Question About DBA 3.0

[kontos]

Originally Posted by David Constable

Hello DK.

The problem with bases is that I was going to do armies with WWg, 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn next, now do I build them with temporary bases, and find I might have painted too many figures, hold painting anything, or what.

In fact for the rest of this year I am trying to hold off doing any painting, or buying (not successfully).

David Constable

I know the question was not directed at me but many of us are using the time to paint other periods until the DBA dust settles. None of the listed elements are in DBA-RRR so that's where I am putting my brush efforts.

[ferrency]

Originally Posted by David Constable

The problem with bases is that I was going to do armies with WWg, 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn next, now do I build them with temporary bases, and find I might have painted too many figures, hold painting anything, or what.

In fact for the rest of this year I am trying to hold off doing any painting, or buying (not successfully).

The DBA3 basing only matters if someone ends up playing the rules. Therefore, making the rules playable is the most important goal.

Even then, I'm sure you'll find most events allowing 2.2 armies for quite some time.

Personally I'm not worrying about it.

Alan

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by David Constable

Hello DK.

The problem with bases is that I was going to do armies with WWg, 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn next, now do I build them with temporary bases, and find I might have painted too many figures, hold painting anything, or what.

In fact for the rest of this year I am trying to hold off doing any painting, or buying (not successfully).

David Constable

I understand completely.

I was just stepping in to avoid any misunderstanding -- you responded to the original question saying that "the big unknown is bases."

Basing is an unresolved issue, but in general terms we know what's going to happen -- some armies will change a lot, some will stay the same, most will have only a very few changes. Most of our current bases will be fine, and some people will be very upset at particular changes that hit them where they live.

But I would never say the big unknown is basing. Because the big unknown is really whether 3.0 is going to suck or not. And none of the basing discussion, no decision on any issue mentioned with basing, would break the game. That makes it, in my mind, a minor issue. If a broken rule gets put in place for ZOC, or movement, or command control, or any of a dozen other things -- that could make 3.0 suck. If several of them get in place, 3.0 will suck.

Whether or not 4Wb are based on 20mm bases or on 15mm bases may piss off people who have a lot of 4Wb, but it won't make 3.0 suck.

[Tony Aguilar]

Originally Posted by kontos

I know the question was not directed at me but many of us are using the time to paint other periods until the DBA dust settles. None of the listed elements are in DBA-RRR so that's where I am putting my brush efforts.

There are several armies with WWg in DBA-RRR.
Whether or not they are ones in your painting queue is a different matter.

[kontos]

Originally Posted by Tony Aguilar

There are several armies with WWg in DBA-RRR.
Whether or not they are ones in your painting queue is a different matter.

I guess that was an indifference to me as I mount my WWg on 2 40mm square bases so either basing works for me.

[Tony Aguilar]

Originally Posted by kontos

I guess that was an indifference to me as I mount my WWg on 2 40mm square bases so either basing works for me.

This might be the wisest thing you have ever done, Frank.

[David Constable]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

I understand completely.

I was just stepping in to avoid any misunderstanding -- you responded to the original question saying that "the big unknown is bases."

Basing is an unresolved issue, but in general terms we know what's going to happen -- some armies will change a lot, some will stay the same, most will have only a very few changes. Most of our current bases will be fine, and some people will be very upset at particular changes that hit them where they live.

PART CUT

Never took it any other way.

But basing to me is more important than combat factors. I might not like parts of the new rules, but if in general they are OK, then I can live with them.

But do I build armies for 2.2 or wait, that to me, and I suspect a lot of people is more important at the moment.

At Wolverhampton (UK) this month three figure manufacturers had noticed a drop of in DBA armies sold, while generally sales had gone up.

David Constable

[Redwilde]

Originally Posted by David Constable

But do I build armies for 2.2 or wait, that to me, and I suspect a lot of people is more important at the moment.

For me, that's a temporary concern, and not a big one. For new armies, I'm trimming figures, organising them by 2.2 lists and sorting them into baggies with my painting notes. I'll begin painting them once this issue is sorted out. The new armies are a handful of Hundred Years War ones, and I have a fair amount of excess figures on hand anyway since I was buying from different sources to get a wide variety of poses and visual distinctions between the armies.

I suspect I'll have enough excess figures on hand to make adjustments for any changes in the lists. If not, I'll just have to get some more figures, and that will probably lead to adding another army while I'm at it to maximise the shipping cost benefit -- oh the horror

So, the upcoming changes didn't slow down my acquisitions.

For actual painting, I'm working on armies that are already in various stages of completion. And I've got plenty of those. So this isn't slowing down my actual painting time either.

[pozanias]

Originally Posted by David Constable

Never took it any other way.

But basing to me is more important than combat factors. I might not like parts of the new rules, but if in general they are OK, then I can live with them.

But do I build armies for 2.2 or wait, that to me, and I suspect a lot of people is more important at the moment.

At Wolverhampton (UK) this month three figure manufacturers had noticed a drop of in DBA armies sold, while generally sales had gone up.

David Constable

Really? Of course everyone has different opinions and different reasons for playing -- but why would you even want to play a game that is broken? Basing seems irrelevent at that point. I would take a great game with bad basing, over a bad game with great basing every day of the week (and twice on Sundays).

Also, I think its way easier to "fix" basing (if necessary) as a community with generally accepted house rules than it is to fix things like movement and combat.

I should add that what I consider "broken" you may consider "parts you don't like but can live with". So we may just be worlds apart in what we are looking for out of DBA.

[BigMadAl]

Originally Posted by Redwilde

For actual painting, I'm working on armies that are already in various stages of completion. And I've got plenty of those. So this isn't slowing down my actual painting time either.

I'm in that same boat.