|
Post by Simon on Jun 13, 2017 14:42:57 GMT
There's no such thing as bad publicity' Phineas T. Barnum. Simon Not sure Gerald Ratner would agree with that! Agree - and there is considerable doubt that Barnum said it in the first place!!
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 13, 2017 6:58:06 GMT
'Doing a Colin' - Not quite the DBA reputation I was hoping for, but I suppose it's good to have a talent of some sort.😂 Colin There's no such thing as bad publicity' Phineas T. Barnum. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 12, 2017 21:55:09 GMT
I have added some photos to the Yahoo group album. if you click on the photos to enlarge and then slide the cursor over you will get the captions. Must get a decent camera!!!
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 12, 2017 17:32:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 11, 2017 14:58:08 GMT
Here is a compete list of players and their armies.
Pete Duckworth III/54b Qaramita Neil Mason I/51 Neo Sargonid
Mark Skelton IV/38 Granadines
Phil Johnson II/75a Palmyran
Scott Russell II/3b Classical Indian
Kim Dent-Brown II/14 Ariarathid Kappadokian
Will Whyler II/26 Sarmatian
Patrick Myers II/36a Graeco-Bactrian
Tamarra Fordham IV/46 Feudal French
Graham Fordham IV/18 Lithuaniane is the full list of armies and results. Robert Rush II/22 Arabo Aramaean Aranud Marmier II/42b Tamil Nick Wright-Carter II/49 Marian Roman David Dodd II/5c Theban Greek Rosie Dent-Brown II/15 Alexandrian Imperial Martin Myers II/61b Xianbei Peter Manning II/19 Seleucid Mark Johnson II/3b Classical Indian Phil Steele II/23a Later Pre-Islamic Arab Tom Connelly II/5e Aitolians Richard Pulley III/54b Qaramita Frank Shaw II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian Patrick Dale 11/4d Warring States John Saunders III/7b Pre-samurai Ritsuryo
I will also create an album on the Yahoo site so that people can add their photos.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 10, 2017 16:46:41 GMT
A great turnout today. There were 24 participants from a broad age range and it was especially good to welcome some new faces and two ladies to the competition.
I will publish full details of armies represented and rankings in the near future.
In the meantime, congratulations to Pete Duckworth who came top after an unbroken series of victories with his II/54b Qaramita army.
In the top ten were:
2 Neil Mason I/51 Neo Sargonid 3 Mark Skelton IV/38 Granadines 4 Phil Johnson II/75a Palmyran 5 Scott Russell II/36 Classical Indian 6 Kim Dent-Brown II/14 Ariarathid Kappadokian 7 Will Whyler II/26 Sarmatian 8 Patrick Myers II/36a Graeco-Bactrian 9= Tamarra Fordham IV/46 Feudal French 9= Graham Fordham IV/18 Lithuanian
Regards,
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 8, 2017 8:16:36 GMT
What would be the criteria for agreeing that these proposals are an improvement? Regards Simon Err... your opinion. I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't think any objective criteria are possible. I am looking for feedback on these proposals... as they may be part of my input for DBA 3.1... Or did I miss your point? Joe Collins Thanks Joe. I guess I was just thinking about what we were hoping to achieve in launching a new version and what the problem is we are trying to fix. Then this needs to be weighed against potential downsides of launching into a new version. These downsides could , for example, include distraction or even splitting of the DBA community, getting used to a new set of rules, rebuilding armies and diverting wargame funds into a new set of rules. So, before getting into what 3.1 might look like, should we think about whether a 3.1 is wanted and worth the effort? 1. What are we hoping to achieve?
2. Could that be achieved in ways other than having a 3.1?
3. Overall, do the pros outweigh the cons?
Regards,
Simon.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 7, 2017 20:29:26 GMT
What would be the criteria for agreeing that these proposals are an improvement?
Regards
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 4, 2017 20:08:13 GMT
I read it that if any part of the unit is within (inside) the threat zone then its actions are limited as described (eg if it just the rear half of a element) but the only time touching the far edge makes an element subject to the threat zone restrictions is if it is with the front edge of the unit. So if just the side or rear edge is contacting the far edge then it is not considered in the threat zone.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 2, 2017 13:24:19 GMT
I think the answer is in the definition of a threat zone in the second sentence of Threat Zone paragraph on page 9 where it refers to touching the far edge. I read into this that if your front edge is touching the far edge of a threat zone, you are in it whereas you are not if you are only touching one of the side edges of the zone. Note that it is your front edge that needs to touch the far edge of the threat zone to be considered in it.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 26, 2017 9:09:24 GMT
I have just taken delivery of a couple of Donnington DBA armies. As they will be prizes for the Midlands Open on 10 June in Bakewell, I won't reveal what they are yet!
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 20, 2017 13:31:42 GMT
Any forum members planning to be there?
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 19, 2017 17:42:24 GMT
Tin Soldier might be worth a look?
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 17, 2017 19:21:11 GMT
I think it is the meadows just west of Wastwater.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 17, 2017 18:04:39 GMT
Here you go!
|
|