|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 24, 2018 7:31:28 GMT
 Many people over the years have noticed certain errors and anomalies with the army lists. These have been caused by the adding of new sub-lists, the occasional date changes, and armies swapping their title numbers over the years. So here is a player created unofficial guide for correcting and fixing all these inconsistencies. Remember that we are not questioning Phil Barker’s undoubtedly immense knowledge and judgement when it comes to matters of ancient history...but we are questioning the judgement of the person whose job it was to proofread the Army Lists prior to publication. And it can be found here:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:Army_List_Corrections_for_DBA_3.0.pdfSome potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections”:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
…as well as the latest FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 24, 2018 16:30:39 GMT
Outstanding work!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 24, 2018 17:46:07 GMT
A minor quibble, Stevie. As you can see by the thread that gave rise to this list of corrections, proofreading the armies and enemies/allies list was a daunting task.
If the proofreaders were doing this as a labour of love (one can only surmise that as a niche within a niche within a niche, DBA has a shortage of affordable editorial staff) then may I request we just bear that in mind. They were working under the triple constraints of Phil's health, a ridiculous budget, and the screams of the DBA gamers to get this thing out the door already!
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jan 25, 2018 0:38:16 GMT
If the proofreaders were doing this as a labour of love (one can only surmise that as a niche within a niche within a niche, DBA has a shortage of affordable editorial staff) then may I request we just bear that in mind. They were working under the triple constraints of Phil's health, a ridiculous budget, and the screams of the DBA gamers to get this thing out the door already! Well said. I was one of many who clearly failed. I recall spending many hours reviewing Phil’s drafts and documenting the very small part of the classical period that I have a reasonable knowledge of. Goodness only knows how Phil could have absorbed all the corrections from so many reviewers into one document. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 25, 2018 14:41:45 GMT
I do understand what you are saying primuspilus and twrnz. Yes, it certainly was a daunting task to go through the entire army lists and check every single army, date, and ally looking for inconsistencies. Nobody realised just how many there actually were. And some of these anomalies go back 15 years or more, to DBA 2 or before. The truth is the army lists, like an attic, basement, or garage, has accumulated a lot of junk over the years. What was needed was a good spring clean to get rid of all the old cobwebs and rubbish from the old DBA 2 lists. If this had been the case, then adding the new entries for DBA 3 to DBA 2 would have shown up the errors more easily. But this was never done. However, you’re both right. Instead of pointing the finger of blame at Phil Barker or his small staff, we should really be blaming the real culprits... … ourselves. DBA 2.2 has been around for well over a decade, and we players had more than enough time to check and correct things. Instead players just moaned about the army list errors yet continued to blindly follow them. Some people like twrnz and Macbeth tried, but their recommendations were not accepted in the final DBA 3 draft. Now I strongly believe that if something is wrong with DBA (in this case the army lists), then it should be fixed. And if Mr Barker and his small staff do not have the time to do so, then we players should do it for ourselves. This benefits the rules author who is getting free labour, it benefits other players, and it benefits ourselves as well. After all, we all want DBA 3.0 to be as best as it can be. I see myself, Timurilank, and the others that contributed as little elves helping Santa to finish off one of his presents.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jan 25, 2018 17:21:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 25, 2018 18:24:22 GMT
Fantastic effort on this! It must have seemed never ending when it was starting.  You could say so.  |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jan 25, 2018 18:44:04 GMT
Sorry Stevie, but that wasn’t what I was trying to say.
I feel my list feedback was considered and I feel was taken on board, despite only having a limited knowledge of some periods covered by the rules. Did it all get included, probably not. The scale of the task was immense. Many of us were going through pages of information and sending it in. Then some how Phil had to take all this feedback and and try and update it. Then the cycle was repeated...
I have only admiration for Phil over this process and the many enhancements to the rules and lists. I am very pleased I was able to be involved. However, trying to check all the information in the lists was a considerable task.
Those editing in my view did a good job. Did we miss things, unfortuntely some items yes. Your comments in the document still seem harsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 26, 2018 13:14:33 GMT
I think all I am trying to say is this: DBA is an exercise in continuous self-improvement wherever possible - by definition, since no rules set is ever perfect.
I am saying I truly appreciate all the efforts that have been put in by all those who contributed, no matter the state of nirvana or not they were forced to leave the rules in by the intervention of things like work amd family.
The army list corrections do not scream "unfinished" to me. Rather they represent the best that was achieved, with the constraints in place at them time. And then when there was more time, and certain constraints lifted, this fantastic update was achieved.
We still don't have a self-contained campaign system yet, for instance, so that may be the next item on our list. I am working on something on this front that I'd like to get the fanatici's views on when it is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 26, 2018 15:40:56 GMT
Perhaps on reflection I should have said: “…but we are questioning the judgement of releasing the army lists before they could be fully proofread.” I do apologise if my poor choice of words has offended anybody. I only put that bit in because I didn’t want anyone to think that we are questioning Phil Barker’s creation of the army lists, or give the impression that we know better than he. The “Army List Corrections” file is nothing more than us helping him tidying-up a part of the ruleset that needed a bit of extra work…extra work that he didn’t have time for. Think of it as a sort of unofficial FAQ for the army lists. Because we players can do a lot to help Mr Barker you know. For example:- DBA 3 doesn’t contain a quick reference sheet…so many players have gone and created one. DBA 3 doesn’t contain a campaign system…so some players have (and in primuspilus case are) creating one. DBA 3 has a rules index…but I think it could have been more detailed, so I created one. I know that if I was Phil Barker and I kept receiving requests and demands like these I would say “can’t you do it for yourselves?”. There are a lot of DBA players out there, and Phil Barker can’t do everything. The more of us that chip in and help out the better DBA will become. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 26, 2018 16:53:40 GMT
Stevie, no need for apologies, mate. I don't think anyone took offence (well, at least I didn't anyway). I am in 100% agreement with you. The DBA community has always been very strong, and very pro-active in helping to get things done that were either needed, or quite frankly were just a heck of a lot of fun!
I want to say "Bravo" to all who have been putting the rubber to the road, and to those who haven't, don't worry, when/if you find time to pitch in, or if you have an idea you would love to get feedback on, don't be shy!
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Jan 27, 2018 11:20:35 GMT
Thanks for the good work!
|
|
|
|
Post by jdesmond on Jan 27, 2018 17:14:55 GMT
Adding my thanks to Stevie and all her helpers in this Herculean cleaning of the 'army list stables'!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 27, 2018 20:27:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jan 27, 2018 22:38:41 GMT
Your secret's out, Stevie....... |
|
