Consensus on Good Things in 2.2+

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

Standard Recoil Depth: Although this was mentioned as a 2.2+ change in a number of posts, it seems to appear nowhere in the Beta rules draft. Has this change been dropped or was it never formally adopted in the first place?

It was never 2.2+, Kevin. A couple of people have talked about it on this forum, but it has never developed into a movement, and as many people spoke up against it as for it. It has never been part of any version of 2.2+.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by mdsanderson

since it sends the 2.2+ crowd into a rage when you don't agree with them

Chris Brantley, in particular, is widely known as the Ticking Timebomb of Fury.

[Redwilde]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

Chris Brantley, in particular, is widely known as the Ticking Timebomb of Fury.

A veritable incarnation of Dr. Bruce Banner.

[Richard Lee]

I can't think of any change from 2.2 to 2.2+ that I disapprove of. I was initially cautious of was the new movement rates, but they seem to work well in play, I like them now.

Personally I would have preferred standard recoil depths to have been introduced into 2.2+, but I am aware that a lot of people hold the opposite opinion. This is not a big problem for me.

[MarkBB]

Many of my favourite armies are desert types. I really like the proposed Cataphract changes. They fought in a fundamentally different way to say, medieval knights and the proposed rules reflect this. Well done.

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by mdsanderson

I disagree with a number of the changes but since it sends the 2.2+ crowd into a rage when you don't agree with them what is the point of offering counter arguments.

Mike Sanderson

I myself have and continue to disagree with several of the major changes made in 2.2+, but also find much to like. Since most threads necessarily deal with matters of dispute, I thought it would be helpful to have one that addresses what we like. These are ultimately my likes only, though the vast majority of them have not become a subject of dispute on this forum.

[kontos]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

I myself have and continue to disagree with several of the major changes made in 2.2+, but also find much to like. Since most threads necessarily deal with matters of dispute, I thought it would be helpful to have one that addresses what we like. These are my likes only.

Thanks for adding balance to the discussion. Constant negativity loses sight of the positive changes put forth in 2.2+. Add to that - personal preferences - and nothing will be universally accepted. That leaves us "choice". Play it, or not.

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by mdsanderson

... You can call they negative or whatever you like but arguing with either the DBA 2.2+ authors or Phil will get you nowhere.

I can't speak for Phil, but the 2.2+ GM group is open to constructive comments. You joined the 2.2+ GM group months ago and saw the lively discussion on the forum, and it continues on in the Post-Beta forum. Did you really expect a group dedicated to developing an incremental improvement (change) to DBA 2.2 to pack it all in when Mike Sanderson joined and said that he didn't like any of the changes at all?

This is a Beta process. Consensus has already been reached by the 30+ GMs in the group, so a lone opinion is unlikely to alter anything. Opinions, we have plenty. We are primarily looking for play test results indicating broken rules that need to be fixed.

Of secondary importance, but worth considering, is making sure that the rules do not trample historical abilities too much. We can endlessly debate the fighting styles, armour, morale, etc. of Norman "knights" vs. Breton "cavalry", but the best we can achieve is an approximation given the 4,500 years of history to be covered with a handful of troop types. We think that camel troop were not modeled correctly in DBA 2.2, so we addressed that. Elephants too.

If I were King of the Rules, DBA 2.2+ would look slightly different. Everyone has compromised and had to pick their fights. I would be surprised if anyone was is in 100% agreement with all of the changes. That is to be expected, and not feared.

[kontos]

Speaking of playtests, and I apologize for not having the rules in front of me, what is the minimum distance for a break off move. 2.2 stated 200 paces. Is this now expressed in MUs for 2.2+? I don't remember seeing that spelled out but it may have been. Thanks up front!

[Redwilde]

Frank, break off move is at least 3 Moos.