could comment on it and influence the end result?

The WADBAG website roster adds up to about a dozen people including "irregulars." Surely that faction is insignificant in the DBA world.

Maybe Beattie should at least bring along some of those survey forms. If a way can be found to guard against the partisans stuffing the ballot box.

Pavane
01-19-2012, 10:28 PM
Maybe Beattie should at least bring along some of those survey forms. If a way can be found to guard against the partisans stuffing the ballot box.
Perhaps we can dip our fingers into some indigo dye like they do in third world countries so that WADBAG Irregulars can't vote multiple times and "stuff" the survey.

pozanias
01-19-2012, 10:50 PM
I think the relevant statistic is how many of the hundred(s) of DBA players at a convention do not follow this internet squabble but would like to see what 3.0 has to offer, especially early enough that they could comment on it and influence the end result?

The WADBAG website roster adds up to about a dozen people including "irregulars." Surely that faction is insignificant in the DBA world.

Maybe Beattie should at least bring along some of those survey forms. If a way can be found to guard against the partisans stuffing the ballot box.

The significant majority of DBA players that attend HMGS East conventions are members of this forum and fully aware of 3.0. If any of them want to run a 3.0 event, they know they are welcome to do so.

I have to say that I am very confused by your purpose in all of this. What is it that you really want? Have you ever attended an East convention? Are you ever planning to? Is it just that you hate the members of WADBAG and want them to look bad? If so, its time to grow up and move on. If not, please enlighten us as to your real purpose.

Bobgnar
01-20-2012, 12:40 AM
Regarding the HMGS East Cons, if only we had 100's of DBA players turning up, that would be great. We do have 30-40 playing in events. 95% are active players and and read Fanaticus, if not write.

These conventions are hardly the world. WADBAG members do represent perhaps 20% of the 30 players that attend Cold Wars, many running events.

Beattie had survey forms at Fall In and people put their names on them. The same next time, I am sure. All the information was sent to Phil.

Pillager, will you be attending Cold Wars? I am happy to save you a place in my 3.0 event and give you a survey. I will send you one even if you do not show up.


I think the relevant statistic is how many of the hundred(s) of DBA players at a convention do not follow this internet squabble but would like to see what 3.0 has to offer, especially early enough that they could comment on it and influence the end result?

The WADBAG website roster adds up to about a dozen people including "irregulars." Surely that faction is insignificant in the DBA world.

Maybe Beattie should at least bring along some of those survey forms. If a way can be found to guard against the partisans stuffing the ballot box.

David Schlanger
01-20-2012, 02:00 AM
If so, its time to grow up and move on. If not, please enlighten us as to your real purpose.

And who you actually are?

DS

Pillager
01-20-2012, 06:13 AM
Perhaps we can dip our fingers into some indigo dye like they do in third world countries so that WADBAG Irregulars can't vote multiple times and "stuff" the survey.

Woad unto them if they try it !

Pillager
01-20-2012, 06:16 AM
>Have you ever attended an East convention? Are you ever planning to? Is it just that you hate the members of WADBAG and want them to look bad?

Used to.

Haven't been able to for years.

WADBAG seems to be the center of the 3.0 hate.