PDA

View Full Version : We don't have 3.0 yet


john meunier
01-21-2012, 09:29 AM
Latest Phil missive on Yahoo:

I can assure you that 3.0 will NOT be identical to the test version
currently in files! And even that is different to the one Dave Schlanger and
his crew had access to. We are now at the polishing stage. Use has been made
of the extra feedback generated and will continue to be. If you detect a
potential problem, email me and I will put it to the panel. This has now
been enlarged to 30 and their names will be found at the end of the new
draft next week. WE are not plotting in secret! If anyone tells you he has
played 3.0 and rejected it, ask him where and when he played and who with
and how many games.

Bob Santamaria
01-21-2012, 09:09 PM
So why should I playtest the draft that is available online?

Are any of the 30 people who have no interest in or experience of DBMM, but who like DBA?

I am hesitant to playtest further without a more up to date draft - I enjoyed the playtests I have played so far with the online draft though

Adrian

peleset
01-22-2012, 01:39 AM
I can assure you that 3.0 will NOT be identical to the test version
currently in files!

It does seem pointless play testing or looking for problems in an old draft.

Martyn
01-22-2012, 01:54 PM
I have suspended playtesting until the newer draft comes up. It became clear from comments a week or two ago that the select band had a revised draft which covered some of the comments and problems identified with the first general release draft, so there did not appear to be much point continuing at that point. Phil also announced at the begining of this week that a new draft would be made generally available, at which time I would resume playtesting.

Plenty of lead to paint in the meantime. ;)

Matt
01-22-2012, 03:17 PM
Plenty of lead to paint in the meantime. ;)

I like the sound of that! :2up

Macbeth
01-22-2012, 05:40 PM
Are any of the 30 people who have no interest in or experience of DBMM, but who like DBA?

Yes there is at least one - plus I am assuming from comments I have recieved that the US testers by and large have no interest in DBMM

Cheers

david kuijt
01-22-2012, 07:11 PM
Yes there is at least one - plus I am assuming from comments I have recieved that the US testers by and large have no interest in DBMM


The half-dozen people from the US that I'm aware of who were playtesting 3.0 last Summer/Fall all fit that profile (not DBMM players). But Phil wouldn't count any of them in a public statement that he was expanding his group to 30, because none of them are playtesting 3.0 any more. If other people from the US have been added as part of the 30, no idea who they are.

Macbeth
01-24-2012, 08:29 PM
All I know is that when I posted my little manifesto about Pk(F) <-> 3Sp one US tester said that because I was talking about DBMM troop types that a high proportion of the US Testers would not know what I was talking about.

Maybe it was the broad Australian accent in my typing that made me difficult to understand

:D

Cheers

Pavane
01-24-2012, 10:52 PM
All I know is that when I posted my little manifesto about Pk(F) <-> 3Sp one US tester said that because I was talking about DBMM troop types that a high proportion of the US Testers would not know what I was talking about.

Maybe it was the broad Australian accent in my typing that made me difficult to understand

:D

Cheers
I have Picts, Pre-Feudal Scots and Welsh and now they will be nerfed. Can you share your manifesto?

Macbeth
01-24-2012, 11:23 PM
Will,

the manifesto was almost identical to my post proposing the concept of 3Pk in the Hordes topic here on this board - post number approx 104 I think.

When I posted to the playtest group I also mentioned the fact that if 3Sp became Sp or Pk then they would need re-basing.

It was I fear a complication too far.

I thought that differing treatment of 4Kn vs others wrt pursuit meant that the idea was not far fetched.

So it goes.

I remain hopeful of DBA3 as I would like to see new players come in and think that a commercially available rules set is the best way to go.

Planning a big playtest day tomorrow (Australia Day Public Holiday) with the barbeque fired up and the red wine flowing.

Cheers

Pavane
01-25-2012, 12:08 AM
I found your 3Sp suggestion and I thought it was quite worth looking into. Conversion to Ax is just lazy.

Pillager
01-25-2012, 04:01 AM
When I posted to the playtest group I also mentioned the fact that if 3Sp became Sp or Pk then they would need re-basing.

It was I fear a complication too far.

I thought that differing treatment of 4Kn vs others wrt pursuit meant that the idea was not far fetched.

There may be a lot more lists affected by rebasing Pk than Kn ?????