Back to 3

[Bob Santamaria]

Steve, Ian and I had three games between us of DBA 3 last night. It was my first experience of the March draft.

We played LHG Italiot against Polybian Roman.

1. The movement distances are so great that they bother me;
2. Breaking the nexus between ZOC and the heavy foot move is a mistake;
3. The terrain can be very open, to an extent I think undesirable;
4. The terrain can be manipulated by use of a road to limit the attackers choices - this can, subject to quite modest other dice rolls lead to a funnelling or other extreme terrain choices favouring the defender;
5. Side support does nothing for me, but then I had no problem with the pre-existing interaction between Bd and Sp;
6. It was a mistake to remove Sp double ranking, there was always an appropriate cost-benefit calculation to be made by the Sp player, which was to me a great part of the game. The overall mix now does nothing to encourage any deployment in depth. Foot armies will always spread out as far as possible;
7. Sp will be Kn fodder to a degree I find unacceptable. There is little they can do.

Anyway, my simple thoughts on the issue.

Adrian

[Bobgnar]

All similar comments from many others. Except, I do not know what you mean by item 2.

I do not understand item 4. Sp is +4 to Kn at +3. Like single Pike and worse than Bd @ +3 vs mounted. All three are destroyed by Kn if beaten.

Kn are destroyed by Blades on a tie and they recoil from Sp and Pike. I just wonder why you single out the Sp as "fodder" for Kn and not the others.

[Bob Santamaria]

All similar comments from many others. Except, I do not know what you mean by item 2.

I do not understand item 4. Sp is +4 to Kn at +3. Like single Pike and worse than Bd @ +3 vs mounted. All three are destroyed by Kn if beaten.

Kn are destroyed by Blades on a tie and they recoil from Sp and Pike. I just wonder why you single out the Sp as "fodder" for Kn and not the others.

Point 2 - the heavy foot move and the size of the restricted area/ zoc should be the same

Point 4 - a road halves the number of directions an attacker can come from - with moderate dice for a defender that can give excessive control to them and unduly restrict the attacker, who after all has very limited input into the terrain

I have no problem with Blades generally being speedhumps to knights.

Pike still get the higher factor with the second rank.

It is Spear I love and feel have lost most.

Adrian

[Bobgnar]

Good comments. I did understand 4, I meant to ask, and you caught it, about the spear, item 7.

In 2.2, the area is 40mm deep and elements move 50mm. Now it is still 40mm but elements move 80. But you already covered the increase moves in Item 1.

Re Spears, do you want them to be +5 vs the +3 Kn. How much of a difference in factors is sufficient?

A difference of 1 seems good enough, with a recoil if tied, but a destroy if beaten. Those Kn are pretty tough if they get into your lines.

By the way, Sp are not destroyed by LH or El now. So seems generally better, except no +1 for second rank or Ps support vs Kn. They are better against Wb now with flank support. I did a game last fall with Sp vs Wb and the Sp were pretty much wiped out by the +4 Wb vs +5 Sp (Ps support). Now the Sp fight at +5 to Wb +3. Maybe worse if overlaps.

[Bob Santamaria]

To be frank Bob, the movement distances are so great, and so great relative to the ZOC distance, that I now fear I will find 3 hard to enjoy regularly. The rest is just detail.

Adrian

[lkmjbc]

Interesting Adrian...

I've played the longer movement distances for many years in "25mm games". I actually find the shorter move distances in 2.2 difficult and frustrating now.

I'm not being critical of your opinion... just offering my experience.

Joe Collins

[peleset]

Interesting Adrian...

I'm not being critical of your opinion... just offering my experience.

Joe Collins

Nevertheless you felt the need to do so.

I thought this one of the reasons punters steer clear of the Yahoo group. People make their own personal obvservations on the game play of the current draft and the '7 Dwarves'( and their cohorts) chime in with, "The fault lies in you, not the rules"!

[Bob Santamaria]

Interesting Adrian...

I've played the longer movement distances for many years in "25mm games". I actually find the shorter move distances in 2.2 difficult and frustrating now.

I'm not being critical of your opinion... just offering my experience.

Joe Collins

The relatively greater distance in 25mm is nothing like so significant as what is now proposed in draft DBA 3.

[Captain Rabbit]

Nevertheless you felt the need to do so.

I thought this one of the reasons punters steer clear of the Yahoo group. People make their own personal obvservations on the game play of the current draft and the '7 Dwarves'( and their cohorts) chime in with, "The fault lies in you, not the rules"!

As do the 2.2+ gnomes? :2up At no stage did he say or imply that "The fault lies in you"
We are all grownups here, surely it's ok to state your own opinion without sledging others ?
Calling anyone a dwarf (unless they are a dwarf of course, a friend that is a dwarf goes quite off, if he is called a little person) is going a little bit over the top.
It’s just a game, peace. enjoy whatever floats your boat.
:rotfl

[david kuijt]

Calling anyone a dwarf (unless they are a dwarf of course, a friend that is a dwarf goes quite off, if he is called a little person) is going a little bit over the top.


I think "7 Dwarves" was a name used by someone on the commentary group (perhaps Doug Melville? Not sure) to refer to the commentary group. Not a name applied from outside. Which was why Peleset put it in quotes.

[lkmjbc]

The relatively greater distance in 25mm is nothing like so significant as what is now proposed in draft DBA 3.

Agreed... but I wonder if this is just something that one "gets used to" or maybe has something to do with one (me and our club) mainly playing with 25mm in the past? My 15mm games were really mainly only at tournaments.

All my club games (the vast majority of games I play) are/were 25mm.

Joe Collins

[Si2]

I've always played 25mm and the 3 movement rates are much bigger than the 2.2 rates....?

OK, physically the distance is more than 15mm, but it's all relative to base width, board size and command/weapon range...

[lkmjbc]

I've always played 25mm and the 3 movement rates are much bigger than the 2.2 rates....?

OK, physically the distance is more than 15mm, but it's all relative to base width, board size and command/weapon range...

Sorry, I wasn't clear... We have used longer movement rates for 25mm for years. We just doubled the 15mm movement rates. 2" to 4" instead of 3".
100mm(roughly) vs the 120mm of 3.0 for heavy foot.

Everyone found it easy to remember, and liked that things became engaged more quickly/moved more... This was from folks that don't play 15mm.

I was wondering if this is a direct result of using 25mm figs.. the figs are larger... the base stands are larger... the move distances should be much larger.

The more intimate/intricate 15mm scale may encourage the opposite.

Upon showing folks the real 2.2 move distances, they showed disapproval.

I kept the larger move distances. Moving to 2.2+ or 3.0 seemed normal.

Joe Collins

[Richard Lee]

Interestingly enough, in version 1.1 (haven't got v1.0 to check, but presume that it was the same), 100 paces was 2" for 25mm figures compared to 100 paces for 15mm figures. A 4' square board was recommend for 25mm armies. When version 2 came out, the official movement rate for 25mm figures was changed to 40mm per 100 paces and the recommended board size for 25mm figures became a 3' square.

Even using the official version 2 movement distances, 25mm armies were a little more agile compared to base widths than smaller armies.

[Si2]

didn't 2.2 change the 25mm playing area to 36"?
I'm pretty sure 2 was 48"...

Si

[david kuijt]

didn't 2.2 change the 25mm playing area to 36"?
I'm pretty sure 2 was 48"...

Si

That's correct, Simon. (I just checked in my copy).

Phil was reacting to requests that he standardize the two scales and go with the larger board size. So he standardized the two scales on the smaller size.

[Si2]

That's correct, Simon. (I just checked in my copy).

Phil was reacting to requests that he standardize the two scales and go with the larger board size. So he standardized the two scales on the smaller size.

Yeah, it was such an elegant solution....

[Richard Lee]

didn't 2.2 change the 25mm playing area to 36"?
I'm pretty sure 2 was 48"...

Si

Whoops! :eek Sorry, didn't check my 2.0.

[Thomas J. Thomas]

The greater move distances take a bit of getting used to but have steadly grown on the local community who now get frustrated when we need to "practice" for 2.2.

Heavy foot that start opposite an enemy and outside a TZ, still do not have enough move to slide over 1 BW and then advance 1 BW into contact with a neighbor.

I think folks are entitled to say they have tried the new BW movement system and like it without being accused of attacking others.

To express an alterntive opinion based on playtest experience is hardly a personnel attack.

As to 25mm, yes it used to be in inches and worked well for some reason (standarization?) it was changed to 40mm with board sized reduced to 36" (often ignored). The change did not improve my 25mm experience.

TomT

[Skeptical Gamer]

The greater move distances take a bit of getting used to but have steadly grown on the local community who now get frustrated when we need to "practice" for 2.2.

Heavy foot that start opposite an enemy and outside a TZ, still do not have enough move to slide over 1 BW and then advance 1 BW into contact with a neighbor.
TomT

Umm... yes you can...
Remember, you can move single elements diagonally. If an element starts just out of TZ, a lateral shift of 1/2 base width followed by moving directly (on the diagonal) toward contact is easily accomplished within the 2 BW movement allowed to heavy foot. In 15mm scale, it would take about 67mm of movement.

Interestingly enough, in 2.2+ a heavy foot element cannot quite make that move having only 60mm of movement in 15mm scale.

[Rich Gause]

Umm... yes you can...
Remember, you can move single elements diagonally. If an element starts just out of TZ, a lateral shift of 1/2 base width followed by moving directly (on the diagonal) toward contact is easily accomplished within the 2 BW movement allowed to heavy foot. In 15mm scale, it would take about 67mm of movement.

Interestingly enough, in 2.2+ a heavy foot element cannot quite make that move having only 60mm of movement in 15mm scale.

Which is another really good reason why the heavy foot move should be 60mm, not 80mm. In fact when redoing the movement rates to be based on bw instead of inches it is baffling that deciding what heavy foot should and should not be able to do, assigning them an appropriate move rate and scaling everybody else up was not the process. I suspect the process was more along the lines of: they move 80mm in DBMM so they move 80mm in DBA 3.

[Stephen Webb]

I find it interesting that the usual response from those who like the bigger movement rates, is that you will eventually learn to like it.

Not one comment re the problems of being able to do actions that couldn't be done in earlier versions.

As mentioned, Phil should have worked out the closest equivalent movement and adjusted everything else that needed to be adjusted.

[Captain Rabbit]

I find it interesting that the usual response from those who like the bigger movement rates, is that you will eventually learn to like it.

Not one comment re the problems of being able to do actions that couldn't be done in earlier versions.

As mentioned, Phil should have worked out the closest equivalent movement and adjusted everything else that needed to be adjusted.

Well I actually like the new movement rates. For me the reason it works better is that you can do things that you couldn't do before and ends one of the main reasons why I stopped playing.
But then I don't have as much emotionaly invested in the status quo as some seem to so what do I know:).
I'm not sure what Phil wanted the movement rules to do, maybe the new movement/interaction results are what he wants, just a thought.
It's easy enough for people to change the final product anyway, players will change the final rules for comps as per the 2.2 bua. If that's what players want, it looks like Phil has other idea's at this point.
In the end sales will show how right he is I suppose.

[Bobgnar]

sales will really not tell us anything about what people think of the final product. most DBA players will buy the third edition rules whether they play it or not. they'll like to read the army lists, like to see what kinds of ideas are in it and then they will play the game as they want. as noted above tournament organizers will make changes to the rules as they think make the rules "better".

so it's not sales but what version of the rules is actually used in tournaments that will determine the "success" of the third edition compared to any other versions.

[Skeptical Gamer]

so it's not sales but what version of the rules is actually used in tournaments that will determine the "success" of the third edition compared to any other versions.
I would remove "in tournaments" from that last statement (though what is being played in tournaments is often a good indicator of what is being played elsewhere).

Unless the movement rates change I probably won't be playing much of 3.0. (I have tried it out and I didn't like it. I've played several different game systems and I've read a fair amount of history and, in 3.0, heavy foot can do things that I am not comfortable with them doing... I would much prefer adding a march move instead of a longer base move...)

Having said that, I am still going to buy a copy. I do like a lot of the things that have been done with it and I want to have the army lists. The question is, will I consider it worth doing this again for the next version. Sales will not indicate if this edition was a success. Sales of the next edition will...

[Skeptical Gamer]

Well I actually like the new movement rates. For me the reason it works better is that you can do things that you couldn't do before and ends one of the main reasons why I stopped playing.

I've heard a fair number of fairly specific complaints about the longer moves in 3.0. (e.g. heavy foot closing the door on a recoiled element, shifting a heavy foot battle line too quickly and easily, etc.)

What I haven't heard is what, specifically, is good about the longer moves. It's possible that I'm not giving them a fair chance and I'm willing to be convinced.

So, for those of you who like the longer moves, can you give me some specific things that you can do with the longer moves that you like? In what ways does it allow you to do things that an element should be able to do historically, but can't with shorter moves? In what ways does it make the game more fun? In what ways (best case scenario) does it do both?

[khr]

One of the positive comments I remember being posted (here or on the Yahoo group) was that it gave heavy foot armies a better chance against more mobile armies. You could deploy them further back and still be able to close quickly at your favourite point.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[Viking]

One of the positive comments I remember being posted (here or on the Yahoo group) was that it gave heavy foot armies a better chance against more mobile armies. You could deploy them further back and still be able to close quickly at your favourite point.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

Which is really great, seeing how heavy foot was quite useless in DBA 2.2 and Light Horse- and Psiloi-heavy armies really kicked their asses. Or, wait, did I get it wrong? :D

[lkmjbc]

I find the 2.0 movement rates difficult having played 3.0. I will never go back unless I have no choice... (play in a 2.0 tourney).

All the folks at my club hate the 2.0 movement rates. They find they slow the game down. None of the folks in my game club are part of the tournament scene. Several of them will probably purchase and play 3.0 when it come out.

This is just my experience and the experience of about 10 players here.

(We haven't played 2.2+ at the club yet (though I have one on one). I imagine everyone will like the expanded movement factors there as well. I am working on Dark ages stuff right now for a 2.2+ campaign)

Joe Collins

[Bobgnar]

this is what Phil wrote on Yahoo about the reason he likes the big moves
"
If I reverted to the old scale I would get lynched by testers and be beaten
up by my wife! The convenience of being able to judge distance with a base
instead of a measure is a popular feature. Even in the games at Fall In in
which Bob says players rejected the new moves, we saw several instances of
players measuring with a spare base.

Everyone harps on about the increase in heavy foot move. What they actually
mean is that they object to their opponent having an increased heavy foot
move, since they do not have to move full distance themself if they do not
want to!

However, in my opinion the big difference is having Cv move nearly 6 1/2
inches instead of 4 inches. This makes the use of a reserve to exploit
opportunities profitable for the first time and really, really aids good
generals. Wargames rules usually favour methodical safety-first generals,
while in real wars the few generals with boldness and flair like Alexander
or Hannibal dominate. I want DBA games to be like real battles, not like
chess games.

Phil"

I do not believe that most of the testers are positive to the new move distances and would hardly lynch the man if he were to revert to the 2.0 distances. His observations of players using bases to measure distance could be confused with players using bases to measure base width distances in front of an element but even if they were using bases to measure distance it only proves that they actually understood the rule even though they did not like it.

but in any event he will not revert to the old measurements so you take the base width moves with two bases for heavy foot or you make your own local modifications, take it or leave it :-)

I've heard a fair number of fairly specific complaints about the longer moves in 3.0. (e.g. heavy foot closing the door on a recoiled element, shifting a heavy foot battle line too quickly and easily, etc.)

What I haven't heard is what, specifically, is good about the longer moves. It's possible that I'm not giving them a fair chance and I'm willing to be convinced.

So, for those of you who like the longer moves, can you give me some specific things that you can do with the longer moves that you like? In what ways does it allow you to do things that an element should be able to do historically, but can't with shorter moves? In what ways does it make the game more fun? In what ways (best case scenario) does it do both?

[john meunier]

Bob,

What about his argument about longer moves favoring bold or aggressive players? Any validity there?

[Redwilde]

I don't have a problem with proportionally increased moves on a larger playing surface. The earlier drafts also gave heavy foot a huge proportional boost, which was really bad.

More than movement rates, if he wants to remove the chess-like reshuffling of units around in the line, try adding +1 pip cost to move an element or group that is breaking off from an established group in order to move separately. At it's root, that is a command problem and the cost would reflect that.

All the last-minute wrangling over Sp:Bd:Wb still leaves me highly dubious that the final product will turn out for the better. But stay tuned.

I'll definitely buy a copy no matter what. Looking forward to the army lists. It will be a huge improvement having all the descriptive text in DBA rather than having to buy all the DBM books to get that info.

[david kuijt]

What about his argument about longer moves favoring bold or aggressive players? Any validity there?

Puh-LEEZE.

As an intellectual exercise, double the movement rate. Is that going to favor aggressive players? Double it again. Will that favor aggressive players? Double it again, so now Bd can move 16" (if we start from 2.2 movement rates). Will that favor aggressive players? What if every element can move to every position from any position -- will that favor aggressive players?

No. It will favor conservative players who take a stronghold position and sit there without revealing any weakness, or it will favor swapping players who constantly swap sideways in the DBAOL way. And it will certainly favor the first person to roll high pips.

The 3.0 movement rates might be good, or they might be not to your taste -- they are not to my taste, but others disagree, and more power to them. I don't like mint or cilantro either, and some people do.

But the argument that increasing the movement rates favor bold and aggressive play is simplistic and inaccurate.

The more movement rates are increased, the more pips become important. Pips on THAT TURN. And if you don't have the pips, and you are scared your opponent might get the pips and attack you while you are in transition, many players will try to find a fortress (both flanks protected by terrain or edge of the world) and sit there safe until you DO get the pips.

[Rich Gause]

Obviously David you don't like the 3.0 movement rates because you haven't tried them or you have tried them but you just don't like your opponents having them. There couldn't possibly be anything bad about heavy foot moving 80mm. I know its true because Phil said so and he obviously knows everything about DBA and understands it better than anybody else.:silly

[kontos]

Obviously David you don't like the 3.0 movement rates because you haven't tried them or you have tried them but you just don't like your opponents having them. There couldn't possibly be anything bad about heavy foot moving 80mm. I know its true because Phil said so and he obviously knows everything about DBA and understands it better than anybody else.:silly

I still can't get over DK not liking mint or cilantro. :eek

[Tony Aguilar]

I still can't get over DK not liking mint or cilantro. :eek

No salsa or mojitos for him.

I say if he likes black liquorice instead, we throw him back over the border. ;)

[david kuijt]

I say if he likes black liquorice instead, we throw him back over the border. ;)

My father likes liquorice with salt, rather than sugar. It's a Dutch thing.

[Lobotomy]

I say if he likes black liquorice instead, we throw him back over the border. ;)

Why wait for that?! :silly

[Viking]

Everyone harps on about the increase in heavy foot move. What they actually
mean is that they object to their opponent having an increased heavy foot
move, since they do not have to move full distance themself if they do not
want to!
Wow... just wow. Is this actually supposed to be a serious counterargument? I think some little part of my brain just exploded.

[Pavane]

My father likes liquorice with salt, rather than sugar. It's a Dutch thing.
Double-salt is the way to go for liquorice.

[Pavane]

Wow... just wow. Is this actually supposed to be a serious counterargument? I think some little part of my brain just exploded.
It is difficult to take Phil seriously any more. Who needs gratuitous insults when there are alternatives to DBA 3.0 available? Phil could have nipped a lot of the animosity in the Yahoo discussions in the bud by acknowledging people's differing opinion on 3.0 movement rates but saying that he had reviewed it, and made a final decision to keep the rates as they are. Instead, he chose to allow a faint hope that he could be persuaded to change his mind.

[Tony Aguilar]

Who needs gratuitous insults when there are alternatives to DBA 3.0 available? Phil could have nipped a lot of the animosity in the Yahoo discussions in the bud by acknowledging people's differing opinion on 3.0 movement rates but saying that he had reviewed it, and made a final decision to keep the rates as they are.

Who needs the DBA Yahoo Group for that matter?

With the attitudes that are frequently exhibited there, I'd rather not go where there is that much angst.

[Rich Gause]

Who needs the DBA Yahoo Group for that matter?

With the attitudes that are frequently exhibited there, I'd rather not go where there is that much angst.

It is a good place to store files so everybody can access them. I suspect that when/if 3.0 is ever published and Phil starts ignoring the DBA community again it will mostly go back to that and directing newbies to Fanaticus.

[Redwilde]

My father likes liquorice with salt, rather than sugar. It's a Dutch thing.

Hmm, sounds intriguing. Candy liquorice or just the plain root?

Even Julia Childs Herself thought that cilantro tasted like dirt and that it belonged on the floor. :up

[david kuijt]

Hmm, sounds intriguing. Candy liquorice or just the plain root?


Candy. Little black chewy shapes.


Even Julia Childs Herself thought that cilantro tasted like dirt and that it belonged on the floor. :up

Herself was wise, as well as tall.

[Alex Bostwick]

Back to the original post:

You mentioned that you can limit the aggressor's options board-edge wise by deploying a road. Well, you can limit him to a single choice by also placing a waterway.

Place a waterway on one edge, with a road beginning opposite, but bending to terminate alongside it. Since the aggressor cannot choose an edge that is not adjacent to a waterway AND must deploy on an edge that has a road beginning on it, there is only one place for him to go, resulting with a waterway on one flank and a road directly in front. A few lucky die rolls can force that side of the board to be cluttered pretty effectively, too.

Considering how many arable and littoral armies there are, I can see this becoming a pretty common tactic.

OR! If you want to get really funky and come up with something that would crash fry the logic circuit of a robot, you can deploy a U-Shaped road opposite a waterway.

The rules state (on the most current draft I have- March 3rd) that a road cannot terminate or begin on a waterway BUT "can end prematurely by joining another road." It never says anywhere in the rules that that second road must begin or end on a different base edge, ergo: two roads, both beginning on the same edge, joins the other, thereby satisfying all requirements by the rules.

So, we have a U-shaped pair of roads with the prongs beginning opposite a waterway. Now, where does the aggressor deploy?

He A) must deploy along an edge with a road if there is one but B) cannot deploy opposite a waterway.

My reading of the rules may be incomplete and/or incorrect, but, as I understand them, there is no answer to this scenario. Perhaps someone can come up with something- I certainly can't. It hurt my brain to think of this, but if I can do this after glancing through the rules and applying three minutes of logic, you can bet that other players will be able to come up with things equally cheesy and/or confusing.

[Captain Rabbit]

It is difficult to take Phil seriously any more. Who needs gratuitous insults when there are alternatives to DBA 3.0 available? Phil could have nipped a lot of the animosity in the Yahoo discussions in the bud by acknowledging people's differing opinion on 3.0 movement rates but saying that he had reviewed it, and made a final decision to keep the rates as they are. Instead, he chose to allow a faint hope that he could be persuaded to change his mind.

So it's a problem that he wont commit 100% to something you don't like? remember he is "play testing". which is all about trying different things to achieve the results/outcomes "he" wants, after all they are his rules.

Say what you like about the man, but he will sometimes change his mind when given a reasonable argument. If what you say is true isn't it a good thing that he hasn't totaly ruled out returning to "your" favorite movement speeds? Could be that a few well thought out arguments as to why it doesn't work and supporting play tests could tip the balance.

[Pavane]

So it's a problem that he wont commit 100% to something you don't like? remember he is "play testing". which is all about trying different things to achieve the results/outcomes "he" wants, after all they are his rules.

Say what you like about the man, but he will sometimes change his mind when given a reasonable argument. If what you say is true isn't it a good thing that he hasn't totaly ruled out returning to "your" favorite movement speeds? Could be that a few well thought out arguments as to why it doesn't work and supporting play tests could tip the balance.
You are making the assumption that Phil has not been presented with well thought out arguments. In any case Phil has finally made a declaration that his wife will not let him change the movement rates in 3.0. I am happy that it is settled.

[Skeptical Gamer]

So it's a problem that he wont commit 100% to something you don't like? remember he is "play testing". which is all about trying different things to achieve the results/outcomes "he" wants, after all they are his rules.

Say what you like about the man, but he will sometimes change his mind when given a reasonable argument. If what you say is true isn't it a good thing that he hasn't totaly ruled out returning to "your" favorite movement speeds? Could be that a few well thought out arguments as to why it doesn't work and supporting play tests could tip the balance.

I'm sorry for the long post, but I think this needs to be said...

You're right, he doesn't have to accept any rules suggestions that he doesn't like. It is his game.

However, the rest of your response was pretty unreasonable...

No one was saying that he was unwilling to change the game based on playtesting. All that was being said was that he seems unwilling to change this one part of the game (movement rates) and that, if this is so, it would have been nice to have it clearly stated.

Your implication that he has not been given well thought out arguments concerning this issue could be disproved by a quick search of the DBA Yahoo forum. Such arguments have been being presented for a long time.

As for supporting playtests, since the release of the set of house-rules called 2.2+, there has been extensive play testing of one alternative and it has proven to be a pretty successful alternative.

Finally, please don't belittle the fact that people were insulted by Mr. Barker's comments. I have played the playtest version of 3.0, after playing it I found that I didn't like the new movement rates, and then (having played the game more than once to give the movement rates a fair trial) I voted against them in the Yahoo group poll. To have Mr. Barker claim that I hadn't tried them or that I was merely worried that my opponents might get an advantage if we used them was a very insulting comment. It offended me and probably a lot of other people. I don't believe that this sort of comment helps the DBA community in any way.

[Captain Rabbit]

I'm sorry for the long post, but I think this needs to be said...

You're right, he doesn't have to accept any rules suggestions that he doesn't like. It is his game.

However, the rest of your response was pretty unreasonable...

No one was saying that he was unwilling to change the game based on playtesting. All that was being said was that he seems unwilling to change this one part of the game (movement rates) and that, if this is so, it would have been nice to have it clearly stated.

Your implication that he has not been given well thought out arguments concerning this issue could be disproved by a quick search of the DBA Yahoo forum. Such arguments have been being presented for a long time.

As for supporting playtests, since the release of the set of house-rules called 2.2+, there has been extensive play testing of one alternative and it has proven to be a pretty successful alternative.

Finally, please don't belittle the fact that people were insulted by Mr. Barker's comments. I have played the playtest version of 3.0, after playing it I found that I didn't like the new movement rates, and then (having played the game more than once to give the movement rates a fair trial) I voted against them in the Yahoo group poll. To have Mr. Barker claim that I hadn't tried them or that I was merely worried that my opponents might get an advantage if we used them was a very insulting comment. It offended me and probably a lot of other people. I don't believe that this sort of comment helps the DBA community in any way.

At no stage have I belittled anyone. everyone has been insulted by Mr barker at some time and no that doesn't make it right either.
I wasn't trying to be unreasonable at all, rather trying to point out that he has an opinion too (and no I don't agree with everything he says either) if you took it that way I'm sorry.

There is baggage from all sides that muddy the field. best if we agree to disagree.

[Captain Rabbit]

You are making the assumption that Phil has not been presented with well thought out arguments. In any case Phil has finally made a declaration that his wife will not let him change the movement rates in 3.0. I am happy that it is settled.

The ony assumption I'm making is that he hasn't been presented with an argument that "he" doesn't think should change his mind.
You and I would probably find it reasonable :D

Anyway it's a game with dollies, think I'll go back to playing them.

[Pillager]

Back to the original post:
...you can deploy a U-Shaped road opposite a waterway.

The rules state (on the most current draft I have- March 3rd) that a road cannot terminate or begin on a waterway BUT "can end prematurely by joining another road." It never says anywhere in the rules that that second road must begin or end on a different base edge, ergo: two roads, both beginning on the same edge, joins the other, thereby satisfying all requirements by the rules...

My reading of the rules may be incomplete and/or incorrect

Its incorrect. You have to make the first road legal. It needs to exit the board by another edge. You seem to think that terrain is placed simultaneously.