PDA

View Full Version : New DBA


The Hill Crusher
08-08-2010, 09:58 AM
Just saw this posted to the DBA yahoo group. Thought it might be of interest here as well. Also similar post on HOTT group.

Hi everyone,

I'm Sue Laflin-Barker, some of you may know me.

I'm doing preparatory work for the new edition of DBA, ready for when Phil has finished his current work on HFG and Book 4 of the DBMM army lists, and I would like to ask your opinions on several points.

The first one relates to DBA and HOTT.

Do you see these a separate sets of rules which should continue to evolve separately and you don't care how much they differ?

Or do you feel that a large number of people wish to play with both sets and it's important that they should be sufficiently similar to make it easy to move from one to the other?

At present I don't want lists of differences - I want to know what you feel about this point.

Polynikes
08-08-2010, 09:33 PM
I really enjoy DBA and have no use for HOTT. The most pressing problem now is the dissolving of the DBA online game. No support, no communication, no updates and seemingly valid claims of credit card fraud are killing this game.
Can you do anything?

Jim

Bob. (and his dog)
08-09-2010, 10:05 AM
I really enjoy DBA and have no use for HOTT. The most pressing problem now is the dissolving of the DBA online game. No support, no communication, no updates and seemingly valid claims of credit card fraud are killing this game.
Can you do anything?

Jim


Jim, to whom are you addressing that last comment? The message above yours is not from Sue, just a quote her's. In any event, the Barkers have no influence on DBAOL so why bring that up with them.

DBAOL is an independently run operation by Victor (is he still there) and his team. I think the Barkers do not even get any royalties anymore

neldoreth
08-09-2010, 10:58 PM
Is it just me, or does it mean something that the Barker's don't know enough to ask that kind of question on the forum that is the most active DBA comminity with members from all over the world? I guess then can say that they asked, but did they ask the right people?

I wish they would post that here... it's much more convenient than a yahoo group!

thanks,
n.

Stephen Webb
08-10-2010, 12:44 AM
Maybe one of us should suggest that to Sue.

nick hux
08-10-2010, 02:42 AM
Don't forget Phil Barker has used Yahoo groups to get wargamers' input for DBMM and Horse, Foot and Guns at least. Sue is just following up on that. I don't think she is snubbing Fanaticus.
Also some people prefer to use e-mail to read and post to a forum, which you can't do here.
Nick

David Constable
08-10-2010, 03:52 AM
Don't forget Phil Barker has used Yahoo groups to get wargamers' input for DBMM and Horse, Foot and Guns at least. Sue is just following up on that. I don't think she is snubbing Fanaticus.
Also some people prefer to use e-mail to read and post to a forum, which you can't do here.
Nick

Agree.
I look at DBMM on Yahoo, I can flick down all the post, (semi) organized, in 30 seconds I can decide what I want to look at, you cannot do that on Fanaticus.
Fanaticus is a good forum, but not for rules by committee or consensus.

David Constable

lewchips
08-10-2010, 09:08 AM
Agree.
I look at DBMM on Yahoo, I can flick down all the post, (semi) organized, in 30 seconds I can decide what I want to look at, you cannot do that on Fanaticus.
Fanaticus is a good forum, but not for rules by committee or consensus.

David Constable

David,

I tend to do the same thing with my Yahoo Groups.
On Fanaticus, I tend to use the 'Today's Post' option in the Quick Links option across the top of the board which, to me at least, works in a similar fasion.

Cheers,
Barry

Bob. (and his dog)
08-10-2010, 10:03 AM
Maybe they are trying?

Is the DBA Yahoog group or Fanaticus the most active? The formats are very different. Richard Bodley Scott used Yahoo to get comments on his version of HOTT, Phil used it for DBMM and HFG. Why cannot they use what is comfortable to them or must they please us?


Is it just me, or does it mean something that the Barker's don't know enough to ask that kind of question on the forum that is the most active DBA comminity with members from all over the world? I guess then can say that they asked, but did they ask the right people?

I wish they would post that here... it's much more convenient than a yahoo group!

thanks,
n.

Tony Aguilar
08-10-2010, 10:12 AM
I subscribe to both Yahoo and here. I would say that Fanticus is at least 10x more active. I don't care for the Yahoo group format for DBA because after I respond to someone's question, it seems like it takse an inordinate amount of time to see my response, by which time 3 or 4 people have answered already.

I do use it for our FADBAG group and the delay is under 5 minutes.

Musashi
08-10-2010, 10:52 AM
I subscribe to both Yahoo and here. I would say that Fanticus is at least 10x more active. I don't care for the Yahoo group format for DBA because after I respond to someone's question, it seems like it takse an inordinate amount of time to see my response, by which time 3 or 4 people have answered already.


Yeah, what he said! Yahoo groups is so old school. Which in a technology sense isn't all that swell. Phpbb forums and other formats are so much more immediate and customizable. It's no wonder they took the internet by storm when they first came out. Listserv type stuff feels so 1997 to me lol.

David Kuijt
08-10-2010, 12:21 PM
Is it just me, or does it mean something that the Barker's don't know enough to ask that kind of question on the forum that is the most active DBA comminity with members from all over the world? I guess then can say that they asked, but did they ask the right people?

I wish they would post that here... it's much more convenient than a yahoo group!


Sue just posted on the yahoo group; apparently she has been trying to register on fanaticus and send messages; her registration is still pending here (as usual, because Chris is swamped with fake spambot registrations).

I've sent Chris a note in private email to find and spring her registration, so that will be resolved soon (not instantly, since Chris is in SC or GA right now).

neldoreth
08-10-2010, 12:46 PM
Sue just posted on the yahoo group; apparently she has been trying to register on fanaticus and send messages; her registration is still pending here (as usual, because Chris is swamped with fake spambot registrations).

I've sent Chris a note in private email to find and spring her registration, so that will be resolved soon (not instantly, since Chris is in SC or GA right now).

That's cool. I also realized it was a post regarding HotT as well... so perhaps I was a bit too judgmental :) Thanks for the info!

n.

neldoreth
08-10-2010, 12:51 PM
Maybe they are trying?

Is the DBA Yahoog group or Fanaticus the most active? The formats are very different. Richard Bodley Scott used Yahoo to get comments on his version of HOTT, Phil used it for DBMM and HFG. Why cannot they use what is comfortable to them or must they please us?

I think it depends on how the different techs are used. Email groups are somewhat outdated in a sense, but were designed to facilitate discussion and dissemination of information.

Forums on the other hand are persistent, in that they store discussions in a readily available and accessible format. Searching is simple, unlike with email groups. Organization is also simple, unlike email groups.

But It's really where the community is. They can go wherever they want, but if they don't go to the active communities, then they aren't really doing due diligence... Then again, who says they should be doing due diligence anyway? They can write the rules in a vacuum if they like, but then it will be a dice roll as to whether anyone likes them :)

I'm not as cranky about it as I came across originally. Sorry for the misconception!

Thanks
n.

Tony Aguilar
08-10-2010, 01:07 PM
It will be good to have Sue on here.

Rich Gause
08-10-2010, 01:30 PM
It will be good to have Sue on here.

I agree, very encouraging sign for the new edition.

Spencer
08-10-2010, 01:46 PM
Maybe they are trying?

Is the DBA Yahoog group or Fanaticus the most active? The formats are very different. Richard Bodley Scott used Yahoo to get comments on his version of HOTT, Phil used it for DBMM and HFG. Why cannot they use what is comfortable to them or must they please us?


Ummmm....aren't they trying to sell a product to this target audience?

Here's a market research tip......Google "de bellis antiquitatis."

Guess what pops up first

AThomas
08-10-2010, 02:59 PM
Wikipedia comes up first.

Sue is obviously trying to reach as many DBA and HOTT players as possible so lets give her constructive feedback through as many means as we can.

David Kuijt
08-10-2010, 03:14 PM
Sue is obviously trying to reach as many DBA and HOTT players as possible so lets give her constructive feedback through as many means as we can.

Yes.

With that said, I'd caution everyone not to explode. On the Yahoo group Sue said:
At present Phil is working on HFG & Book 4 of DBMM Army Lists.

He will get on to DBA later.

It isn't clear what the timeframe will be.

Susan Laflin-Barker
08-11-2010, 03:59 AM
Hello everyone,

I have now been told I have been validated and can post to this forum.

If you receive this, you will know that any future DBA discussion from me will be sent to this group as well as the yahoo group.

I found it VERY frustrating to see you criticising me for not posting to you while I was trying to do just that and was unable to do so.

Sue.

Susan Laflin-Barker
08-11-2010, 04:14 AM
I note concern over the time scale for the new version of DBA.

I cannot give you a date.

At present Phil is working on HFG (which has been waiting for publication for about five years) and book four of the DBMM army lists.

He's working as fast as he can and will only be slowed down by emails on other topics.

DBA is next on the list.

In the meantime, I am trying to collect feedback on various topics, so that when he does get on to DBA, progress will be as fast as possible.

The first topic I raised was whether people feel it is important to have DBA and HOTT very similar. I interpret the responses I have received so far as indicating that the same mechanisms for the two sets would be an advantage but some of the details should be different. There were also a few players who only play with one set and don't care what the other does.

Glad to have made contact with this group.

Sue.

David Constable
08-11-2010, 04:20 AM
Hello everyone,

I have now been told I have been validated and can post to this forum.

If you receive this, you will know that any future DBA discussion from me will be sent to this group as well as the yahoo group.

I found it VERY frustrating to see you criticising me for not posting to you while I was trying to do just that and was unable to do so.

Sue.

Hello Sue

Nice to have you here.

Unlike your DBMM group which is open immediately (very useful if you get cancelled by accident) this is not, it stops most problems with people, unless they are bad boys, hope you are both well.

My father passed yours the other day, he remember collecting the brown DAF from there, I remember you asking me to move the same car as you were selling a very dull brown car (Mini?).

David Constable

Susan Laflin-Barker
08-11-2010, 04:28 AM
Please remember that this is my suggestion and Phil has not yet seen it to comment. I hope to persuade him.

DBA has a set of troop types. DBMM is not only for larger numbers of troops, it is also more complex and most of the DBA types are subdivided into three or four subtypes in DBMM.

I don't see why DBA players should have to bother about the details in DBMM.

Hence I propose a single set of bases for DBA types and a comment along the lines of "Any element which is correctly based for a particular army on DBMM may also be used for the corresponding army in DBA".

This should allow players who use both sets of rules to use the same elements for DBA.

To see how this will work, consider the special case of the type warband.

In DBA this is a single type and for 15mm troops would have 3 figures on a base 40mm wide and 20mm deep.

In DBMM, this is subdivided into 3 types, namely fast Wb(F), ordinary Wb(O) and superior Wb(S). Wb(F) and Wb (O) have the same base as DBA. Wb(S) have 4 figures on a base only 15mm deep.

So a player using some Early German Armies e.g II/47b would have a choice of base sizes, while my Ancient Brits II/53 would (apart from the general) have no choice.

And similarly for all other armies. I'll attach the full list of proposed types later when I'm allowed to post attachments.

Sue.

David Constable
08-11-2010, 04:40 AM
Please remember that this is my suggestion and Phil has not yet seen it to comment. I hope to persuade him.

DBA has a set of troop types. DBMM is not only for larger numbers of troops, it is also more complex and most of the DBA types are subdivided into three or four subtypes in DBMM.

I don't see why DBA players should have to bother about the details in DBMM.

Hence I propose a single set of bases for DBA types and a comment along the lines of "Any element which is correctly based for a particular army on DBMM may also be used for the corresponding army in DBA".

This should allow players who use both sets of rules to use the same elements for DBA.

To see how this will work, consider the special case of the type warband.

In DBA this is a single type and for 15mm troops would have 3 figures on a base 40mm wide and 20mm deep.

In DBMM, this is subdivided into 3 types, namely fast Wb(F), ordinary Wb(O) and superior Wb(S). Wb(F) and Wb (O) have the same base as DBA. Wb(S) have 4 figures on a base only 15mm deep.

So a player using some Early German Armies e.g II/47b would have a choice of base sizes, while my Ancient Brits II/53 would (apart from the general) have no choice.

And similarly for all other armies. I'll attach the full list of proposed types later when I'm allowed to post attachments.

Sue.

The problems with base sizes occur if the rules change them, it always has been.

Now I for one with all my figures Araldited to magnetic bases are not going to change them.

If the DBA bases remain the same, adding the option for DBMM if legal is not a problem, but what about other rules, DBM for instance, do you say any?

I think you might want to look at the recoil depth, perhaps making it something like 15mm for foot, 30mm for mounted.
Although less convenient than the existing (which is simple) it would at least introduce consistence across base depths.

David Constable

The Last Conformist
08-11-2010, 05:18 AM
Hello everyone,

I have now been told I have been validated and can post to this forum.
Welcome, Sue. :)


If the DBA bases remain the same, adding the option for DBMM if legal is not a problem, but what about other rules, DBM for instance, do you say any?
Anything that's legal for DBA 2.2 should be legal for DBM already.

(Now, if I were king of the world, all foot except Ps and Hd would be allowed to be 3-4 figs on a 15 or 20mm base, but somehow they don't seem to have gotten round to crowning me yet.)

Snowcat
08-11-2010, 07:29 AM
Personally I'd like DBA and HOTT to be as close as possible, and if that included HOTT gaining an Ax class - BONUS!

Welcome aboard Sue. :)

David Kuijt
08-11-2010, 07:58 AM
Please remember that this is my suggestion and Phil has not yet seen it to comment. I hope to persuade him.

DBA has a set of troop types. DBMM is not only for larger numbers of troops, it is also more complex and most of the DBA types are subdivided into three or four subtypes in DBMM.

I don't see why DBA players should have to bother about the details in DBMM.

Hence I propose a single set of bases for DBA types and a comment along the lines of "Any element which is correctly based for a particular army on DBMM may also be used for the corresponding army in DBA".

This should allow players who use both sets of rules to use the same elements for DBA.


Hi Sue,

I don't have any problems with that rule, but I do have some comments.

The rule is aimed at making DBA accessible to DBMM players. I've got no objection to the general idea -- I want everyone to play DBA. But I don't really believe many DBMM players are ever going to do much DBA.

All my comments below are based upon my experience with the US DBA community, mostly on the East coast at the three largest conventions (Historicon, Cold Wars, and Fall In).

About a decade or more ago (1999-2000), there were a lot of DBM players. A few of them played DBA once in a while. As the DBA community grew and gained energy the population of DBM players participating dropped, and by 2002 or so the number of DBM players playing DBA was very small. Since that time the idea of "crossover players" has been largely a myth -- the very few I can point to aren't DBM players who play DBA, they are DBA players who do a bit of DBM.

With DBMM the situation is going to be similar, exaggerated by the fact that very few people in the US play DBMM.

So I think that a rule allowing DBMM players to use their armies to play DBA is fine -- it won't hurt DBA -- but probably a waste of text space in practice.

vonBerlichingen
08-11-2010, 08:21 AM
Welcome, Sue. Re. DBA and HOTT, I think that maximal compatibility would be ideal for the DBA/HOTT gamers where I game, because it should lessen the risk of confusion when switching between systems from one gaming session to the next. It should also allow for a fair amount of army morphing between the two.

Re. both (and the other systems), if I might add a more general suggestion about basing, it would be to add a set of dimensions for the newer (last two decades?) figures that are more on the order of 28mm-32mm, say double the dimensions for 15mm basing.

Paul Potter
08-11-2010, 10:25 AM
Mrs Barker, I consider it an honor to have you posting on Fanaticus.

Thank you to you and your husband for all these many years of enjoyable gaming and good friendships I have be able to enjoy because of HotT and DBA.

Rich Gause
08-11-2010, 10:29 AM
Hi Sue,

I don't have any problems with that rule, but I do have some comments.

The rule is aimed at making DBA accessible to DBMM players. I've got no objection to the general idea -- I want everyone to play DBA. But I don't really believe many DBMM players are ever going to do much DBA.

All my comments below are based upon my experience with the US DBA community, mostly on the East coast at the three largest conventions (Historicon, Cold Wars, and Fall In).

About a decade or more ago (1999-2000), there were a lot of DBM players. A few of them played DBA once in a while. As the DBA community grew and gained energy the population of DBM players participating dropped, and by 2002 or so the number of DBM players playing DBA was very small. Since that time the idea of "crossover players" has been largely a myth -- the very few I can point to aren't DBM players who play DBA, they are DBA players who do a bit of DBM.

With DBMM the situation is going to be similar, exaggerated by the fact that very few people in the US play DBMM.

So I think that a rule allowing DBMM players to use their armies to play DBA is fine -- it won't hurt DBA -- but probably a waste of text space in practice.

One area where there is lots of crossover between DBM(M) and DBA players that it would be very useful to have flexible basing for is EBAY:)

ferrency
08-11-2010, 10:39 AM
Regarding whether DBA and HotT should be made more similar: It depends.

I don't think there's any need to make them cross-compatible. That is, the different combat factors and movement distances for similar troop types in each set don't need to be brought into line.

The areas that would benefit most from unifying the rules are the specific details of how mechanics work: recoiling, fleeing, crossing the front of an enemy element, conforming with enemy elements, breaking off from combat, choosing distant shooting targets, and that sort of thing.

The specific rules may be better or worse in one rule set, but I think both sets suffer from these different details that seem minor (or may even be ambiguous) in the rules, but make crossing between DBA and HotT difficult. I know I've hesitated to play HotT to avoid confusing myself with these subtle differences w.r.t. DBA.

Specifically: I think it's important to know which portions are intended to be "brought into line" and which are not under consideration, before anyone can give a fully informed opinion.

Thanks,
Alan

David Schlanger
08-11-2010, 10:39 AM
Please remember that this is my suggestion and Phil has not yet seen it to comment. I hope to persuade him.

DBA has a set of troop types. DBMM is not only for larger numbers of troops, it is also more complex and most of the DBA types are subdivided into three or four subtypes in DBMM.

I don't see why DBA players should have to bother about the details in DBMM.

Hence I propose a single set of bases for DBA types and a comment along the lines of "Any element which is correctly based for a particular army on DBMM may also be used for the corresponding army in DBA".

This should allow players who use both sets of rules to use the same elements for DBA.


Sue,

I believe that your suggestion seems perfectly reasonable. However, there has been very little crossover between DBM and DBA from 2001 - 2008 in the Eastern United States, and almost no crossover between DBMM and DBA since DBMM was published. I can not speak for other geographic areas. For some reason there seemed to be more DBM players also playing DBA back under version 1.1.

So, while I am happy to have compatability between systems, this doesn't seem to be an issue of the highest magnitude. Nice to have though.

Pthomas
08-11-2010, 12:53 PM
Sue,

There is a huge cross over between DBA and HoTT. So bringing these rules closer in alignment is likely to be a good thing.

As someone has mentioned though, the devil is in the details.

winterbadger
08-11-2010, 01:09 PM
Regarding whether DBA and HotT should be made more similar: It depends.

I don't think there's any need to make them cross-compatible. That is, the different combat factors and movement distances for similar troop types in each set don't need to be brought into line.

The areas that would benefit most from unifying the rules are the specific details of how mechanics work: recoiling, fleeing, crossing the front of an enemy element, conforming with enemy elements, breaking off from combat, choosing distant shooting targets, and that sort of thing.

The specific rules may be better or worse in one rule set, but I think both sets suffer from these different details that seem minor (or may even be ambiguous) in the rules, but make crossing between DBA and HotT difficult. I know I've hesitated to play HotT to avoid confusing myself with these subtle differences w.r.t. DBA.

Specifically: I think it's important to know which portions are intended to be "brought into line" and which are not under consideration, before anyone can give a fully informed opinion.

Thanks,
Alan

Said so well that I see no point in saying more than, "I agree!" :up

Ed Dillon
08-11-2010, 01:42 PM
Sue,

I believe that your suggestion seems perfectly reasonable. However, there has been very little crossover between DBM and DBA from 2001 - 2008 in the Eastern United States, and almost no crossover between DBMM and DBA since DBMM was published. I can not speak for other geographic areas. For some reason there seemed to be more DBM players also playing DBA back under version 1.1.

So, while I am happy to have compatability between systems, this doesn't seem to be an issue of the highest magnitude. Nice to have though.


Sue & David,
There was a very heavy crossover between DBA and DBM from 2001-2008 in middle Tennessee. Almost all of the regular DBA gamers were also DBM gamers. I think that maintaining compatibility of basing between DBA & DBMM is a major plus for both. Needless to say, I think that basing should be consistant between DBA and HOTT. Our group currently changes back and forth a great deal and often uses HOTT for historical games.

Ed

David Kuijt
08-11-2010, 02:02 PM
There was a very heavy crossover between DBA and DBM from 2001-2008 in middle Tennessee. Almost all of the regular DBA gamers were also DBM gamers.

Interesting to hear, Ed.

When you say "very heavy," can you quantify that? 40 gamers played both, out of 50? I'm just trying to get a sense of how very heavy in middle Tennessee compares, numbers and percentage wise, to activity elsewhere.

What happened after DBM was made redundant in 2008? Did they evaporate, switch to FOG or Warhammer, what?

winterbadger
08-11-2010, 02:14 PM
What Sue is suggesting (having an established set of DBA bases per army and allowing DBM(M) players to opt-in alternate bases) seems like a better compromise than the solution that was chosen in shift from 1.x to 2.x, where DBA players were forced to adopt DBM basing. I wish we could have a time machine to go back and implement this change then.

Now, having done all (or at least most) of the rebasing (and painting of new elements), I guess I'm most concerned that there not be a huge new round of base changes to move (?back?) to a new "DBA standard". I imagine army lists will be rejiggered here and there, but I'd be really bothered if I had to make substantial changes to my armies again.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I hope there would not be many changes between the current bases and any new standard, and I also hope the army lists themselves will not change much. It took a lot of work (at least for me :) )to change over all my 1.x armies to 2.x, and I didn't have nearly as many armies then as I do now.

winterbadger
08-11-2010, 02:21 PM
I think it depends on how the different techs are used. Email groups are somewhat outdated in a sense, but were designed to facilitate discussion and dissemination of information.

Forums on the other hand are persistent, in that they store discussions in a readily available and accessible format. Searching is simple, unlike with email groups. Organization is also simple, unlike email groups.

Some of the issue is also, I think, not just the email v. forum format but the fact that Yahoo seems to be rapidly losing the ability to deliver effective services. Their format has always appeared poorly designed (IMO)--far too hard to do things that ought to be easy--but they are showing signs of strain in both their listserv and email systems that suggest they are having trouble, whether it's overload or poor design, I don't know.

Susan Laflin-Barker
08-11-2010, 02:27 PM
Here is my proposal for the complete section. It would look better as an attachment in Word, but I hope you can understand this.
Sue.

BASING YOUR FIGURES AND MODELS

All figures must be combined into elements of several figures, or an elephant, chariot or artillery model, fixed to a thin rectangular base. Base size is not critical provided that all bases have the same frontage and both armies use the same conventions.

If you wish to use the same figures for DBA and DBMM, then you will need to consult the DBMM Army Lists for details - any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the corresponding DBA army.

Base width: 60mm if using 25mm scale figures.
40mm if using figures of other scales.

Troop Type DBA lists code Base depth for Figs or models
25mm or 28mm other scales per base
ELEPHANTS El 80mm 40mm 1 model
KNIGHTS Kn 40mm 30mm 3 or 4
(or HEAVY CHARIOTS) HCh 80mm 40mm 1 model
CAVALRY Cv 40mm 30mm 3
(or LIGHT CHARIOTS) LCh 80mm 40mm 1 model
LIGHT HORSE LH or LCm 40mm 30mm 2
SCYTHED CHARIOTS SCh 80mm 40mm 1 model
CAMELRY Cm 40mm 30mm 3
SPEARS Sp 20mm 15mm 4
PIKES Pk 20mm 15mm 4
BLADES Bd 20mm 15mm 4
AUXILIA Ax 30mm 20mm 3 or 4
BOWS Bw 30mm 20mm 3 or 4
PSILOI Ps 30mm 20mm 2
WARBAND Wb 30mm 20mm 3
HORDES Hd 40mm 30mm 7-8
ARTILLERY Art 80mm 40mm 1 model
WAR WAGONS WWg 120mm 80mm 1 model
(or LITTER) Lit 120mm 80mm 1 model
CAMP FOLLOWERS 30mm 20mm 1-4

If your army is of individual 10mm or 6mm figures, use twice as many figures and models as specified above. Basing of 6mm or 2mm blocks is complicated by them being cast with varying frontages. They must be cut and combined to look realistic, with irregulars and skirmishers often in small random groups. Use open formation blocks for light horse or psiloi, loose for most knights, cavalry, auxilia, bowmen or warband, and close for cataphracts, spears, pikes and most blades.

Distribute figures representing regular troops evenly along the base in level rows, and distinguish irregulars by using figures of differing type, pose and/or colour scheme placed more randomly. Depict camp followers as armed civilians. BUA denizens are not represented by an element. The general's element must be recognisable by his figure, standard or conventional white charger and be of a type specified in the army list.

Susan Laflin-Barker
08-11-2010, 02:31 PM
Sorry - the table doesn't seem to travel well.

You will have to space it across to understand it - I had included the spaces before posting but they seem to have disappeared.

Hope you can decipher it.

Sue.

The Last Conformist
08-11-2010, 02:48 PM
Sue's table hurt my pride by resisting my best efforts of text editing, so I turned it into an image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/tlc49/suetable.gif

Take that, recalcitrant table! :silly

Rich Gause
08-11-2010, 02:50 PM
Sorry - the table doesn't seem to travel well.

You will have to space it across to understand it - I had included the spaces before posting but they seem to have disappeared.

Hope you can decipher it.

Sue.
I find it seem s to work better to use an actual symbol rather than a space when trying to make a table on this formum or in an email. It seems a lot of times that extra spaces can get delelted somehow. I can read the table just fine and I think it is a great idea. It allows people who want a standard base for multiple armies to have one, allows people with stuff based to DBM(M) standards to use their stuff, and doesn't force anybody to rebase anything. Making anything more restrictive so that people can't use DBM basing or have to rebase current DBA elements would be bad.

David Kuijt
08-11-2010, 03:06 PM
doesn't force anybody to rebase anything.

Sorry, Rich, that doesn't follow.

Sue is talking about having a standard basing for DBA, and allowing DBMM-based stuff to come in regardless of how it is based.

Several people have assumed that means "no rebasing in DBA."

Whether or not there is rebasing in DBA will depend upon changes in the Army Lists for DBA. Nothing else.

The DBA army lists are now almost 10 years old. It is very likely, when Phil finishes HFG and DBMM army book IV and turns his attention DBA-ward, that he will have changes to the army lists in mind. That's what happened last time.

Don't get me wrong -- I liked the changes to the army lists last time, in spite of the rebasing required. And it is likely that the changes to the army lists would be less extensive than they were last time (changing from DBA 1.1 to 2.0).

But there will be changes. And the changes will force some people, with some armies, to rebase. Sue's proposal doesn't have much to do with whether or not current DBA armies are rebased -- that will depend largely upon whether or not the DBA army lists are modified, and how much. The last time the army lists were modified, a new troop type was added (Horde) and there were major modifications to multiple army lists, plus the introduction of about 300 new lists. Things won't be so severe this time, I'm betting, but some change will happen.

tors
08-11-2010, 03:25 PM
Sorry - the table doesn't seem to travel well.

You will have to space it across to understand it - I had included the spaces before posting but they seem to have disappeared.

Hope you can decipher it.

Sue.

G'day Sue, long time sine we met in Melbourne :D

I'd like to see Pk, 40mm *30mm 8 figures to a base. They look so much better.

Kingo

winterbadger
08-11-2010, 03:26 PM
But there will be changes. And the changes will force some people, with some armies, to rebase. Sue's proposal doesn't have much to do with whether or not current DBA armies are rebased -- that will depend largely upon whether or not the DBA army lists are modified, and how much.

Bingo! Got it in one :g

tors
08-11-2010, 03:27 PM
I really enjoy DBA and have no use for HOTT. The most pressing problem now is the dissolving of the DBA online game. No support, no communication, no updates and seemingly valid claims of credit card fraud are killing this game.
Can you do anything?

Jim

I have the solution, pay Victor the $10,000 he wants to hand over the game, or write your own version when version 3 comes out.

Kingo

Rich Gause
08-11-2010, 03:31 PM
Sorry, Rich, that doesn't follow.

Sue is talking about having a standard basing for DBA, and allowing DBMM-based stuff to come in regardless of how it is based.

Several people have assumed that means "no rebasing in DBA."

Whether or not there is rebasing in DBA will depend upon changes in the Army Lists for DBA. Nothing else.

The DBA army lists are now almost 10 years old. It is very likely, when Phil finishes HFG and DBMM army book IV and turns his attention DBA-ward, that he will have changes to the army lists in mind. That's what happened last time.

Don't get me wrong -- I liked the changes to the army lists last time, in spite of the rebasing required. And it is likely that the changes to the army lists would be less extensive than they were last time (changing from DBA 1.1 to 2.0).

But there will be changes. And the changes will force some people, with some armies, to rebase. Sue's proposal doesn't have much to do with whether or not current DBA armies are rebased -- that will depend largely upon whether or not the DBA army lists are modified, and how much. The last time the army lists were modified, a new troop type was added (Horde) and there were major modifications to multiple army lists, plus the introduction of about 300 new lists. Things won't be so severe this time, I'm betting, but some change will happen.

I see. I don't mind having to paint a new element or two for a revised army list and I wouldn't call that rebasing. What I would mind is having to remove my figures from their current base to put them on a different size base to play them as the same basic element in the same army. Maybe if the old DBM army lists were included as acceptable basing along with the DBMM lists and even the 2.2 lists that would cover everything except armies getting elements that they did not have before.

David Kuijt
08-11-2010, 03:52 PM
I see. I don't mind having to paint a new element or two for a revised army list and I wouldn't call that rebasing. What I would mind is having to remove my figures from their current base to put them on a different size base to play them as the same basic element in the same army. Maybe if the old DBM army lists were included as acceptable basing along with the DBMM lists and even the 2.2 lists that would cover everything except armies getting elements that they did not have before.

You mean like my Byzantine 6Cv and 8Bw; my Early Swiss 6Bd, and my Fatamid 8Bw?

Having a Grandfather clause as you mention would help, but not as much as you'd think. Rebasing is what everyone whines about (with reason), but it really doesn't happen nearly as much as redundancy -- elements disappearing from a list, and other elements coming in. In other words, change.

I'm actually hopeful about army list change -- as I said, the last one was a great improvement. I was just pointing out that Sue's idea doesn't prevent the pain of rebasing (or more generally, having to work to modify an existing army so that it will fit the new army lists, whether that is rebasing or RIFF/new hiring).

tors
08-11-2010, 04:17 PM
I think DBA 3 would be a great improvement if if contained a playing guide and double the number of army lists.

Kingo

winterbadger
08-11-2010, 04:28 PM
I thin(k) DBA 3 would be a great improvement if if contained a playing guide and double the number of army lists.

Kingo

:eek

(since that is apparently too short a reply for the board engine, let me expand on it)

:eek :??? :eek

Ed Dillon
08-11-2010, 07:52 PM
Interesting to hear, Ed.

When you say "very heavy," can you quantify that? 40 gamers played both, out of 50? I'm just trying to get a sense of how very heavy in middle Tennessee compares, numbers and percentage wise, to activity elsewhere.

What happened after DBM was made redundant in 2008? Did they evaporate, switch to FOG or Warhammer, what?


Basically all of the regular DBA players also played DBM. After DBM went away, some went to FOG, some tried Warhammer but left it after a while, some went to Armati for a while, some went to DBA and HOTT only.

There were probably 12-15 people involved. Not huge numbers, but almost everyone played both games. Most of the people who visited Nashville on a regular basis and played DBA also played DBM, although serveral preferred Armati. A few still play Armati. We might even get a DBM 3.0 retro group active again.

125-point DBM with 1/4 minimums and maximums (rounded up and set so the DBEs were allowed to be DBEs) and 1 general was popular. We played it on a 4' x 6' board with deployment in the middle 3 feet, I think. We doubled all distances for movement and shooting except for recoils and follow-up. David, you would have LOVED to see light horse roaring across the battlefield like, well, light horse. It really was only of the most fun wargames I have ever played.

Ed

philistinejim
08-11-2010, 10:05 PM
Dear Sue,

Taking a step back here, I would suggest using DBA as the base game. Kind of a starting point and a stand alone rules set. Then HOTT as kind of an addendum to those rules with the additions needed to add the fantasy things.

This would allow DBA players to know that the basic interactions with the troop types in DBA will not be different, but they just need to add the extra interactions with the fantasy troop types into the mix. This too can and should be a stand alone rules set for marketing

I would also suggest that the DBA rules can appear in the same format as before in the small rule bool with the army lists as in the past. Then I would strongly suggest in the marketing of the fantasy rules going to the fancier format of rules with extra diagrams and photos of some of the beautiful armies seen on gaming tables around the globe. I would think that most of those on this site would be happy to let you and Phil use the photos already here and send in new ones of the different troop types and play testing games. This fanatsy market is just a different one, still I truely believe that if HoTT is marketed correctly it could work as a great forum for a cross over into Historical gaming.

Best & kindest regards

Jim Kasper

vonBerlichingen
08-12-2010, 12:02 AM
Errm, the larger 28mm to the eyes (32mm to the crown of the head?) figures of the past couple of decades do not fit all that well on a 15mm frontage per figure. How about allowing for a third set of basing dimensions that would reflect the currently more popular 28mm figures (i.e. no longer Hinchliffe and Minifigs)?

The Last Conformist
08-12-2010, 02:11 AM
Errm, the larger 28mm to the eyes (32mm to the crown of the head?) figures of the past couple of decades do not fit all that well on a 15mm frontage per figure. How about allowing for a third set of basing dimensions that would reflect the currently more popular 28mm figures (i.e. no longer Hinchliffe and Minifigs)?
Sue's proposal sort of allows that by stealth, as DBMM has a 28-30mm set. (It's basically the same as that for 25mm figs, except troops that are normally four to a base are allowed to be three instead.)

But it'd be nice if it it were included directly for the benefit of those who don't have DBMM.

K.H.Ranitzsch
08-12-2010, 07:14 AM
Dear Sue,

Taking a step back here, I would suggest using DBA as the base game. Kind of a starting point and a stand alone rules set. Then HOTT as kind of an addendum to those rules with the additions needed to add the fantasy things.


Depends on what you call "DBA as the base game". If it means using the present version of DBA as the core and just adding fantasy features, you will lose most HOTT players.

If you mean "Develop a new core rule set using the best mechanisms from both" and then produce DBA first and develop the fantasy from that, it might work - though there would still be much to dicuss.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

philistinejim
08-12-2010, 07:37 AM
Depends on what you call "DBA as the base game". If it means using the present version of DBA as the core and just adding fantasy features, you will lose most HOTT players.

If you mean "Develop a new core rule set using the best mechanisms from both" and then produce DBA first and develop the fantasy from that, it might work - though there would still be much to dicuss.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

The later was my point.

jim k

Six Twenty Eight
08-12-2010, 08:08 AM
Hello Sue,

As Paul mentioned, it is a honor to have you exchanging with us on this forum. The game is providing my friends and I many interesting hobby hours.:up

I would like some officialization of larger playing ground so indeed we can make good use of cavalry.

Could it be possible to revisit the Aztecs list as well by including a mix of blades and warbands

David Kuijt
08-12-2010, 02:38 PM
Could it be possible to revisit the Aztecs list as well by including a mix of blades and warbands

I'm confused -- that's what the Aztecs have now.

The Last Conformist
08-12-2010, 03:02 PM
Could it be possible to revisit the Aztecs list as well by including a mix of blades and warbands
I share David's confusion, but based on the DBMM draft list, a new DBA list may look something like this:

1x3Bd (Gen), 3x3Bd, 6x5Wb or 6x3Ax, 1x2Ps, 1x2Ps or 4Bw or 3Sp

(modulo Sue's apparent intention to revise the element codes!)

David Kuijt
08-12-2010, 03:13 PM
I share David's confusion, but based on the DBMM draft list, a new DBA list may look something like this:

1x3Bd (Gen), 3x3Bd, 6x5Wb or 6x3Ax, 1x2Ps, 1x2Ps or 4Bw or 3Sp

(modulo Sue's apparent intention to revise the element codes!)

So the new DBA list would be almost identical to the old one, save for the addition of allowing the Aztecs to fight as all Auxilia.

In other words, my DBA 2.2 Aztecs would work fine as is (who would want to be 3Ax when you can be glorious 5Wb!).

Excellent. One army that won't need rebasing! 150 remaining with uncertainty.

David Kuijt
08-12-2010, 03:17 PM
based on the DBMM draft list, a new DBA list may look something like this:

1x3Bd (Gen), 3x3Bd, 6x5Wb or 6x3Ax, 1x2Ps, 1x2Ps or 4Bw or 3Sp


So the Quachic now fight as Blade? (They were 4Wb in DBA 2.0/2.2)

D

The Last Conformist
08-12-2010, 03:23 PM
So the Quachic now fight as Blade? (They were 4Wb in DBA 2.0/2.2)
Assuming that Quachic is the same thing as Cuachichiqueh, yes.

Otontin are also Bd (F) - I think they were the 3Wb in the DBA list, but I don't have my DBM lists at hand.

David Kuijt
08-12-2010, 03:34 PM
Assuming that Quachic is the same thing as Cuachichiqueh, yes.

Otontin are also Bd (F) - I think they were the 3Wb in the DBA list, but I don't have my DBM lists at hand.

Those were Otomi, IIRC.

Interesting. But still a victory in the battle against rebasing, largely -- the 4Wb Quachic (Cuachichiqueh) will need to be rebased as 3Bd, but no big deal, and the rest of the army needs no change.

The Last Conformist
08-12-2010, 03:44 PM
Wikipedia has this to say about Otontin/Otomi:
The Otomi or Otontin were an elite Aztec military order, named after the Otomi people.
The Otomies (Otontin [21])were another warrior society who took their name after the Otomi people who were renowned for their fierce fighting. In the historical sources it is often difficult to discern whether the word otomitl "Otomi" refers to members of the Aztec warrior society, or members of the ethnic group who also often joined the Aztec armies as mercenaries or allies.

(That "21" should presumably refer to a footnote, but there isn't one.)

In any case, the DBMM list has no troops defined as "Otomi".

Musashi
08-12-2010, 04:09 PM
Hi again Sue! I hope you're finding Fanaticus much more dynamic than the yahoo list group. I know I sure do!

The conversation here is about the rebasing of figures but since someone brought up the size of the board issue in this thread I thought I'd add to that. I know there are a myriad of rules issues that eveyone would like to see addressed in some way, but the size of the board is so critical to the basic structure of the game. No one wants to have to rebase their figures, that's easy enough to understand, but there is quite a bit of consternation over the use of 30" boards.

DBA has been out long enough now with the basic 24" board, that is has become clear that horse heavy armies would seriously benefit from a larger 30" board and heavy foot would benefit from the smaller board. Since the game only allows officially for the 24" board, LH armies in particular are pretty much relegated to non used status. The advocation of the 30" board through the widespread dissimination of the Unofficial Guide has made the use of 30" boards accepted for many theme Steppe tournaments and the like. There is just such a thing being held at Hurricon in Florida next month.

This board size isn't just something that is debated online, it shows up at actual events regularly. Because of this, you almost have two different DBA game types due to the different board size. I think this simply must be addressed. I do not believe the larger boards can just be left as some sort of institutionilized house rule, used at the oddball tourney event. It's use is because almost everyone agrees that there are many armies who are crippled without its use. Conversely, the heavy foot armies players may think the larger board will hurt them. However, I think most who have played with the 30" boards have commented that the built in command radius keeps the larger board from being exponential in it's impact and the foot armies soon realize the extra room to roam can benefit them as well, for their limited mounted (if it exists) or just cause their terrain placement to be more carefully considered.

I know I won't cover all of the larger board issue here, now is that even important. My main emphasis is to say that there is a lot of talk about not having to rebase figures because of the superglue, flocking etc. People want to use their existing armies. That is perfectly understandable. What I don't think people are concerned about is having to produce new boards if the size was changed from 24" to 28" or 30".

There are some terrain makers that make DBA boards specifically so are of course 24". There are some gamers that have pretty nice boards made at 24". But I'd be willing to bet there are a precious few who would not be able to switch to a larger size board quite easily, both from an expense and effort standpoint. The boards are just so simple to come up with, the decision to enlarge or not would not face nearly the roadblock facing figures does.

Maybe no change is ever going to be considered. Maybe 28" is a middle of the road compromise. Maybe there has been enough play with 30" boards to prove their value. But if any change is made, it's so easy for the DBA community to convert. Most of us are using carpet pieces which are cheap and easy to acquire.

Back to your regularly scheduled element basing conversation.
:)

David Kuijt
08-12-2010, 04:29 PM
The advocation of the 30" board through the widespread dissimination of the Unofficial Guide has made the use of 30" boards accepted for many theme Steppe tournaments and the like.
Most of the stuff you said on the 30" board issue is correct; the above is not. Above you say that the advocacy of 30" boards within the Unofficial Guide created the support for that board size. That isn't the case.


30" boards were being promulgated and gained adherents long before the Unofficial Guide was published. Several people had been running tournaments on 24x36 boards, 32" square boards, and 30" boards since 2002 or so -- four years before the UG was created. By the time the UG came into being, 30" was the standard for larger boards and had been in use at many tournaments for at least three years. The UG's mention of the use of 30" boards reflected the commonality of use at the time -- it wasn't prescriptive or causative.

Since that time 30" boards have gained further support, but I doubt that is because of the mention in the UG -- the UG mention is a subscript, with the official board size clearly stated as 24". The additional development of support for 30" boards since 2006 (when the UG was published) is most likely a result of the evangelical activities of various individuals, including myself, DS, Roland Fricke, and many others. Plus the fact that 30" boards are just better.:D

Musashi
08-12-2010, 04:39 PM
Most of the stuff you said on the 30" board issue is correct; the above is not.

My apologies sir!

I was being flippant with a point of origin which is salient. The genesis of the 30" board size is important lest someone believe the Unofficial Guide caused its widespread adoption. It is clear to me, and I believe to most that 30" boards grew up organically for the need to make many armies viable, and as you say, via fervent backing from dedicated gamers who really care about the game.

;-)

Thank you for the correction!

David Kuijt
08-12-2010, 05:00 PM
My apologies sir!

I was being flippant with a point of origin of which I am under-educated.

No problem. It is perfectly okay to say "I don't know," when you don't know stuff -- I do. Well, I would, if I came upon some subject about which I was ignorant. If that ever happens, I'll be sure to use the phrase.

More to the point, the "Unofficial Guide to DBA" represents a bit of a sore point with Phil and Sue; one of their concerns (expressed 13 months ago in a meeting with some of the people involved in creating the UG) being that it might have had a negative impact upon sales of the DBA rules.

So please don't credit anything to the Unofficial Guide that isn't due to the Unofficial Guide -- it won't necessarily help your argument with the authors.

Darren Buxbaum
08-12-2010, 05:24 PM
Sue,
I wanted to say thank you for visiting this forum. DBA has been a frequent pastime and pleasure of mine for close to 20 years now. I also owe thanks to the good friendships that were created from this great game.

I noticed when looking at the table that many of the dreaded double deep elements have been eliminated (6Cv, 6Kn, 8Bw, etc...). I welcome those omissions to deal with the game mechanic issues (recoils, turning to face front and pursuing impetuous elements). Although those issues had been addressed, the ommission of elements deeper than their frontage will mke the the game easier to teach and run smoother as before their introduction. I also noticed that WWg and Litters were not scaled down though. I have to admit that I do enjoy modelling WWg elements, but for the board size (especially in 15mm) WWg elements outscale many of the other elements. Is there a possibility that these two types can go back to 40mm depth in 15mm scale (as well as WWg going back to +4/+4 combat factor)?
Thank you for your time.

Cheers,
Darren Buxbaum

Rich Gause
08-12-2010, 05:46 PM
No problem. It is perfectly okay to say "I don't know," when you don't know stuff -- I do. Well, I would, if I came upon some subject about which I was ignorant. If that ever happens, I'll be sure to use the phrase.

More to the point, the "Unofficial Guide to DBA" represents a bit of a sore point with Phil and Sue; one of their concerns (expressed 13 months ago in a meeting with some of the people involved in creating the UG) being that it might have had a negative impact upon sales of the DBA rules.

So please don't credit anything to the Unofficial Guide that isn't due to the Unofficial Guide -- it won't necessarily help your argument with the authors.

Personally I bought DBA 1 when it first came out, played a few games and then didn't play again until 2008 at which point I rediscovered the game and got into it in a big way. A big part of me becoming hooked on the game was the Unofficial Guide and Fanaticus. I now own in addition to my origional 1.0 rulebook: the other rulebooks between 1.0-2.2, two copies of 2.2, HOTT, DBM, the 4 DBM army books, and DBR. I will be buying the next versions of DBA and HOTT as soon as they are available. Without the Unofficial Guide and Fanaticus I would not have bought as much DBA related material as I have so I think it actually may have helped sales by making the game more understandable and promoting a common understanding of how to play.

Kontos
08-12-2010, 07:18 PM
Personally I bought DBA 1 when it first came out, played a few games and then didn't play again until 2008 at which point I rediscovered the game and got into it in a big way. A big part of me becoming hooked on the game was the Unofficial Guide and Fanaticus. I now own in addition to my origional 1.0 rulebook: the other rulebooks between 1.0-2.2, two copies of 2.2, HOTT, DBM, the 4 DBM army books, and DBR. I will be buying the next versions of DBA and HOTT as soon as they are available. Without the Unofficial Guide and Fanaticus I would not have bought as much DBA related material as I have so I think it actually may have helped sales by making the game more understandable and promoting a common understanding of how to play.
Here, here, Rich; and I wouldn't have spent the uncountable dollars on DBA armies and I've only been playing this game for a couple of years. CURSES - all of you! :D

Frank

Stephen Webb
08-12-2010, 07:23 PM
Whilst I would be prepared to re-base my numerous armies, why not state in the rules that the base depths and number of figures are recommended and leave it at that.

Then with regards to recoiling, specify a distance.

As to board size. Yes it should be bigger. Again maybe it should be a recommended size, thereby allowing for bigger or even smaller.

I have often thought that it would be good to try DBA on a 6' x 4' table, as there would be very little chance of the end of the world problem.

Macbeth
08-12-2010, 10:08 PM
I have been doing a lot of rebasing lately - it involves soaking the old cardboard base away from the figures stuck to it and peeling away the PVA glue and flocking.

I am not sure how this will work with the Litko magnetic bases with araldite gluing the figures onto the laminate. I suspect that my 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn are doomed to be that formation forever - and that any 3Sp I have will be drafted to other armies as Ax. I can't just glue on an additional 5mm strip to deepen shallow elements the way I did with cardboard bases and still keep them magnetized to the bottom of a tin :( . As for the other way - there will be armies that were 3Sp or 3Bd (deeper base) that might get reclassified as Sp or Bd in the new DBA and they will have to be made shallower.

WRT the deep elements - these will be grandfathered out more quickly than you all might think. These elements are at a disadvantage in a game compared to their shallower sleeker brethren. I don't doubt that there will be some crossover players try to use their DBM/MM elements in DBA but after a few games of having rings run around them by dedicated properly based DBA elements they will fall by the wayside.

Cheers

K.H.Ranitzsch
08-13-2010, 12:48 AM
I also noticed that WWg and Litters were not scaled down though. I have to admit that I do enjoy modelling WWg elements, but for the board size (especially in 15mm) WWg elements outscale many of the other elements. Is there a possibility that these two types can go back to 40mm depth in 15mm scale

I guess this is a point that should be adressed to figure manufacturers first. Certainly it is very hard to model a 15mm scale war wagon with its horse team that would fit on a 40 mm base. Even without horse it will be hard to do.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

Darren Buxbaum
08-13-2010, 01:33 AM
Karl,
I would agree with you but before the increase in element depth, Essex, Falcon, Irregular and Mirliton all made (and still do) wwg models that would fit a 40mm x 40mm base without the horse team. Is the horse team that significant when they would be unhitched anyway. Afterall, a wwg can't move into contact to melée. That leads me to interpet that yes the wagons are mobile to deploy but become immobile when in melée (wagons chained together, pavises in place, horses unhitched and either ridden as Lh or held in the center of the wagonberg, etc...). The 80mm bases were used for the aesthetic of including the horse teams (and adapt to dbm elements in dba). I admit that they are cool to model, but I feel that I can sacrifice the look for better mechanics and playability. Those are just my thoughts and they could be wrong.
Cheers,
Darren

hwarang
08-13-2010, 01:40 AM
Many of the minis made today are nearer to 20mm than to 15mm. Ignoring that will lead to (or has already lead to) the problem of people not being able to fit their minis to the bases. For an extreme case of this, see the 25mm basing scheme and how it is not compatible at all with what gets produced these days.

Also, cramming stuff on the base is neither aesthetically pleasant, nor do parts sticking out help to protect your miniatures from tear and wear.

Snowcat
08-13-2010, 03:17 AM
Use 10mm - it's the way of the future!

:up

The Last Conformist
08-13-2010, 03:22 AM
Use 10mm - it's the way of the future!

:up
Bah - soon enough 10mm figs will be too big to fit on 15mm scale bases. Go 6mm and gain another decade before scale creep gets you. :silly

Snowcat
08-13-2010, 03:24 AM
Heh. He has a point. ;)

APHooper
08-13-2010, 03:45 AM
It is certainly thriling to have someone who has a direct connection to the "ownership" of DBA present here on Fanaticus, and I thank Sue for making the effort to join this largely rudderless ship of Fanatics.

At the same time, I have been dreading this conversation for months.

The simple question "Should DBA and HoTT be the same, or different? has already generated 8 pages of reply, and perhaps 10% of that volume has had anything to do with Sue's question. The prospect of changing DBA again turns every dedicated player into a twitching attention deficit case, breathlessly typing out things like "Pikes should be 8 to a base!" and "Psiloi should conduct missile fire!" like a Tourette's victim blurting out obscenities. Plenty of the conversation follows a much more logical path, but it is still exhausting to follow it all, and consensus seems ever elusive. We went through this process on the journey from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2, and ever since I have hoped that Phil would just perpetually neglect to reopen this particular drum full of worms. Now the door is open only a crack, and the screaming is already so loud it threatens to drown out the sun....

Ahem. Back to reaity. Actually, I'd love to see the whole menu of DBA elements reflected in HoTT, including Aux and War Wagons, but I don't need the rules to be exactly the same. HoTT needs to reflect some phantasms that DBA never will, like flying elements and summoned deities. One assumes these will require some diferentiation in the rules set. Big differences -- elements shot in the rear die when defeated in DBA, but such elements spin 180 degrees and recoil in HoTT -- may seem more glaring if the two rules sets are rewritten in tandem.

And then into the maelstrom of DBA ideas. I understand the impulse to streamline the basing system for DBA, and undo the complexities introduced in the effort to conform to DBM's basing system. But I hope that we will still retain the base differentiation between 3Bd/4Bd, 3Sp/4Sp, and 3Wb/4Wb/5Wb. I think they are deceptively important to the mechanics of the game. The fact that a 3Wb cannot advance quickly enough to stay in contact with a recoiling 3Cav element, but a 5Wb can has certainly decided a few games over the years. I'd be glum if all Spears were suddenly 4Sp, and all Warbands 4Wb.

At the risk of "whining," the issue of rebasing is perhaps more onerous to me than most. having invested 8 years of my life and well above $10,000 in the acquisition of more than 250 distinct DBA armies. Perhaps this alone is evidence that I should be institutionalized, but you can see why I may be slow to adopt new lists and basing conventions dictated by another edition of DBA. The game is really working very nicely for me as is, and it will take a certain amount of social pressure before I can be convinced to abandon it.

Respectfully,
Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley, Seattle

Snowcat
08-13-2010, 04:06 AM
having invested 8 years of my life and well above $10,000 in the acquisition of more than 250 distinct DBA armies. Perhaps this alone is evidence that I should be institutionalized,

:eek

This man deserves an award (or something). :up

Tony Aguilar
08-13-2010, 05:57 AM
At the risk of "whining," the issue of rebasing is perhaps more onerous to me than most. having invested 8 years of my life and well above $10,000 in the acquisition of more than 250 distinct DBA armies. Perhaps this alone is evidence that I should be institutionalized, but you can see why I may be slow to adopt new lists and basing conventions dictated by another edition of DBA. The game is really working very nicely for me as is, and it will take a certain amount of social pressure before I can be convinced to abandon it.


Well, you are half way to the ultimate goal! :2up

David Kuijt
08-13-2010, 06:50 AM
Is the horse team that significant when they would be unhitched anyway. Afterall, a wwg can't move into contact to melée. That leads me to interpet that yes the wagons are mobile to deploy but become immobile when in melée (wagons chained together, pavises in place, horses unhitched and either ridden as Lh or held in the center of the wagonberg, etc...).

WWg shouldn't be able to move if they are in ZOC, and shouldn't exert a ZOC. Those two changes plus putting them on 40mm square bases would fix almost everything wrong with them now.

The Last Conformist
08-13-2010, 07:04 AM
Karl,
I would agree with you but before the increase in element depth, Essex, Falcon, Irregular and Mirliton all made (and still do) wwg models that would fit a 40mm x 40mm base without the horse team.
Which Mirliton model are you thinking of? They do a carroccio, but it wouldn't fit on a 40x40 base even without the oxen.

WWg (and Lit) returning to square bases is one rebasing (or replacement) I'd be pretty happy to live with, as it'd solve all the mechanical problems concerning these elements.

Pthomas
08-13-2010, 09:12 AM
The additional development of support for 30" boards since 2006 (when the UG was published) is most likely a result of the evangelical activities of various individuals, including myself, DS, Roland Fricke, and many others. Plus the fact that 30" boards are just better.:D

Or because they fit on 30" tables which are the norm at most conventions and other gatherings.

Also, this is not necessarily true beyond one region of the US.

Kontos
08-13-2010, 09:24 AM
WWg shouldn't be able to move if they are in ZOC, and shouldn't exert a ZOC. Those two changes plus putting them on 40mm square bases would fix almost everything wrong with them now.
Others may know more on their historical "deployment", but I feel, in addition to DK's thoughts, making a WWg an army's "fighting" camp, deployable anywhere in the player's deployment zone, would accurately represent this element. Just a thought.

Frank

Susan Laflin-Barker
08-13-2010, 11:43 AM
There are a number of points drifting out of the discussion.

I'll try and select a few of them.

1. I would like a simpler set of recommended base sizes for all new armies and players. I don't think DBA players should have to worry about extra complexity which only has an effect in DBMM.

2. I would llike to allow existing armies from either DBA or DBMM to be used in DBA. This will inevitably result in a variety of base depths but not in base widths. Elements in a given scale MUST have the same base width so they can line up against each other.

Base depth determines recoil distance. This must be defined in the rules. I see three possibilities - which should generate a good week's discussion at least.

A: Recoil distance is the distance in the table in DBA.

B: Recoil distance is the distance of the actual base depth.

C: As B except that double depth figures only recoil half the double-depth base.

3. I haven't considered the question of recommended board size. That's a different topic but I'll make a note of it.

Sue.

ferrency
08-13-2010, 12:06 PM
2. I would llike to allow existing armies from either DBA or DBMM to be used in DBA. This will inevitably result in a variety of base depths but not in base widths. Elements in a given scale MUST have the same base width so they can line up against each other.

All signs point towards making base depths flexible, officially allowing multiple or variable base depths instead of requiring a specific depth.

Base depth determines recoil distance. This must be defined in the rules.

<snip>

B: Recoil distance is the distance of the actual base depth.

I prefer this rule: it is easiest to implement accurately in practice.

With my admittedly limited experience, I'm also with Phil regarding the importance of base depth: it only matters very much when base depth crosses the "half a base width" mark.

I don't have a preference on how to handle double depth elements. I don't use them because they're cumbersome, even though they're pretty. I guess my preference would be for them to be optional but allowed.

Alan

David Schlanger
08-13-2010, 12:12 PM
I don't use them because they're cumbersome, even though they're pretty.
Alan

If we returned to measuring only front corners, then base depth would have no effect on movement distance. The deeper depths would be much less cumbersome. And we would align with HotT.

DS

Kontos
08-13-2010, 12:15 PM
If we returned to measuring only front corners, then base depth would have no effect on movement distance. The deeper depths would be much less cumbersome. And we would align with HotT.

DS
Excellent point, DS.

Sparty
08-13-2010, 01:03 PM
If we returned to measuring only front corners, then base depth would have no effect on movement distance. The deeper depths would be much less cumbersome. And we would align with HotT.

DS

This would make measuring much easier:up

David Crenshaw
08-13-2010, 02:11 PM
At first blush I really like this idea. I don't play a ton of HotT, so hadn't even realized measurement was from the front corners only. I can't think of a negative consequence of doing so. Are there any? As for the recoil distance, I prefer to just recoil the actual base depth (my 28mm armies only fight armies I have based since I am the only 28mm player here and I provide both armies), but since we are likely to encounter situations where basing depth is inconsistent among players, perhaps it would be best to recoil the standard base depth. Man that was a long sentence, I hope it makes sense.

Once again thanks to Sue for taking the time to consult us and for providing such a wonderful game with which to pass the hours.

David Crenshaw

Paul Potter
08-13-2010, 02:32 PM
3. I haven't considered the question of recommended board size. That's a different topic but I'll make a note of it.

Sue.

In hott 24"x24" is a recomended size, not a required size. I prefere this over the required board size currently in the dba rules.

Hannibal Ad Portas
08-13-2010, 02:41 PM
Outlaw the "flip" move and measuring front corners for movement is fine.

No re-basing.....please God, I have far too many nicely based armies and matching the colors of textured terrain is a nightmare. We have had standardized base sizes for many years....can't we leave well enough alone?

I like DK's war wagon rules regarding they exert no ZOC and can't leave an enemy ZOC. Makes that element far more realistic in performance. Re-basing WWg to 40mm square might be about the only change I would support to bases...

For recoil distances.....Maybe we could standardize recoils as 20mm for foot, 30mm for mounted (on horse or camel) and 40mm for all others? Then propose that each player provide a "Barker" marker for the game....the halfway point on the marker is indicated with a mark and it can be used to measure 20mm recoils for heavy foot, based depth makes mounted recoils easy to measure and the full "Barker" marker could be used for the recoils of all others. No re-basing required for heavy foot that way (large parts of many armies).

TeacherDude
08-13-2010, 06:14 PM
Howdy Sue,

Welcome aboard, we are glad you are here.

Like most other gamers here (or maybe not) I started with WRG Ancients 4th Ed and all the updates til finally DBM. But along the way I started DBA. And I think the last time I played a DBM game was 5-8 years ago, its all kinda FOGgy (pun intended).

But I play both DBA and HotT on a very regular basis. If I have an urge to play bigger games than DBA, I play Big Battle DBA - it works great without the extra fuss that was in DBM or in DBMM. Now that said, what I do miss in DBA is troop descriptions for the army lists.

I have all 4 DBM army list books and when new players are creating their DBA armies, most do not know what the Auxilia for Romans (for example) were or looked like. The DBM army list are a very helpful tool to finding out what that troop type was in the Roman army. A new player could then find minis to match the descriptions in the DBM book, but just looking at the 4x4Ax in the DBA list - what does it mean, they ask me. So we open the DBM army list book and we know what to use.

I dont know if the Troop Definitions Section in DBA could be expanded but that might be way too much info for the DBA size book. Nor do I know how to solve the problem without the DBM Army Books?

Anyone here have suggestions?

TeacherDude
08-13-2010, 06:21 PM
About board sizes, we just allow defenders the choice to use a 24" board or a 30" board before they select terrain.

seems to work just fine around here :-D

Musashi
08-13-2010, 07:00 PM
About board sizes, we just allow defenders the choice to use a 24" board or a 30" board before they select terrain.

seems to work just fine around here :-D

As a simple practical matter that sounded really nice to me so I considered the pro's and con's of making it optional for the defenders only.

Pro's-
1. The size of the world could be seen as an environment condition (terrain like)

2. No one would be forced to come up with new 30" boards if they didn't want to, and in many cases people with low aggression factors carry their own terrain around to get what they like for their army without relying on other players to supply them with it. A 30" board could be considered just another "terrain" piece.

Con's-
1. Defenders are already seen as being fairly powerful. They already get the serious benefit of choosing terrain PLUS the two unit pair swap.

2. If the 30" board is a terrain option than some sort of accounting as that representing another advantage for the defender would have to be taken into account. Like maybe it should take the place of one of the compulsory or optional terrain types. For instance, it could be one of the compulsory terrain types for Steppe armies for instance, option for others.

3. High aggression LH armies are still not going to get built as their chance of putting down the terrain isn't going to be very good.

But it sure gave me a lot of food for thought!

David Kuijt
08-13-2010, 07:26 PM
But it sure gave me a lot of food for thought!

You might want to look through the archives, Musashi. All the arguments about board size have been stated in a number of threads before. It would give you much more ... food for thought.

Tony Aguilar
08-13-2010, 07:27 PM
About board sizes, we just allow defenders the choice to use a 24" board or a 30" board before they select terrain.

seems to work just fine around here :-D

I have thought about this as well, but my initial thought would be to give the attacker the choice to which size to use. We might have to try this out soon.

David Kuijt
08-13-2010, 07:38 PM
I have thought about this as well, but my initial thought would be to give the attacker the choice to which size to use. We might have to try this out soon.

My problem with it (either way) is that the board edge is not terrain, it is an artificial artifact of the rules. In a good game, the board edge does not effect the results.

I do like the "give the attacker the choice" thought a bit better than the "give the defender the choice." But either way seems a little artificial.

Musashi
08-13-2010, 08:05 PM
I thought about attacker being the one who got the advantage too Tony, but discounted it after I wrote it and then erased. I bet a LH army would rather have a 30" board no matter if attacker or defender. If they became the defender they'd still rather be the attacker. Any 30" board would be better for them than even setting up a billiard table on a 24".

Like David said, it's been pretty well traveled, I knew that already but my emphasis was more on the fact that rebasing is causing all sorts of heartburn but going to a 30" board doesn't. They are too easy to just create.

In the end, I too decided that all these fancy rules for who gets a 30" board or if it's terrain or not is just a lot of complication for nothing. It's fun to toss around, but the simplicity of just moving the board size to 30" is overwhelming. So few armies are hurt by it, and those that are would have an easier time adjusting tactics to deal with it than the inverse. The command radius rules still make a 30" board not a huge deal negatively and make a big difference positively.

Barron of Ideas
08-13-2010, 10:46 PM
My problem with it (either way) is that the board edge is not terrain, it is an artificial artifact of the rules. In a good game, the board edge does not effect the results.

I do like the "give the attacker the choice" thought a bit better than the "give the defender the choice." But either way seems a little artificial.


Just to throw in a WTF Friday (the 13th) idea...What if either player could request (demand) it? Before the defender/attacker die is rolled. Of course if neither player has a 30 inch square board, the request can't be honored. If neither player wants the larger board, or one is not available, then the game is played on the 24 inch board.

If you don't want to play on 30 inch boards, don't play with guys who are known to require them. If you are the only guy who wants it, you may find you have a problem attracting opponents. What if they gave a battle, and only one side came?

Musashi
08-13-2010, 11:01 PM
I suppose if you had to stretch the historical imagination to create some sort of justification for the attacker to be able to decide on 24 or 30", then you could say that even when an army is defending it's home turf (put down terrain in DBA), an attacker doesn't just fight exactly where the defender wants them to. Both sides generally jostle for positioning through forced marches, logistical concerns of resupply. So if the defender places terrain it could be seen that the board size by attacker could represent that the attacker doesn't just fall into the "trap" and played a part in determining how the battle was going to be joined. Rarely would an attacker choose to push forward in an area that was completely against them. They are the attacker, other than a siege, since they are the one pushing the issue, it's not like they got funneled there necessarily.

I know that's wispy, but from a defense of attacker chooses board size I think there is more justification game balance wise than allowing the defender to do that.

Pavane
08-13-2010, 11:09 PM
In addition to allowing DBMM basing, I would also like to have DBR basing allowed so that the crossover armies' Pikes can be used in either game.

K.H.Ranitzsch
08-14-2010, 12:05 PM
Just to throw in a WTF Friday (the 13th) idea...What if either player could request (demand) it? Before the defender/attacker die is rolled. Of course if neither player has a 30 inch square board, the request can't be honored. If neither player wants the larger board, or one is not available, then the game is played on the 24 inch board.

This could be handled by specifying 30" as standard, but with a rule that the outer 3" along the edge should be marked so that the playing area can be restricted.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

David Constable
08-14-2010, 12:53 PM
This could be handled by specifying 30" as standard, but with a rule that the outer 3" along the edge should be marked so that the playing area can be restricted.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

As a user of 24" I would make 30" boards illegal.
No seriously, why the complication, let people use which they want, or have. Competition organizers can specify.

Why make life complicated without reason.
Start with DBA 2.2, write in a manner any 10 year old can understand, Sue can do that better than Phil, change only those things where a definite benefit will occur, do not make bases or armies illegal. Ignore DBMM unless you have a good reason, if you want add an appendix for DBMM fine.

It is likely that those that play mainly DBA will stick with DBA 2.2, those that mainly play DBMM will go to DBA 3.0, then where will competition organizers be.
The other possibility will be a new DBA, based on 2.2 but different, not DBA and not anything than can be shown to be, it will be more popular than the route being taken at the moment.

David Constable

David Kuijt
08-14-2010, 01:09 PM
It is likely that those that play mainly DBA will stick with DBA 2.2, those that mainly play DBMM will go to DBA 3.0, then where will competition organizers be.

I have no idea what you mean by the above.

The last time there was a change in version, everyone switched over.

Nobody who plays "mainly DBMM" is going to care much what version of DBA it is. And the population of people who play "mainly DBMM" are almost completely irrelevant to DBA anyway, as far as I can tell.

Martyn
08-14-2010, 01:40 PM
Having sat back whilst this series of threads develop, partly due to lack of time (there are so many posts on this and other forums it takes a while to read them) and partly feeling that as a newbie I should just listen to my betters, but I felt I should make some comment, so here goes.

Going back to the original question that was raised by Sue, I feel that DBA and HoTT share sufficient common core rule that these should be made as similar as possible. However DBA and HoTT are sufficiently different that to make one a supplement of the other would create a very awkward arrangement with the latter suffering in the ease of play. So separate rule books please.

Part of the discussion seems to be centred on the base sizes at present, which is understandable. What I would like to know is which is the more important, the cross over between DBA/HOTT or DBA/DBM(M). The proposed base size revisions make the compatibility between DBA/HOTT better at the expense of DBA/DBM(M). Not being involved in competitive gaming nor indeed a gaming group I do not have the background understanding of the gaming scene and the degree of cross over, and even then it could only be of the local affect.

In Sue’s suggestion for changing the rule wording to allow for varied base sizes the option (a) does increase complexity on the table, more measuring required, and gets away from the simplicity of the original base depth recoil. Option (b) is to be preferred keeping that simplicity but perhaps an allowance would need to be made in the rules for the potential of using non standard base sizes.

Just my ill informed comments.

Martyn.

The Last Conformist
08-14-2010, 01:52 PM
Part of the discussion seems to be centred on the base sizes at present, which is understandable. What I would like to know is which is the more important, the cross over between DBA/HOTT or DBA/DBM(M). The proposed base size revisions make the compatibility between DBA/HOTT better at the expense of DBA/DBM(M).
HOTT already allows anything based for DBA or DBM to be used, and will presumably continue to do so (adding or substituting DBMM for DBM), so there should be little worry on the DBA/HOTT front.

Establishing DBA/DBMM compability would require very little that's not already required to maintain compability with DBA 2.2, so it seems well worthwhile too.

Martyn
08-14-2010, 02:07 PM
The proposed revised basing removes from DBA 2.2 the deeper bases for 3Sp and 3Bd, and the shallower base for 4Wb which aren’t allowed for in HoTT V2. I appreciate that this therefore increases the compatibility between HOTT and DBA but removes compatibility with Bd(F) and Wb(S/O) of DBM(M). 3Sp at 20mm not being an element in DBM(M) but the other two are and therefore seems to be a retrograde step if the cross over DBA/DBM(M) is felt to be the more significant.

Martyn

The Last Conformist
08-14-2010, 02:16 PM
The proposed revised basing removes from DBA 2.2 the deeper bases for 3Sp and 3Bd, and the shallower base for 4Wb which aren’t allowed for in HoTT V2. I appreciate that this therefore increases the compatibility between HOTT and DBA but removes compatibility with Bd(F) and Wb(S/O) of DBM(M). 3Sp at 20mm not being an element in DBM(M) but the other two are and therefore seems to be a retrograde step if the cross over DBA/DBM(M) is felt to be the more significant.
Again, all DBA basings are allowed for HOTT v2 (p10: "The conventional troop types that also appear in DBA or DBM can also have of of the other combinations of base depth and figure number allowed there.").

Most 3Sp, 3Bd, and 4Wb would be allowed by the "or as in DBMM" part of Sue's proposal.

3Sp corresponds directly to DBMM's Pk (F).

Martyn
08-14-2010, 02:29 PM
Again, all DBA basings are allowed for HOTT v2 (p10: "The conventional troop types that also appear in DBA or DBM can also have of of the other combinations of base depth and figure number allowed there.").

Most 3Sp, 3Bd, and 4Wb would be allowed by the "or as in DBMM" part of Sue's proposal.

3Sp corresponds directly to DBMM's Pk (F).

Granted HOTT V2 allows for the flexability of base sizes to allow for vagaries of manufactures as well as other DBx rules. My question is why then make DBA more directly compatable if HOTT accepts the variation in base size to the detriment of compatability with DBM(M)?

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit thick and missing something obvious.

Martyn.

The Last Conformist
08-14-2010, 02:42 PM
Granted HOTT V2 allows for the flexability of base sizes to allow for vagaries of manufactures as well as other DBx rules. My question is why then make DBA more directly compatable if HOTT accepts the variation in base size to the detriment of compatability with DBM(M)?

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit thick and missing something obvious.
You seem to be missing this part of Sue's proposal: "any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the corresponding DBA army".

David Kuijt
08-14-2010, 02:49 PM
You seem to be missing this part of Sue's proposal: "any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the corresponding DBA army".

...Which I just noticed, needs rewording. The way it is worded now, elements from a DBMM army could be used without regard to the DBA army list. Maybe something like: "any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the appropriate element in the corresponding DBA army."

David Brown
08-14-2010, 07:22 PM
Sue said.

<snip>
Base depth determines recoil distance. This must be defined in the rules. I see three possibilities - which should generate a good week's discussion at least.

A: Recoil distance is the distance in the table in DBA.

B: Recoil distance is the distance of the actual base depth.

C: As B except that double depth figures only recoil half the double-depth base.
>>>>>>>>



I have a memory that Phil once said that the different recoil / pursuit distances generated by the different element base depths was something that came from the very simple game that grew into DBA, and was not really a part of detailed engineering.

As it was not a problem and sorta useful and interesting it stayed in various DBx incarnations (although in MM, pursuits now have some move distance options and the DBr multiple rule is fun.)

However the game play differnces between troops based differently may be (mostly) eliminated by measuring front corners for moves as suggested and perhaps;

D) Recoils and pursuits are one base width.


Or if you don't want infantry to catch recoiling mounted


Di) Recoils and pursuits are one base width excepting foot will not maintain contact wth mounted and move only their depth or 1/2 a base width to lose contact with mounted.

Regards

David B

David Brown
08-14-2010, 07:30 PM
Hi there

>>>>>>>>>>
<snip quotes>

Or because they fit on 30" tables which are the norm at most conventions and other gatherings.

Also, this is not necessarily true beyond one region of the US.
__________________
Pthomas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



I can't recall ever seeing a 30" board in use at an organised event on Oz.

Mind you I think all troop moves should be multiples of base widths, which may or may not need a bigger table, I'm not sure.

(I use this in home-bake BBDBA on a 4x3 table and it works well).


regards

David B

nixon1411
08-14-2010, 10:18 PM
Mind you I think all troop moves should be multiples of base widths, which may or may not need a bigger table, I'm not sure.


Since Sue's original post I've been considering whether this might be something else that makes the transition from DBMM to become part of DBA 3.0.
DBMM's movement rates are all based around base widths and multiples thereof. For example, in DBMM heavy foot move 160 paces (80mm), considerably faster than the 2 inches moved under DBA (51mm). If these increased rates were introduced to DBA, surely a larger playing area would be necessary - 30" perhaps..??
Heavy foot armies would be less disadvantaged than currently by the larger playing area, being able to cross the board in 9.5 moves, as opposed to the 12 it currently takes.
Obviously the other troop types move faster too - Lh 160mm as opposed to the 127mm (5"), but (and apologies in advance if my math is wrong) the heavy foot appear to get a larger proportional increase - something in the region of a 56% increase to their current move v's the Lh getting 25%.
None of this takes into account the ability of Lh to multi-move or command radius issues but might, on the face of it, level the playing field a bit, and allay the fears some have of the "bigger board".
I'm undecided as to whether using base widths would be a good thing (some playtesting required), but felt it worth mentioning...
FWIW even if the current movement distances remain I'd like to see the 30" board become the norm..

Martyn
08-15-2010, 04:19 PM
You seem to be missing this part of Sue's proposal: "any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the corresponding DBA army".

I suppose my underlying concern is the increased complexity of having a different rule to allow for differing base depths rater than a simple base depth.

However this does not appear to be a concern of others more experienced than I, so I will assume that I am reading too much into it and getting worked up about nothing.

Thanks for your comments Andreas, it helps me as a gamer in isolation keep in step with everybody else.

Martyn

Stephen Webb
08-15-2010, 08:50 PM
For recoil distances.....Maybe we could standardize recoils as 20mm for foot, 30mm for mounted (on horse or camel) and 40mm for all others? Then propose that each player provide a "Barker" marker for the game....the halfway point on the marker is indicated with a mark and it can be used to measure 20mm recoils for heavy foot, based depth makes mounted recoils easy to measure and the full "Barker" marker could be used for the recoils of all others. No re-basing required for heavy foot that way (large parts of many armies).

I agree, as it is a sensible solution and easy to remember and play.

Macbeth
08-15-2010, 08:56 PM
I suppose my underlying concern is the increased complexity of having a different rule to allow for differing base depths rater than a simple base depth.


The problems I see with a standard depth in this context is that
a) There will be some re-basing for the diehards if any of the elements with multiple depths (Kn, Cv, Bw, Bd, Sp, Wb) are all supposed to come into line. No biggie - I will do it, but it will be harder in this day and age of figures glued with araldite to magnetic bases.

b) If the other base depths are included for DBMM crossover then some advantages will be found in having a non standard base depth. Someone futher up the list already pointed out the 5Wb being able to follow up Cv whilst 4Wb and 3Wb can't. If an advantage can be gleaned from a particular base size you will find it will continue. Do we demand to see the DBMM bona fides of those that use the non standard base sizes? ;)

Cheers

Stephen Webb
08-15-2010, 08:56 PM
I can't recall ever seeing a 30" board in use at an organised event on Oz.

Mind you I think all troop moves should be multiples of base widths, which may or may not need a bigger table, I'm not sure.


The first point is correct.

The second would be a valid suggestion.

Macbeth
08-15-2010, 09:11 PM
Outlaw the "flip" move and measuring front corners for movement is fine.


I think that we read too much into the distance travelled by rear corners of a WWg or other deep element in the "flip" move that could just as easily be explained by an "about face".

Why is it that 8Bw, 6Bd, 6Kn and Art can do an about face under the pressure of being hit in the rear but cannot do the same when not under the influence of screaming enemies.

I am happy enough to measure from all four corners where it is necessary but I think that there should be a rule similar to the move fudging for 200p troops to shut the gate that says "An element that would otherwise be prohibited from turning 180 degrees because of the furthest distance travelled by a single corner may still make this move and turn on the spot." or words to that effect

Cheers

winterbadger
08-15-2010, 11:09 PM
I think this thread should win an award for most uses of the word "Araldite". :rolleyes

The Hill Crusher
08-15-2010, 11:34 PM
The first point is correct.

The second would be a valid suggestion.


We used 30 inch boards at CanCon this year...

David Kuijt
08-15-2010, 11:42 PM
We used 30 inch boards at CanCon this year...

But did you use Araldite? And is it a body rub, or a new kind of toenail fungus?

Rich Gause
08-16-2010, 12:40 AM
The first point is correct.

The second would be a valid suggestion.

I think paces as is work fine with no need to change.

Macbeth
08-16-2010, 02:23 AM
But did you use Araldite? And is it a body rub, or a new kind of toenail fungus?

My apologies David - Araldite is an epoxy adhesive - it is a common brand name here to the point where like Walkman and Rollerblades the brand name is synonymous with the overall category.

I will try and keep colloquialisms out of my posting in th future :p

Cheers

El' Jocko
08-16-2010, 11:05 AM
I will try and keep colloquialisms out of my posting in th future :p


And lose the educational and entertainment value? That would be so wrong. :)

- Jack

The Last Conformist
08-16-2010, 12:26 PM
What is the point in using epoxy to fasten minis? IME, superglue works well enough (too well when you need to rebase something!).

David Kuijt
08-16-2010, 12:29 PM
What is the point in using epoxy to fasten minis? IME, superglue works well enough (too well when you need to rebase something!).

It does give you a really good argument when any rebasing issue comes up...

JLogan
11-03-2010, 02:00 PM
I have as yet only a single para change to DBA, intended to curb extreme
geometricists.

Phil

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Andreas Johansson" <andreasj@...>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:55 PM
To: <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DBMMlist] Re: News from the front

> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Thomas Thomas <medieval_thomas@...>
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> I think putting DBMM basics into DBA will send that currently fairly
>> happy crowd
>> into a panic (fearing it will cause a DBM like collapse of interest).
>
> I think that's backwards. Putting DBMM basics (combat factors, EMTLU,
> etc) into DBA would be likely to cause a collapse in interest because
> lots of DBA'ers hate the idea.
>
> --
> Andreas Johansson

Nik Gaukroger
11-03-2010, 02:13 PM
"as yet" ...

winterbadger
11-03-2010, 02:17 PM
I have as yet only a single para change to DBA, intended to curb extreme geometricists.

Phil

I wonder what it is...

David Kuijt
11-03-2010, 02:52 PM
I have as yet only a single para change to DBA, intended to curb extreme geometricists.

Phil

"... but this margin is too narrow to contain it."

Why does Phil's statement remind me of Fermat's Last Theorem?

David Constable
11-03-2010, 03:28 PM
"... but this margin is too narrow to contain it."

Why does Phil's statement remind me of de Fermat's Last Theorem?

Phil is a politician in election year, he says what people want to hear, nobody then develops an alternative set.

He is like de Fermat's last theorem, anybody but de Fermat that says they can solve it is wrong. Now stop jumping up and down like that, but ask yourselves the simple question, did he get the answer correct in the first place.

David Constable

The Last Conformist
11-03-2010, 03:38 PM
Phil is a politician in election year, he says what people want to hear, nobody then develops an alternative set.
'Tis funny: Phil is usually accused of having the marketing sense of a senile mole.

But then again, people aren't refraining from making alternative sets, so maybe the two viewpoints aren't incompatible.

David Constable
11-03-2010, 03:56 PM
'Tis funny: Phil is usually accused of having the marketing sense of a senile mole.

But then again, people aren't refraining from making alternative sets, so maybe the two viewpoints aren't incompatible.

DBA for DBAs sake is not worth his while, however DBA as a sub-set of DBMM is worthwhile.

So adding in HOTT you then sell more rules, makes it worthwhile.

Ask yourself why use DBMM bases when DBA has a perfectly good base system, why not use DBA and make DBMM bases legal in DBA.

David Constable

The Last Conformist
11-03-2010, 04:49 PM
Ask yourself why use DBMM bases when DBA has a perfectly good base system, why not use DBA and make DBMM bases legal in DBA.
The only thing we've seen of DBA 3.0 basing is Sue's simplified scheme which is less DBMM-like than DBA 2.2 is.

Hasdrubal
05-31-2012, 01:24 PM
The big change that needs to be made is to use a tan book cover instead of white. Maybe, old gold would work, that white cover shows a lot of dirt. Other than that, drop the war wagon from the Communal Italians, turn some of those early knights into cav and I would be happy. Oh, once and for all, show a few diagrams like in the HoTT rule book so that everyone can agree
where to flee.

What I like about DBA 2.2 is that it has been around a while. I have bought rules for other games that once I have finished painting my army or two, new rules come out changing the army lists, basing, etc., etc.. I will never fool with Warhammer for similar reasons. Just about everyone is on the same page about the DBA rules and we do not spend hours upon hours arguing.

Doug
06-01-2012, 04:57 AM
DBA for DBAs sake is not worth his while, however DBA as a sub-set of DBMM is worthwhile.

So adding in HOTT you then sell more rules, makes it worthwhile.

Ask yourself why use DBMM bases when DBA has a perfectly good base system, why not use DBA and make DBMM bases legal in DBA.

David Constable

Nice one David. Make your mind up, either Phil is interested in the money, or not. You seem to be on here alternately claiming both in every effort to denigrate DBA3.

Perhaps you have some mental picture of him, bald-headed and stroking a cat...? To my knowledge he has made HoTT available as a free download, and he did the same with DBA 2.2 - (then withdrew it). Hardly the actions of someone intent of grinding your face into the dust for the sake of a few pennies...

In any case, for someone for whom DBA isn't worthwhile, I can confirm he spends an extraordinary amount of time working on both the rules and the lists. Hardly the actions of someone who isn't interested in DBA for its own sake.

At the moment, I understand it is likely that John Curry will be given the rights to reproduce 2.2 as part of his History of Wargames series, so you will still be able to buy 2.2. Then whatever house rules you want to play.. is up to you.

Just play what you want to play and stop insulting the intelligence of everyone else. Go somewhere else and grind that axe, it is singularly unproductive.

david kuijt
06-01-2012, 07:01 AM
Nice one David. Make your mind up, either Phil is interested in the money, or not. You seem to be on here alternately claiming both in every effort to denigrate DBA3.


Doug, Hasdrubal was resurrecting a thread that was last posted-to in 2010, two years ago. Your response (about David Constable's flip-flopping) is in error; at the time DC was posting, DBA3 was nothing more than a rumour and DC had not (at that time) done any alternate-claiming in any sense.

Doug
06-01-2012, 07:21 AM
Doug, Hasdrubal was resurrecting a thread that was last posted-to in 2010, two years ago. Your response (about David Constable's flip-flopping) is in error; at the time DC was posting, DBA3 was nothing more than a rumour and DC had not (at that time) done any alternate-claiming in any sense.

Fair call DK, my apologies all round, I had assumed this was a current thread, and drink has been taken, ire aroused..

Hope you are all enjoying your games (whichever brand you play), I played in a fun 2.2 comp last weekend and had a ball.

David Constable
06-01-2012, 12:13 PM
Doug, Hasdrubal was resurrecting a thread that was last posted-to in 2010, two years ago. Your response (about David Constable's flip-flopping) is in error; at the time DC was posting, DBA3 was nothing more than a rumour and DC had not (at that time) done any alternate-claiming in any sense.

Thanks DK.

Having re-read the end of this thread I find what I wrote a few years ago interesting.

An easy mistake for Doug to make, it nearly confussed me.

David Constable

Ammianus
06-08-2012, 12:12 PM
Under 3.0, are Vkings: 10x 3BL, 1x PS/BW, 1xWB?
Or has some other configuration emerged?
I ask because my next project is to rebase my old Viking army (then Alfred's army).

Personally I feel like a 2 Bls, 8 SPs & 2 Ps/Bw might be more appropriate but I thought 'd ask.

Thanks
A

Bobgnar
06-08-2012, 01:54 PM
The last version I saw, but subject to revision, as the rules change

III/40a Viking army 790-849 AD: 1 x General and huscarls (4Bd), 10 x raiders (3Bd), 1 x huscarls (4Bd) or berserks (3Wb) or archers (Ps).

III/40b Viking army 850-1280 AD: 1 x General and huscarls (4Bd), 10 x hird (4Bd), 1 x archers (Ps or Bw) or berserks (3Wb) or [only if Dublin or Manx] Irish (Ax).

Redwilde
06-08-2012, 03:37 PM
An option for mounted scouts (Cv in DBM) would be a nice addition.

Ammianus
06-08-2012, 06:23 PM
Thanks Bob!
One additional question; Blades will be called raiders in 3.0??

Bobgnar
06-08-2012, 10:24 PM
Phil has tried to give specific names to specific troops in each list. In the Viking army he used Raiders for the 3Bd and Huscarls for the 4Bw

In the Leidang army there are "free lance raiders for 3Bd, Lapp archers = Ps, Laenstropperne = 3Kn, boendr for 4Bd, Huscarls too.

Other armies get different names for 3Bd.
Late T'ang
vanguard swordsmen (3Bd),
Arab Indian
Hindu swordsmen (3Bd)
Abbasid Arab
Zanj (3Bd)
Khmer
Ph’kak men (3Bd)

and so forth.

There has been mention of actually using the Basing numbers to create different troop types. Phil wrote in April on Yahoo

"The innovation (originating from comments on this list) lies in distinguishing
troops of the same type but with different basing, such as 3Ax, 3Pk, 3Wb, 3Bd,
5Hd and just possibly 3Bw (though this last is currently unlikely). Basically,
elements with a smaller number of figures are FAST. They move 1 BW further, and
in close combat against foot recoil on equal.
It seems simple to apply on the table (since most people can count up to 3 or 4)
and takes up less page space (since special provision for 3Pk is subsumed)."

So there might be a Blade(Fast) and a Blade (not fast) for the 3Bd and 4Bd respectively. I never saw a demand for Figure Number Dependent Elements (FNDE)but he seems to have found this in the discussion. I recall Sue saying that she hoped there would be no need to worry about numbers of figures. She went through all the lists to edit for this.

I guess we need to wait for the next version to see how this plays out. I have 5 armies worth of Saxons with 3 figures on narrow (Pike size) bases. SO what will I do if there is a 4Wb and a 3Wb with different actions? I am not adding figures :) People will just have to take my word for what they are.

michael guth
06-09-2012, 12:36 AM
So under 3.0 blades fast will be as good as auxilla in bad going, and have the combat factor of blades in good going.....ugly...

Ammianus
06-09-2012, 08:24 AM
Thanks for the clarification Bob; I concur Michael! (hard to handle)

Captain Rabbit
06-09-2012, 08:28 AM
So under 3.0 blades fast will be as good as auxilla in bad going, and have the combat factor of blades in good going.....ugly...

-2 If any troops but Auxilia, Bows, Warband or Psiloi and in close combat in bad going, or if Bows shooting while in bad going.

I think this is the latest iteration, the sky isn't falling just yet. :2up

Bobgnar
06-09-2012, 11:19 AM
Thanks for the clarification Bob; I concur Michael! (hard to handle)

I don't believe that Michael has seen the latest version of DBA three so I don't know how he comes to that conclusion. I think the newest version will be posted next week so we can all study it and then come to conclusions of what is ugly or not.

Macbeth
06-10-2012, 06:12 AM
So under 3.0 blades fast will be as good as auxilla in bad going, and have the combat factor of blades in good going.....ugly...

They will also have the combat factor of Blades vs Mounted in Bad going :D that is +3 less two for the bad going is +1.

I for one will be looking for them in the dunes and oasis with my Blemmye and Chrisitian Nubian Cm :up

Lets face it - I might even chase after them with Cv or Kn in the rough at those odds

Cheers

Captain Rabbit
06-11-2012, 10:28 PM
I dare you!
:D

Macbeth
06-11-2012, 11:12 PM
I dare you!
:D

Bring it Rabbit Boy :p;):D

Captain Rabbit
06-12-2012, 06:24 AM
So cancon sledging is starting early this year?
Bring it on scottish play boy!

Ammianus
06-15-2012, 10:48 AM
Sue's posted the latest "June" version of 3.0 over at Yahoo DBA Group...good luck!

El' Jocko
06-15-2012, 12:30 PM
Sue's posted the latest "June" version of 3.0 over at Yahoo DBA Group...good luck!

Holy cow! I've not been a fan of the direction that Phil has taken DBA 3.0, but wow. He's really jumped the shark with this release.

Solid and Fast foot. 4 kinds of BUAs. Good going, rough going, and bad going (including 5 new terrain types). Side support. Allies. And an increase in complexity throughtout the rules that I find astounding.

Frankly, at this point I don't know if DBA 3.0 is a good game or not. I can't imagine spending the time it would take to actually figure out how all the rules are supposed to work and the ways that they interact.

- Jack

Ammianus
06-15-2012, 12:42 PM
Jack,
I admit I quit reading as soon as I saw the multiple BUAs; who knows maybe he'll end up with DBMM?

elsyr
06-15-2012, 01:14 PM
Wow. Just wow. I was concerned about 3.0 differing from 2.2 in ways I was not sure I liked. Now 3.0 appears to be differeing from 2.2 significantly that it may be virtually unrecognizable. Admittedly, I have not played this latest release, but at first glance I don't think "jumped the shark" is too harsh.

Doug

Ammianus
06-15-2012, 01:53 PM
Doug,
I had given up about 2 versions ago. It seems further & futher away fm (IMO) the philosophy of DBA, a clean simple [user friendly] simulation that limits complexity. So I'm sticking with 2.2+ and HotT. It will be interesting to see what Phil's final baby looks like! Cheers, A

Kingo
06-15-2012, 03:28 PM
This edition looks very good,

I can take a Hamlet (BUA compulsory) as rough terrain and place it anywhere on the board. :D:2up

lkmjbc
06-15-2012, 04:34 PM
Yes, this version is much better. I think it is close to the end. Some more work still needs to be done on Terrain and the new BUAs. (Is a gulley bad going? probably , yes. Does a hamlet generate a threat zone? Probably, no.) Hordes need some fine tuning as well.

The group has worked hard on clarity... we've made some progress. More would be nice.

Dark Ages plays much better. HYW, WOR, and Late Medieval plays better as well. The Classical period seems fine... though I've only done about 5 test games in this period. Biblical period... don't know.


Joe Collins

El' Jocko
06-15-2012, 04:48 PM
Yes, this version is much better. I think it is close to the end.

Joe, I know you're enjoying the new rules--and that's great. But I can't imagine that the process is almost done. The latest version has such a large number of changes, big and small, that I'd expect a lot of testing still needs to be done to make sure that everything hangs together correctly. Finding and eliminating unintended consequences is an important step.

- Jack

lkmjbc
06-15-2012, 04:53 PM
Jack:

Yes, we've been doing quite a lot of play testing. It would be wonderful if you would help.

Joe Collins

Kingo
06-15-2012, 05:18 PM
No element can shoot if it moved more than 1 BW this bound.:eek

El' Jocko
06-15-2012, 05:34 PM
Jack:

Yes, we've been doing quite a lot of play testing. It would be wonderful if you would help.

Joe Collins

Sorry, Joe. It's just not DBA anymore. The complexity of the latest version is just too much for me.

- Jack

El' Jocko
06-15-2012, 05:37 PM
No element can shoot if it moved more than 1 BW this bound.:eek

That's a special case put in to fix the problems created by the new movement and shooting distance for Bow. Without that rule, Bow (Fast) would get a moving plus shooting distance of 6 base widths, more than 9 inches.

- Jack

Bobgnar
06-15-2012, 05:38 PM
This edition looks very good,

I can take a Hamlet (BUA compulsory) as rough terrain and place it anywhere on the board. :D:2up

Just a little clarification. You can only place it where the random placement procedure allows you to place it. If you roll a 6, your opponent picks the quadrant where it is placed.

BUA is not compulsory, by the way, even in Arable topography.

lkmjbc
06-15-2012, 06:13 PM
Sorry, Joe. It's just not DBA anymore. The complexity of the latest version is just too much for me.

- Jack

Well, I'm sorry too.

I can't make you try it or change your mind. I was just hoping that folks would have a more open mind. Seems they all are closed.

Enjoy 2,2+. I have, though I do like 3.0 somewhat better than 2.2+ now.

Joe Collins

Tony Aguilar
06-15-2012, 07:06 PM
Well, I'm sorry too.

I can't make you try it or change your mind. I was just hoping that folks would have a more open mind. Seems they all are closed.

Enjoy 2,2+. I have, though I do like 3.0 somewhat better than 2.2+ now.

Joe Collins

Some us us do plan on buying it and trying it IF and WHEN it is finished. Playetsting these radical changes that have happened in the last six months is just too much confusion for me.

Skeptical Gamer
06-15-2012, 07:17 PM
I can't make you try it or change your mind. I was just hoping that folks would have a more open mind. Seems they all are closed.
Not all minds are closed.
I am still trying out 3.0 and 2.2+.
So far, I'm having more fun with 2.2+, but that may change as 3.0 develops.

I still can't get past the heavy (sorry "solid") foot movement rate...
I also tend to agree with the "it's getting too complicated" arguments.
It feels like new rules are being added to address issues that would be better and more elegantly addressed at a more fundamental level of the rules.
(For example, no shooting if more than 1BW move.)

There are aspects of 3.0 that I like quite a bit and I will almost certainly buy a copy (whether or not I end up playing it...).

So, don't give up.
Some of us might still be convinced.
And, when it comes to "us vs. them,"... keep an open mind...

david kuijt
06-15-2012, 08:23 PM
I can't make you try it or change your mind. I was just hoping that folks would have a more open mind. Seems they all are closed.


This isn't a case of an open mind versus a closed mind, Joe. Many of the people who you are criticizing as closed-minded put a huge amount of work and effort into 3.0. They gave it every chance an open-minded person could. Certainly Jack did, DS did, I did.

There's nothing wrong with you liking the current thing. But it isn't fair to call any who doesn't "closed-minded" just because they don't keep trying it, again and again, when the changes keep coming and there is no end in sight.

Most of the people on this forum will look it over, if and when Phil ever publishes it. Be happy with that.

But it isn't fair to call Jack (or anyone else who has spent hundreds of hours working on 3.0 in the last eighteen months) "closed-minded" because you personally like the current version, and you want them to forget the dozen previous versions and try it all over again.

Captain Rabbit
06-16-2012, 12:33 AM
I think your being kind of harsh David, I don't think it was a direct attack on anyone. My take for what little it is worth, and this is from some one that likes 3.0. I do find it kind of wearing to log on to the 3.0 section and find an what sometimes appears to be an almost relentless negative vibe from those with 2.2+ is the ducks nuts at the bottom of their sig. :D We get it you don't like 3.0, it's a valid stance to take, but so is ours.

I don't log on to 2.2 section and respond in kind, tried 2.2+ found I didn't like it and for me that was the end of it. That's not to say it's not a great game and all the people that play it aren't great wonderfull people with a pocket full of rainbows and shining smiles that light up the sky. I'm sure it is a great game for those that like it.

Some of us are in the here and now and don't know or aren't interested in the back storey with all the previous versions and verbal fist fights that have gone on before. Me personaly I try not to dismisse people who have put forward a "considered" opinion.
Again it's not an attack on you or anyone else, it's just a game enjoy what you like playing and respect those that don't.

Now time for a nice lie down and some deep breathing.:)
cheers

Richard Lee
06-16-2012, 01:51 AM
I think your being kind of harsh David, I don't think it was a direct attack on anyone.

Have to say, that is is how I read it.

TWR
06-16-2012, 03:07 AM
I do find it kind of wearing to log on to the 3.0 section and find an what sometimes appears to be an almost relentless negative vibe from those with 2.2+ is the ducks nuts at the bottom of their sig. :D

I too find the signatures very tiring. Perhaps the WAGBAG supporters would prefer those that are interested in the development of 3.0 to remove themselves from this forum? Certainly the continual signatures stating the support for the "+" version suggest I am not welcome.

Richard Lee
06-16-2012, 03:16 AM
I too find the signatures very tiring. Perhaps the WAGBAG supporters would prefer those that are interested in the development of 3.0 to remove themselves from this forum? Certainly the continual signatures stating the support for the "+" version suggest I am not welcome.

Okay, I understand that you don't like the signatures of 2.2+ supporters. Interestingly enough, a very little way above your post is a signature that includes:-

"2.2 you say? that's so retro and last week man, 3.0 is the hip and happening place"
A proud supporter of rolling dice and pretending to look like I know what I'm doing since the 80's.

Was it just the signatures that support 2.2+ that you didn't like, or was it all signatures that expressed a preference?

Doug
06-16-2012, 03:54 AM
Isn't this the DBA3 thread? In which case, why are all the 2.2+ fans so quick to jump on here and criticise?

I don't see the same on the 2.2+ thread. There aren't hordes of v3 fans jumping all over that.

Africanus
06-16-2012, 05:01 AM
In which case, why are all the 2.2+ fans so quick to jump on here and criticise?

I must of missed "ALL" of them pesky 2.2'ers.....Must be hiding amongst the hordes.....:D
http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu300/necro72/wabbitt.jpg

I'm off to find em'!

Doug
06-16-2012, 05:49 AM
well I count three on this page alone... Not sure why they don't avoid the DBA3 thread, since there doesn't seem to be any positive aspect to the comments.

david kuijt
06-16-2012, 08:08 AM
I think your being kind of harsh David, I don't think it was a direct attack on anyone.

I know Joe fairly well, in person as well as online. He's a nice guy, even if I don't always agree with him. But he needs to be careful in calling people closed-minded when it isn't true -- that's exactly the sort of rhetoric that makes the yahoo group such a noxious place right now.

My saying to Joe that he shouldn't call Jack (or other people who have tried 3.0 a lot) closed-minded isn't a direct attack, it is asking Joe not to make statements that could be construed poorly by people who don't know Joe as well as I do. In other words, it is a call for careful wording on a touchy subject.

I find it sad that my asking Joe to tone down his rhetoric is taken as being "harsh".

david kuijt
06-16-2012, 08:20 AM
Isn't this the DBA3 thread? In which case, why are all the 2.2+ fans so quick to jump on here and criticise?

I don't see the same on the 2.2+ thread. There aren't hordes of v3 fans jumping all over that.

That's a little invidious, Doug, don't you think? First, the level of criticism on the forum is minor and comparatively civil (i.e., about issues, not personal attacks), and has been since Larry E was banned. Compare it to the level of vitriol currently running on the yahoo group, for example. Second, you yourself posted dozens of critical notes on the 2.2+ threads, Doug, from late November on. I wouldn't be surprised if your critical posts in v2.2+ threads number upwards of 30 or 50, although you've calmed down since March or so.

Macbeth
06-16-2012, 09:10 AM
Was it just the signatures that support 2.2+ that you didn't like, or was it all signatures that expressed a preference?

Trust me Richard,

the second part of Captain Rabbit's signature is the more important part - "A proud supporter of rolling dice and pretending to look like I know what I'm doing since the 80s" that and cheesy teen fahsion references to wargames rules suggests to me a light hearted dig at this style of signature blocks :D

Cheers

Doug
06-16-2012, 09:17 AM
That's a little invidious, Doug, don't you think? First, the level of criticism on the forum is minor and comparatively civil (i.e., about issues, not personal attacks), and has been since Larry E was banned. Compare it to the level of vitriol currently running on the yahoo group, for example. Second, you yourself posted dozens of critical notes on the 2.2+ threads, Doug, from late November on. I wouldn't be surprised if your critical posts in v2.2+ threads number upwards of 30 or 50, although you've calmed down since March or so.

Quite frankly, I made some early comments, and since then, have left people to their own devices DK. I am sure you are a nice guy to play over a table, but I don't want to get into pissing contests about versions, and I don't like constant carping about other people's choices.

Your choice is your choice, and I will make the same comments as I did about FoG when I was playing DBMM. As long as people are playing ancients, using whatever rules suit them, then let them get on with it.

The hobby is small enough without differences of opinion being treated like heretical schisms and the Inquisition becoming involved - unless of course you have some very nice figures.

And 'calmed down' is a bit patronising don't you think? I can't recall the last time I commented on the 2.2+ thread.

Doug
06-16-2012, 09:31 AM
My last post was on 27 February, and what I wrote was:

"Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Hmm.. nothing like DBMM movement rates, and it doesn't matter what you do with rules, there will always be part of the audience who don't like it. As far as I can tell, no one in the playtest group is saying anything is 'perfect'

Here's the DBMM Movement rates in Base Widths... first for good, then Bad (difficult)

Light Horse. 4 2
Cavalry, Camelry or Expendables. 3 1
Elephants or Knights. 2.5 1
Auxilia or Psiloi. 2.5 2
Spears, Pikes, Blades, Warband, Bows, Shot or Hordes. 2 1
War Wagons, Artillery except (S), land Baggage. 0 1

I know you wont actually care, but I thought it was interesting."

Hardly inflammatory I would have thought...

My other post on 16th February was again hardly inflammatory:

"Hi Mark, thanks for taking the time to make a considered response. I suspect I am not in a position any different from yours - best way forward and that - BUT:
- I think Phil is a brilliant rule writer. In my opinion, in the last 20+ years he has come up with some of the most innovative and easy to play rules ever. (the leap from 6th Edition to DBA was revolutionary).
- Phil's a cantankerous old curmudgeon at times. He's 80 years old.. cut him some slack.
- Much of his rule-writing seems to be done by a 'black box' approach.. change one factor, run it through a thousand times and see whether the result is any better - empirical.
- I still have no idea what the final 3 will look like. DBMM 2 was radically different in the published version from the discussion version. I just keep hammering away where I think it is wrong and sometimes it gets to print.
- Phil's motives are not about money - he just wants to represent warfare according to his own mental model.
- he hates people assuming they kinow better (see curmudgeon)
- he knows some historical periods in extraordinary (and sometimes limited) detail. Changing his views on LIR is a damn sight harder than his views on Koreans for example.
- using his rules with modifications is a personal insult (see curmudgeon)

Anyway..
__________________
Cheers

Doug"

david kuijt
06-16-2012, 09:37 AM
The hobby is small enough without differences of opinion being treated like heretical schisms and the Inquisition becoming involved - unless of course you have some very nice figures.

And 'calmed down' is a bit patronising don't you think? I can't recall the last time I commented on the 2.2+ thread.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest either, Doug. But I stand by 'calmed down' -- perhaps you don't recall how angry and inflammatory your comments were in November, December, and January.

Regardless, I'm glad to hear that isn't the way you feel any more.

Doug
06-16-2012, 09:40 AM
I was told:

Originally Posted by Doug View Post
I do wish you would articulate these in more detail, so I can represent them to Phil, and potentially - make better-supported arguments to get them changed in DBA3-

Seriously, if it doesnt work for you, pass the message on, any test games and they will get put in front of him.. regardless of whether you think Bob, myself or anyone else are 'fanboys' - we have all fought about various things at various times. Including movement rates I will say.
Doug,

to which I got the reply..

I respect your efforts to continue to improve 3.0. But this section of the forum is for comments regarding v2.2+, feedback, play test results, etc. etc.

Please keep the 3.0 requests in the 3.0 section.

Thanks,
DS

So maybe, if I can quote back to you - "I respect your choice to develop 2.2+" but this forum is for comments regarding DBA 3. So why not leave us to it. and you go play with your toys on your own threads.

Doug
06-16-2012, 09:55 AM
I don't want to get into a pissing contest either, Doug. But I stand by 'calmed down' -- perhaps you don't recall how angry and inflammatory your comments were in November, December, and January.

Regardless, I'm glad to hear that isn't the way you feel any more.

I have gone back and reviewed my posts. I hardly think any of them were angry and inflammatory. I stand by them all.

So I go back to the point I made above. I don't see any v3 posts on the 2.2+ threads since February, so perhaps the 2.2+ fans could just leave this thread as per the quote above, when those who were offering polite comments on the 2.2+ thread were asked to not comment?

lkmjbc
06-16-2012, 10:45 AM
I apologize if my words offended anyone...

I was just expressing my disappointment that folks seem to be dismissing the new Beta without a play test or two.

We have some very smart and experienced players on this board. I would be interested in seeing their play test reports.

Perhaps this is not meant to be.

Joe Collins


I have gone back and reviewed my posts. I hardly think any of them were angry and inflammatory. I stand by them all.

So I go back to the point I made above. I don't see any v3 posts on the 2.2+ threads since February, so perhaps the 2.2+ fans could just leave this thread as per the quote above, when those who were offering polite comments on the 2.2+ thread were asked to not comment?

Hannibal Ad Portas
06-16-2012, 03:56 PM
I plan to wait till 3.0 is complete and then buy a copy and give it a whirl. The changes are too much for me to call it DBA, but that doesn't mean I might not enjoy the game itself. I suspect the bug will bite and I will eventually succumb to even playing in 3.0 events and tournaments!:D

I have been enjoying DBA 2.2 for quite a long time now and suspect it will stick around in some regions. I plan to continue playing that edition at every opportunity. I consider it to be the best edition of DBA extant:up

I see plenty to like about DBA 2.2+ and hopefully will be able to play in some 2.2+ tournaments and events when I venture to the right coast. I found that using some of the DBA 2.2+ troop types made the Biblical period better to play. The changes to 3Sp and 3Bd made the warband and auxilia armies more viable.

Kingo
06-16-2012, 08:00 PM
Just a little clarification. You can only place it where the random placement procedure allows you to place it. If you roll a 6, your opponent picks the quadrant where it is placed.

BUA is not compulsory, by the way, even in Arable topography.

yes, but I mean it does'nt have to be within 6BW of the corner.

El' Jocko
06-16-2012, 08:23 PM
I apologize if my words offended anyone...

I was just expressing my disappointment that folks seem to be dismissing the new Beta without a play test or two.

We have some very smart and experienced players on this board. I would be interested in seeing their play test reports.

Perhaps this is not meant to be.

Joe Collins

Not a problem, Joe. You actually didn't accuse anyone of being close minded, just of having closed our minds on DBA 3.0. Which is a somewhat different thing.

And while I'm not interested in playtesting the latest version, I have been paying close attention. I've read through the latest version, start to finish, a couple of times. I've gone over some of the more interesting parts in great detail. I suspect I have a more in depth knowledge of the rules than many of its proponents. So I am following what's going on and not just dismissing it out-of-hand.

Frankly, I don't expect that my playtesting the rules would help much. Phil knows where he wants to take the game. And that direction is the opposite of where I think it should be going. I can't imagine any feedback that I could give at this point that would contribute to the process.

Actually, come to think of it, that's not entirely true. I've noticed a few editing problems. The part that begins "Area Terrain Features include" needs to have the new terrain types added to the list. And the Combat Outcome section refers to BUAs in a couple of places that should probably be changed to Cities or Forts. There, a positive contribution! Kumbayah! :D

- Jack

Captain Rabbit
06-16-2012, 09:30 PM
Okay, I understand that you don't like the signatures of 2.2+ supporters. Interestingly enough, a very little way above your post is a signature that includes:-



Was it just the signatures that support 2.2+ that you didn't like, or was it all signatures that expressed a preference?

I have no issues with 2.2 sigs at all, some of them are fun, funny, laconic or heavily ironic depending on your point of view. I was just wondering if they had lost their way this is the 3.0 section that's all.

Play what you enjoy, display your gang or tribal colours how you like (I have, in a way that I thought was slightly humourus and light hearted to everyone, but evidently not. But you can't please everyone so you got to please yourself, Hey that's cool lyrics wonder if I could make a song out of that? :D ).

And anyway that wasn't the issue I was trying to raise and to be honest I find that argument a little disingenuous but each to their own.

Enjoy your game whatever it maybe, because next week they may tax it or digitise it :D

Any way off to play a game of Empire of the Dead, highly recommend it as fun quick game Now with optional zombies and rioting mobs! :)
Cheers

David Schlanger
06-16-2012, 10:18 PM
So maybe, if I can quote back to you - "I respect your choice to develop 2.2+" but this forum is for comments regarding DBA 3. So why not leave us to it. and you go play with your toys on your own threads.


Clearly, asking you not to post about 3.0 in the 2.2+ section bothered you Doug. I am sorry about that. I didn't say, you support 3.0, so you are unwelcome to comment in the 2.2+ section. I don't see anyone here trying to turn the 3.0 section into the 2.2+ section, so I am confused about the point you are trying to make.

DS

Doug
06-16-2012, 10:57 PM
I don't want to get into a pissing contest either, Doug. But I stand by 'calmed down' -- perhaps you don't recall how angry and inflammatory your comments were in November, December, and January.

Regardless, I'm glad to hear that isn't the way you feel any more.

My feelings about 2.2+ haven't changed in the slightest. My feelings were never about whether 2.2+ was a good set of rules, or otherwise. I am pretty confident you know what my feelings about it are; and what they relate to.

I just don't feel the need to trash it, which appears to be quite different from what people here are doing to 3.

Captain Rabbit
06-16-2012, 11:01 PM
Trust me Richard,

the second part of Captain Rabbit's signature is the more important part - "A proud supporter of rolling dice and pretending to look like I know what I'm doing since the 80s" that and cheesy teen fahsion references to wargames rules suggests to me a light hearted dig at this style of signature blocks :D

Cheers

SLANDER! OUTRAGE! CALL THE POLICE! I HAVE BEEN LIBLED, OH THE HUMANITY! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? EARILY ACCURATE SUMMING UP!

CHEESY? I don't think so! you know I'm lactose intollerant!

"Then I rolled a 5, 6, 3, 3, 6, 5, 3, 4, 6, 2, 4 and then two 3's and a 4! then it got really interesting"
Quote from Rimmers book of Risk.
:silly

Captain Rabbit
06-16-2012, 11:04 PM
My feelings about 2.2+ haven't changed in the slightest. My feelings were never about whether 2.2+ was a good set of rules, or otherwise. I am pretty confident you know what my feelings about it are; and what they relate to.

I just don't feel the need to trash it, which appears to be quite different from what people here are doing to 3.

:2up :2up :2up :2up

peleset
06-17-2012, 02:07 AM
Is the Cold War heating up again?
A sudden flurry of posts reminiscent of the bad old days.
I thought this sort of friendly banter had been confined to the Yahoo group?

Richard Lee
06-17-2012, 02:11 AM
I have no issues with 2.2 sigs at all, some of them are fun, funny, laconic or heavily ironic depending on your point of view. I was just wondering if they had lost their way this is the 3.0 section that's all... [snip]

By the way, I have no issue with your signature. I merely commented on the fact that another user seemed to express antagonism towards signatures that expressed support for 2.2+. I was interested to know whether it was for all signatures that might be controversial to some people, or whether they merely had a strong, negative reaction to pro-2.2+ signatures.

Can't speak for any other people, but I suppose the reason that I visit the 3.0 section of Fanaticus is that I have a very small hope that the end result of version 3.0 will be a game that I can enjoy playing. As far as I am aware, I have avoided comparing 3.0 with 2.2+, or otherwise actively pushing 2.2+ on the 3.0 board. Apologies to all if I am mistaken, and that has not been the case.

David Constable
06-17-2012, 04:44 AM
I shall be keeping my support for DBA2.2 even with a +.

I have played DBA2.2 now for five years, I do not play DBMM, and have no intention of doing so.

DBA2.2+ is to my mind the direction Phil should have gone in, a few modifications to 2.2, not a big re-write.

From what I have seen of DBA3, and I do print out and read every version put on Yahoo, it is more suitable to those DBMM players who wanted a DBMM100 variant.

All Phil has done is create the opportunity for a new set of rules, a start from scratch equivilent of DBA, and I for one will support it, financially if needed.
One that suits DBA, both against historical opponents, and for competitions, it can be done, and hopefully it will.

I try to stay out of DBA3 arguments if I can, but on this occasion I have posted my feelings, up with DBA2.2 down with DBMM3, sorry DBA3.

David Constable

Macbeth
06-19-2012, 12:33 AM
SLANDER! OUTRAGE! CALL THE POLICE! I HAVE BEEN LIBLED, OH THE HUMANITY! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? EARILY ACCURATE SUMMING UP!


Yes - It is a vicious pack of truths ;) :p :up

Cheers

Bob Santamaria
06-19-2012, 03:47 AM
Yes - It is a vicious pack of truths ;) :p :up

Cheers

A vicious truth is worse than a vicious or malicious lie because it cannot be honestly retracted.

See the distinction between calumny and detraction.

Thomas J. Thomas
06-19-2012, 05:49 PM
Actually no need for panic re 3.0.

Fast Foot is merely a subtype of the Normal types (which Phil calls Solid for some reason). You move 3BW, are less affected by terrian and Recoil on ties. Much simplier than adding new types as one rule covers the whole range of "Fast". Makes armies like the Welsh play a bit differently and uniquely while adding a minimum of rules (and no new types).

Flank (side) Support replaces Rear Support for Spears (and helps Bow/Blade). I was initially dubious about this rule but it has playtested very well. Makes Spears more viable and not just "mini-pikes" also helps with Hundred Year War matchups. A great innovation which in many ways puts DBA far ahead of its more complex cousins.

Allies has been around for some time and allows a nice flavor and a bit more army variety with a very simple rule (no group move).

I'm not sure about "increase in complexity throughout" as some stuff has been simplfied (no break offs or warband rush) and other areas expanded only to get more clarity.

The additional terrian types are more names than rules. People wanted a BUA thats not a walled city so Phil game them Hamlets (rough) and Fort (BUA with no Denizens). These are both simplied versions of the current BUA rule of 2.2 and easier to use.

Locally DBA 3.0 has been rekindling a lot of interest in DBA, we are not finding it any more difficult to play than 2.2. Just did some English v. Welsh games and found the Fast rules added a very interesting dynamic.

Phil does respond to 'on table' playtesting. Play a couple games and post what ares gave trouble either play balance or clarity and he will (evenually) respond.

TomT

Holy cow! I've not been a fan of the direction that Phil has taken DBA 3.0, but wow. He's really jumped the shark with this release.

Solid and Fast foot. 4 kinds of BUAs. Good going, rough going, and bad going (including 5 new terrain types). Side support. Allies. And an increase in complexity throughtout the rules that I find astounding.

Frankly, at this point I don't know if DBA 3.0 is a good game or not. I can't imagine spending the time it would take to actually figure out how all the rules are supposed to work and the ways that they interact.

- Jack

Bob Santamaria
06-20-2012, 03:54 AM
Actually no need for panic re 3.0.

Fast Foot is merely a subtype of the Normal types (which Phil calls Solid for some reason). You move 3BW, are less affected by terrian and Recoil on ties. Much simplier than adding new types as one rule covers the whole range of "Fast". Makes armies like the Welsh play a bit differently and uniquely while adding a minimum of rules (and no new types).



I am not panicking, but I consider this disingenuous. They are in every sense but name new troop types.

winterbadger
06-20-2012, 04:53 PM
Locally DBA 3.0 has been rekindling a lot of interest in DBA, we are not finding it any more difficult to play than 2.2.

The challenge comes when you play people with whom you do not play normally. It's very easy to arrive (explicitly or implicitly) at a common understanding of mechanics when one plays the same people regularly.

Thomas J. Thomas
06-21-2012, 04:43 PM
I just ran a Big Battle demo at Nashcon (twice) and explained the Fast rule at the table to several players who had no experience with it and they had no trouble at all understanding and using the rule.

Or any other mechnic from 3.0 for that matter.

TomT

Thomas J. Thomas
06-21-2012, 04:47 PM
Actually Fast troops are not a new troop type. They share the same combat factors as their main types and the same out comes in all cases except Equals.

An ingenious rule simple to state and learn that provides a bit of variety amongst otherwise identical troop types.

TomT

dfmbrown
06-22-2012, 12:10 AM
Hi there,

It was interesting to read PB's thoughts over in the other place about why 8Bw and 3Bw needed to be different, it sounded to me like a clear case that he could make for them being a different troop type, ie they behave differently.

Most of the fast foot are simply a bit of chrome, is it needed in DBA, i'm not sure.

If I were PB I'd edit up a simple DBA with nothing but the bare bones and then edit up a spiced up version with the extra stuff. And have them published in the same book.

I think 4Kn can be considered a new type because it has the critical behavior difference from other Kn in not pursuing.


Be good.

David Brown

winterbadger
06-22-2012, 09:19 AM
It was interesting to read PB's thoughts over in the other place about why 8Bw and 3Bw needed to be different, it sounded to me like a clear case that he could make for them being a different troop type, ie they behave differently.

I wonder at what point he's going to drop the Bw QK of Kn. And add Cataphracts. ;)

David Constable
06-22-2012, 09:42 AM
I wonder at what point he's going to drop the Bw QK of Kn. And add Cataphracts. ;)

Cannot see him doing away with Bw QK on Kn, but dropping Kn from lists in section 1 to 3 for both 3Kn and 4Kn and making cataphract or something else would be nice (with no QK either way).

David Constable

lkmjbc
06-22-2012, 09:47 AM
David:
As of the June 15th version.

4Knts don't pursue... unlike their 3Knt cousins.

Only LB and CB QK knts in close combat... and then only on a tie.

(I suspect Winter Badger is aware of this already!)

Joe Collins

El' Jocko
06-22-2012, 11:18 AM
Actually no need for panic re 3.0.

Fast Foot is merely a subtype of the Normal types (which Phil calls Solid for some reason). You move 3BW, are less affected by terrian and Recoil on ties. Much simplier than adding new types as one rule covers the whole range of "Fast". Makes armies like the Welsh play a bit differently and uniquely while adding a minimum of rules (and no new types).

Flank (side) Support replaces Rear Support for Spears (and helps Bow/Blade). I was initially dubious about this rule but it has playtested very well. Makes Spears more viable and not just "mini-pikes" also helps with Hundred Year War matchups. A great innovation which in many ways puts DBA far ahead of its more complex cousins.

Allies has been around for some time and allows a nice flavor and a bit more army variety with a very simple rule (no group move).

I'm not sure about "increase in complexity throughout" as some stuff has been simplfied (no break offs or warband rush) and other areas expanded only to get more clarity.


Hi Tom. What I really had in mind when I said that there's been an "increase in complexity throughout" is that DBA 3.0 has added new conditions that modify or adjust a large number of the existing rules. Sometimes it's been to create a more subtle effect, sometimes it's to correct a problem created by another change. Here's a few examples of what I was thinking about:


Double elements. First element destroyed counts as two, remainder destroyed count as one.
Rough going adds new category of terrain with new affects.
Camp followers can sally out.
New restrictions on deployment of element types other than Cv, LH, Aux, Ps.
LH exemption for command distance.
Ps exemption for moving through bad going as a group.
Allied elements can't move as part of a group with the main army elements.
Cannot shoot if element moved more than 1 BW.
Special flank support for Spear and Solid Bow.
Complex set of outcomes for tied combats, including three different possible outcomes for an element of Knight that ties with an element of Bow.
Recoil distance is dependent on type of element: foot/mounted.
Pursuit now has a complex set of conditions adjusting who pursues and how far.


I'll grant you that these are all little changes. They just make a little tweak to how each rule works. And many of them add an interesting differentiation in the way that different troop types interact. It's not that any one of them is necessarily wrong. But in combination with the other changes (such as solid/fast foot and the new moving into contact rules) my feeling is that they increase the overall complexity of the game to a significant degree.

I can understand that some players are going to be happy to accept the increased complexity because it corrects deficiencies that matter to them--I know that you and Joe have been long time advocates of fixing some problems that have existed with the HYW French-English interaction and I think the latest version of DBA 3.0 addresses that.

But for many gamers, the increased complexity is just too much. It's a death by a thousand cuts. The simple game that DBA started out as has been lost. It's being replaced by something much bigger; a game with more flavor for some periods and certainly more bells and whistles overall, but without the elegant simplicity that DBA originally gave us.

- Jack

winterbadger
06-22-2012, 12:15 PM
David:
As of the June 15th version.

4Knts don't pursue... unlike their 3Knt cousins.

Only LB and CB QK knts in close combat... and then only on a tie.

(I suspect Winter Badger is aware of this already!)

Joe Collins

No, in truth I was making a joke about how many of the changes that appear in 2.2+ seem, after a short pause, to appear in 3.0. :)

lkmjbc
06-22-2012, 12:26 PM
Jack wrote:
I can understand that some players are going to be happy to accept the increased complexity because it corrects deficiencies that matter to them--I know that you and Joe have been long time advocates of fixing some problems that have existed with the HYW French-English interaction and I think the latest version of DBA 3.0 addresses that.

But for many gamers, the increased complexity is just too much. It's a death by a thousand cuts. The simple game that DBA started out as has been lost. It's being replaced by something much bigger; a game with more flavor for some periods and certainly more bells and whistles overall, but without the elegant simplicity that DBA originally gave us.
- Jack[/QUOTE]

Dark Ages interactions as well!

Jack: Your concern is certainly legitimate. Fortunately, it has not been borne out in my experience. My club does not like complex rules. They have played 3.0 without complaint.

Tom has had similar results. For new players, they are able to pick up the basics in the first game. The details of course come later... just as in earlier versions.

Is it more complex? Yes, of course. Will the details take longer to learn than 2.2? Yes, probably.

Is it so complex that experienced gamers won't be able to pick it up? No, I think not. I did quite easily.

My experience with new gamers and 3.0 is exactly the same as my experience with new gamers and 2.2.

I do not wish to belittle your concern as I share some of it. But, I have played a large amount of 3.0 in various forms. I have played the game with my club with up to 12 folks playing. I have helped run the game at a convention. I have played the game in the BBDBA format. While these experiences are limited, neither the complexity nor the expanded move have posed any issue.

Again, my plea to folks is... play the game. Try it with others.

Joe Collins

lkmjbc
06-22-2012, 12:29 PM
No, in truth I was making a joke about how many of the changes that appear in 2.2+ seem, after a short pause, to appear in 3.0. :)

It is almost like that some folks have tried to influence both development teams and that many issues/concerns are shared!

Joe Collins

David Constable
06-22-2012, 04:56 PM
It is almost like that some folks have tried to influence both development teams and that many issues/concerns are shared!

Joe Collins

I would think that is highly likely.

David Constable

Thomas J. Thomas
06-27-2012, 04:33 PM
A reasonable list of "changes" but many don't add a great deal of complexity and fix a problem, to be specific:


Double elements. First element destroyed counts as two, remainder destroyed count as one.

-Already exist and are nothing but a liability so no one takes armies that have them. Now give a +1 v. Foot and count as loss as above. Alternative is to eliminate an interesting troop type. 3.0 rule seems as easy solution.

Rough going adds new category of terrain with new affects.

- Rough is a subcategory of "Bad Going" effecting only movement. Seemed a small change to get more terrian variety (and not a new rule).


Camp followers can sally out.

- Silly change but Phil likes it and it can be ignored.


New restrictions on deployment of element types other than Cv, LH, Aux, Ps.

-Intended to help Cav/Lh armies etc. It really just tightens deployment (you have to have some deployment area so isn't really a new concept just adds a tier of deployment areas.

LH exemption for command distance.

- Which should make life easier as you don't have to measure long "command distance" ranges for LH.


Ps exemption for moving through bad going as a group.

-Seems reasonable and intuative.


Allied elements can't move as part of a group with the main army elements.

-Allies add an interesting alterntive and simplfy army lists which don't have to incorperate oft used ones. Simple rule that can be ignored by not taking allies.


Cannot shoot if element moved more than 1 BW.

-intended to help reduce "dancing Bows" tactic. Really helps from a simulation standpoint but yes it does add a tad of complexity.


Special flank support for Spear and Solid Bow.

-in case of Spear merely replaces rear support and makes more useful. Mechanic is re-used to solve a long standing Bow/Blade interaction problem. New mechanic but easy to use and solves two annoying problems.

Complex set of outcomes for tied combats, including three different possible outcomes for an element of Knight that ties with an element of Bow.

-Using Equals as new result point is getting overused though functionally the rule is easy to administer requiring no modifiers.


Recoil distance is dependent on type of element: foot/mounted.

-Compromise between having set distance Recoils and tying to base depth. Like all compromises doesn't make anyone completely happy.


Pursuit now has a complex set of conditions adjusting who pursues and how far.

-Organization of Pursuit rule makes it seem more complex than it really is. Pursuit distances now set and not dependant on base depth which solves some odd problems. We are steadily reducing exceptions.


TomT

Bobgnar
06-28-2012, 10:54 AM
You forgot
Movement increased 50%
Number of troop sub types now 29, where there is some difference among types, mostly based on number of elements. More if you count double elements. For example 4Kn and 3Kn now have different capabilities. Fast and Solid troops too.
Movement to contact is so complex that there is lack of agreement of how to interpret it among the Helpers
Third party shooting is a devil to understand
4 types of BUA
No overlap vs Psiloi on corner contact but not edge contact.
Ally composition very complicated, not just 3 elements of choice.

lots more little things.

My sadness, confirmed by others, is that the game cannot now be taught to newcomers in a short time, has was done before. So many nuances for newbies to get so no more young people events and first time players in tournaments. I wonder how it will work for tournaments in general. There has yet to be a test of that anywhere in the world.

I do find that the game now plays very well for giant scenario games with multiplayers and 50-60 elements. New players can catch on as they play with continuous tutoring. Big moves allow for fast contact and action, with time for maneuver.

It is not a bad game, just no longer the "simplest set of rules that can produce a historically and visually realistic and exciting game " in a one to one situation.

Thomas J. Thomas
06-28-2012, 03:19 PM
Again most of this needs to be taken in context:


You forgot
Movement increased 50%

- This does not increase complexity - you have to have some movement rate and helps solve some fiddly contact stuff and elimintes special rules for flank contact needed for the slower rates. Measuring in BW also more convient.

Number of troop sub types now 29, where there is some difference among types, mostly based on number of elements. More if you count double elements. For example 4Kn and 3Kn now have different capabilities. Fast and Solid troops too.

-Not sure where 29 Sub types comes from but the only change is the addition of one sub class FAST which moves 3BW and recoils on Equals aganist non-fast. Simple rule that allows some army variations so that for instance the Welsh are no longer a Greek Phalanx army.

Movement to contact is so complex that there is lack of agreement of how to interpret it among the Helpers

-its the lanaguge not the concept that is complex. Its much easier now to get into contact and far less fiddly. Final lanaguage being worked on now.

Third party shooting is a devil to understand

-3rd party shooting is rarely needed could just be dropped.

4 types of BUA

-The other types of BUA exist due to popular demand and do not use any new rules. Hamlets are simply Rough Going. Castle's BUAs w/o Denizens. All the new types are easier to use than the current 2.2 BUAs.

No overlap vs Psiloi on corner contact but not edge contact.

-Ps overlap rules again stem from player demand.

Ally composition very complicated, not just 3 elements of choice.

- I don't find allies complex to assemble or use and really like the rule. They are optional so players not wanting to fool with them can ignore the rule.

lots more little things.

My sadness, confirmed by others, is that the game cannot now be taught to newcomers in a short time, has was done before. So many nuances for newbies to get so no more young people events and first time players in tournaments.

- I've taught the game to my 10 year old daughter as well as all my 14 year old sons buddies (they think its too simple - but they are Warhammer players). Its no more difficult to teach than 2.2 and movement is less fiddly. I do walk up demos at cons without any great strain.

I wonder how it will work for tournaments in general. There has yet to be a test of that anywhere in the world.

-I've volunteered to run a tournament at H-con with whatever current rules Phi gives us. Getting people to play DBA 3.0 is by far the best advertisement.

I do find that the game now plays very well for giant scenario games with multiplayers and 50-60 elements. New players can catch on as they play with continuous tutoring. Big moves allow for fast contact and action, with time for maneuver.

- I agree my Big Battle games have been amongest the best DBX experiences I've ever had dating back at least 20 years.

It is not a bad game, just no longer the "simplest set of rules that can produce a historically and visually realistic and exciting game " in a one to one situation.

- I never thought 2.2 produced a very visually realistic or exicing version of the HYW but do feel 3.0 does this with a bear minimum of new rules (some of which just replace discarded rules).

TomT

Macbeth
06-28-2012, 06:34 PM
Tom

How is moving by Base Widths MORE convenient???

If one Measurement Unit on a commercially available ruler (lets call them Inches) equates to one Movement Unit in a set of wargames rules (lets call them 100 paces) this is convenient.

In early drafts of DBA 3 there was a lot of interchange between paces and base widths - my specific problem was with the command range of LH when given in paces required you to do the math in your head. This requirement to always calculate the distance on a ruler in mm or cm is not a big issue but it is a MINOR inconvenience.

Part of the problem is gone now that all distances in DBA3.0 are given in BW - there is only one mention of paces and that is in the introduction where a BW is given its equivalent in paces. To me that is also sad as from that moment on there is a disconnect between the the rules and reality - it was something I have always liked about Phils ancient rules prior to this that the movement unit was given in something that equated to troops in battle not distance measured on a table. A very small issue and again a minor inconvenience.

If something is in some way a minor inconvenience it is not more convenient. Two years from now there will be plenty of commercially available purpose built measuring sticks for DBA - at which point the minor inconvenience will go away but that time is not here yet.

I agree with most of your comments with the exception of allies - you have used that disingenious arguement that if you don't like a particular concept you can choose not to use it - that is only the case if your opponent also chooses not to use it. If I don't wish to use allies but my opponent does then it becomes something I have to be aware of to make sure that they are used correctly against me. :D

There is also a difference between teaching the concepts of a game at a demo where you are also the final arbiter of all things to the first big DBA3 tournament where all the players who have read the rules turn up with their own understanding of what a concept means. That is an issue that we will all have to deal with at some time and will be the true test of how complex the rules are.

As for moving into contact - the concep is very simple - we don't want players using geometry to prevent contact GOOD.

As far as I see it though, the change will mean players using geometry to get into advantageous contact stripping single elements out of a line, too easily getting into front edge to side edge contact, striking the weak link in a line so that it is fought without the advantage of other elements in its own line.

I may be overreacting but it remains to be seen.

As for element types - I have been trying to re-work my Element Rating System for DBA3 so that I can continue to give out the Magister Militum prizes at my tournaments. I have looked at the odds of each element type destroying each other element type and at that level with various different results for Bw vs Lb/Cb and the combat value addition for DBEs I had to count 23 element types becuase there are differences in the odds of ultimately winning across all these and they interlock so they all had to go into the matrix. This doesn't include the fast/solid interaction which can be looked at seperately.

Cheers

lkmjbc
06-28-2012, 06:47 PM
[QUOTE=Macbeth;149178]Tom

How is moving by Base Widths MORE convenient???

You often don't even have to pick up any measuring stick at all. It really is more convenient.

I've played a ton of 3.0 games.

Going back to a ruler is difficult.

Joe Collins

peleset
06-28-2012, 11:07 PM
Going back to a ruler is difficult.

Joe Collins

:rotfl
A slight exaggeration I would think.

So, is this thing nearing a final stable state, or is there still more to come to delight our senses?

david kuijt
06-28-2012, 11:21 PM
So, is this thing nearing a final stable state, or is there still more to come to delight our senses?

You're kidding, right?

The publication date of 3.0 is like talking about Mt Vesuvius blowing up. Sure, eventually it will happen. But there is no way to know when. Phil claimed to be "nearly done" in November 2010. And again in March 2011. It's 15 months after that, and he's still percolating new ideas; the June revision includes some major changes that are largely untested. This whole "fast/solid" set of new element types is less than two months old, IIRC.

lkmjbc
06-29-2012, 12:11 AM
You're kidding, right?

The publication date of 3.0 is like talking about Mt Vesuvius blowing up. Sure, eventually it will happen. But there is no way to know when. Phil claimed to be "nearly done" in November 2010. And again in March 2011. It's 15 months after that, and he's still percolating new ideas; the June revision includes some major changes that are largely untested. This whole "fast/solid" set of new element types is less than two months old, IIRC.

David:
You are both wrong and right. We are close to a stable version with regards to major changes. Minor changes and play testing will take some time. Being flogged as we speak are extra movement to line up, hordes, and terrain.

Once these are sorted, the refining process can begin. I would say thzt the rules are entering a true "beta" stage.

As to when, we do certainly know... that it won't be this month or next as he isn't finished with the army lists!

All kidding aside I would guess early winter on publishing. There a lot of testing to do. Phil of course could publish on a whim, but he seems really interested and focussed on playing.

So, early winter is my guess.

Joe Collins

Macbeth
06-29-2012, 12:30 AM
You often don't even have to pick up any measuring stick at all. It really is more convenient.


There are plenty of time where I don't need to pick up any measuring implement at the moment :D - we are all pretty good at judging the short distances for our faster moving troops.

But DBA is a game of milimeters - you want to be able to contact when it is to your advantage and defer contact when it is not.

In situations where an element of 6Kn is far away from your exposed Wb I am betting you will have the ruler or cardstock out to make sure that they cannot touch and then slide into contact before you can get the poor boys into the bad going :D

Likewise at the critical stage when a wide flanking move is making for your camp you will be making sure that it is within command range and 8BW is a long way to guestimate.

Keep up the good work with your playing of tons of games - I would like to be playing more games than I am :up - too bad the commute is so far

Cheers

david kuijt
06-29-2012, 08:20 AM
David:
You are both wrong and right. We are close to a stable version with regards to major changes.

You can't be close to a stable version with regards to major changes until Phil stops making major changes.

Phil hasn't done that yet. He will, sooner or later, but until he does, saying 3.0 is close to a stable version is just blowing hot air.

Martyn
06-29-2012, 08:52 AM
Until Phil stops adding new ideas we are never going to see a final version.

Each update is released complete with raft of new ideas and yet the problems with the existing are still untouched. For example, the moving into contact section is still a nightmare to understand even though it has been a bone of contention since the first public release back in December. :mad

David Schlanger
06-29-2012, 09:40 AM
So, early winter is my guess.

Joe Collins


Adding new meaning to... "Winter is Coming"


DS

David Schlanger
06-29-2012, 09:47 AM
For example, the moving into contact section is still a nightmare to understand even though it has been a bone of contention since the first public release back in December. :mad


It was the pink elephant in the room back in the early stages of development, back when it had just the placeholder (troops that would fight in the real world, do fight)

DS

Ammianus
06-29-2012, 11:08 AM
Hmm, ok, you're not really selling me on this product.

lkmjbc
06-29-2012, 12:16 PM
Hmm, ok, you're not really selling me on this product.

In this last post I am not trying to sell this product. There is nothing as yet to purchase.

I'm just trying to give information as to the current state of the rules.

I am trying to sell the idea of folks running some play test games and reporting their experiences. If they have problems, then what were the solutions? I think that these would be helpful for the development team.

They certainly would be helpful for me.

Some more information...
Current extra movement on contact to line up has really split into two camps.

The first believes that we don't need any (with the possible exception of a 1/2 bw slide on mutual frontal contact). If you can't line up... then you have to stop short.

The second believes that if you make frontal contact (not corner contact), that you should line up.

Both sides support the idea of a bounding player's group hitting an enemy element forces it to line up (with some exceptions)... much like HOTT.

Half measures have proven difficult. Allowing 1/2 BW on any contact produces some weird issues. A full BW extra move produces less, but allows some weird things especially in flank contacts. These issues can be worked out, but require a generous amount of extra rules.

So, that is where we are.


Joe Collins

El' Jocko
06-29-2012, 02:21 PM
Half measures have proven difficult. Allowing 1/2 BW on any contact produces some weird issues. A full BW extra move produces less, but allows some weird things especially in flank contacts. These issues can be worked out, but require a generous amount of extra rules.

That's the real heart of the matter. I'm 100% in favor of Phil's end goal. As he puts it, "troops that would contact in real life should do so in the game."

But, as usual, the devil is in the details. I don't know of any way of achieving this without the contact rules being extremely complex. And even with the added complexity, it's going to be a challenge to make it such that a devious bastard (you know who I mean :silly) can't exploit the rules to gain an unintended advantage.

My sense is that it's going to be necessary to rethink the entire "moving to contact" mechanism if Phil wants to achieve his end goal. Throw out the existing contact rules altogether and start from scratch. And even then, you have the challenge of inventing a new mechanism that does what we want it to. Not an easy nut to crack.

- Jack

lkmjbc
06-29-2012, 05:56 PM
That's the real heart of the matter. I'm 100% in favor of Phil's end goal. As he puts it, "troops that would contact in real life should do so in the game."

But, as usual, the devil is in the details. I don't know of any way of achieving this without the contact rules being extremely complex. And even with the added complexity, it's going to be a challenge to make it such that a devious bastard (you know who I mean :silly) can't exploit the rules to gain an unintended advantage.

My sense is that it's going to be necessary to rethink the entire "moving to contact" mechanism if Phil wants to achieve his end goal. Throw out the existing contact rules altogether and start from scratch. And even then, you have the challenge of inventing a new mechanism that does what we want it to. Not an easy nut to crack.

- Jack

Jack + Target = Bullseye!

Joe Collins

Ammianus
06-29-2012, 07:21 PM
Hi Joe,
earlier I was actually referring to comments by TomT and Bob&Dog; which I perceive as a widening gyre of complexity that seems to be sweeping 3.0.
The continuous changes are a bit overwhelming to me--I'm sure others will find them no problem and will be happy playing 3.0.
Some will drive Fords, others, Chevy's. To each, his own.

I'm also certain that all the good work won't go to naught as wargamers continue to perform historical experiments with ancient armies.

Thomas J. Thomas
07-02-2012, 12:35 PM
Tom

How is moving by Base Widths MORE convenient???

-Because you can often just slide behind a line using elements as your "ruler". As another example you can move a "heavy foot" stand from behind your line one BW over and than line up by moving forward without measuring (in 2.2 this move can be illegal).
If one Measurement Unit on a commercially available ruler (lets call them Inches) equates to one Movement Unit in a set of wargames rules (lets call them 100 paces) this is convenient.

-We use metric rulers and mark off 60mm "segements". A typical ruler (12") will hold 5 Segements (Art range) and is therefore very convient. You can also use it to help Wheel - put it out where you want the Wheel to end and each element ends up in a 60mm BW slot. This seems at least as easy as messing with the old 40mm segements.

In early drafts of DBA 3 there was a lot of interchange between paces and base widths - my specific problem was with the command range of LH when given in paces required you to do the math in your head. This requirement to always calculate the distance on a ruler in mm or cm is not a big issue but it is a MINOR inconvenience.

-At my urging we have gotten rid of most Pace arithmatic.

Part of the problem is gone now that all distances in DBA3.0 are given in BW - there is only one mention of paces and that is in the introduction where a BW is given its equivalent in paces. To me that is also sad as from that moment on there is a disconnect between the the rules and reality - it was something I have always liked about Phils ancient rules prior to this that the movement unit was given in something that equated to troops in battle not distance measured on a table. A very small issue and again a minor inconvenience.

-Sorry I hated pace arithmatic and have found it a big turnoff to new gamers. Did add a bit of color.
If something is in some way a minor inconvenience it is not more convenient. Two years from now there will be plenty of commercially available purpose built measuring sticks for DBA - at which point the minor inconvenience will go away but that time is not here yet.

I agree with most of your comments with the exception of allies - you have used that disingenious arguement that if you don't like a particular concept you can choose not to use it - that is only the case if your opponent also chooses not to use it. If I don't wish to use allies but my opponent does then it becomes something I have to be aware of to make sure that they are used correctly against me. :D

-What I meant is that no player has to assemble an Allied list or figure out who and what elements can be allies. If your opponent wants to figure it out (and its not that tough - though could be improved), let 'em. If you feel they consistently cheat...well get a new opponent (it does help to remeber the allies can't group move with others rule as a gentle reminder is sometimes called for).

There is also a difference between teaching the concepts of a game at a demo where you are also the final arbiter of all things to the first big DBA3 tournament where all the players who have read the rules turn up with their own understanding of what a concept means. That is an issue that we will all have to deal with at some time and will be the true test of how complex the rules are.

-Yes but we are trying very hard to minimise this problem (which even after years of 2.2 playing, umps still get questions...)



As for moving into contact - the concep is very simple - we don't want players using geometry to prevent contact GOOD.

As far as I see it though, the change will mean players using geometry to get into advantageous contact stripping single elements out of a line, too easily getting into front edge to side edge contact, striking the weak link in a line so that it is fought without the advantage of other elements in its own line.

I may be overreacting but it remains to be seen.

-We are working hard on contact rules and appreciate any suggestions. Contact has presented problems since the earliest days of DBX. I can only promise an improved rule not a perfect one.

As for element types - I have been trying to re-work my Element Rating System for DBA3 so that I can continue to give out the Magister Militum prizes at my tournaments. I have looked at the odds of each element type destroying each other element type and at that level with various different results for Bw vs Lb/Cb and the combat value addition for DBEs I had to count 23 element types becuase there are differences in the odds of ultimately winning across all these and they interlock so they all had to go into the matrix. This doesn't include the fast/solid interaction which can be looked at seperately.

- I think its a good thing that with a few simple rules we have greatly increased the varitey of results that can be obtained. All interactions being reduced to mathmatical certainty leads to chess like play. Phil's stated intent is to reward bold generals over cautious rules lawyers. In the last 2.2 tournament I played many players had little cards which precisly stated the odds of a certain interaction and they made all moves "according to the odds". Making these percise mathmatical calcultions a bit more difficult would not be a bad thing - if done with simple rules. One of the assumptions of Fast/Normal (solid has no real meaning), was that both types have "equal value" but just require a different styple of play.

Cheers

As always suggestions appreciated and playtests games really appreciated (which have the added advantage of being lots of fun I just did 7 over the weekend.)

TomT

dicemanrick
07-03-2012, 11:56 AM
Tom,

Even though the more 3.0 "evolves" to be a non-DBA game (personal view only...your mileage may vary) I appreciate the work the testers are performing. I think it's now so radically different that the game has to be seen as perhaps comparing DBM to DBMM ....it's really not DBA anymore for me (DBAM perhaps??).

(As a side note, I participated in testing 3.0 for some months with Bob's group, so I know what the testers are involved with).

The final published version may, of course, be even more evolved!

As to two lines of elements hitting at an angle, my solution is simple...allow combat for the contacting elements (even at a corner of an element) and fight combat with no modifications for side support....no "conforming" needed. This type of combat is only allowed for groups contacting other groups or single elements.

I don't understand the fixation for requiring only edge to edge combat.



As always suggestions appreciated and playtests games really appreciated (which have the added advantage of being lots of fun I just did 7 over the weekend.)

TomT

Lobotomy
07-03-2012, 08:18 PM
Tom,

As to two lines of elements hitting at an angle, my solution is simple...allow combat for the contacting elements (even at a corner of an element) and fight combat with no modifications for side support....no "conforming" needed. This type of combat is only allowed for groups contacting other groups or single elements.

I don't understand the fixation for requiring only edge to edge combat.

Heretic!! Burn him, I say!!! :silly

Redwilde
07-03-2012, 08:27 PM
I don't understand the fixation for requiring only edge to edge combat.

Umm, because the author wants a game that's based on millimeter precise geometry? :rotfl

broadsword
07-03-2012, 09:48 PM
If it weren't for conforming, and all that minute millimeter measuring (X-treme Geometry!!!) we wouldn't have this to enjoy, ... on SO MANY levels....:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

So topical,...

"I am the man who arranges the blocks..."

Dangun
07-03-2012, 11:02 PM
As to two lines of elements hitting at an angle, my solution is simple...allow combat for the contacting elements (even at a corner of an element) and fight combat with no modifications for side support....no "conforming" needed.

If you want to go down that path, you don't need to eliminate side support.

Following your example of two lines contacting at an angle, presumably one element would get two flank supports, the other element only one. And that might seem reasonable since the contacted element on the end of the line has been kind-of flanked.

Bardolph
07-04-2012, 12:41 AM
Tom,



As to two lines of elements hitting at an angle, my solution is simple...allow combat for the contacting elements (even at a corner of an element) and fight combat with no modifications for side support....no "conforming" needed. This type of combat is only allowed for groups contacting other groups or single elements.

I don't understand the fixation for requiring only edge to edge combat.


Oh, like Impetus?

:D

Thomas J. Thomas
07-10-2012, 06:50 PM
Phil's trying to get rid of the mm geomtry by just having the two colliding rectangles conform (basically for free).

It has some pluses and minuses which we are trying to balance - but give Phil credit he's trying to solve the age old DBX problem of intricate positioning to prevent contact.

TomT

broadsword
07-13-2012, 05:36 PM
Tough to do in a free-form movement system with TZ and conforming..