|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 7, 2022 15:08:30 GMT
Wonderful! Great! What a big help! Super, stevie! |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 10, 2022 10:39:05 GMT
Hi Stevie, somehow I've got a problem with this. The indicated pages do not correspond with my purple book. How can this be? I'm at a loss. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 10, 2022 11:21:09 GMT
Ah…do you have the hard-back edition of DBA 3.0 (like me),
or the soft-back edition?
Or have I got some of the page numbers wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 10, 2022 14:49:49 GMT
My edition is a paperback (2014, printed in Germany by Amazon Distr., Leipzig). Title is page 1, contents on p. 2, introduction p. 3, design philosophy p. 4, troop definitions p. 5, etc. Diagrams start on p. 17, army lists on p. 33, army lists section on p. 34. So the paging of these versions or even its layout of the same rule set DBA 3.0 s not identical? What a mess! Das ist ja zum verzweifeln.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 10, 2022 15:50:37 GMT
For what it’s worth Brian, here are the hardback page numbers:- Page 0 = Contents Page 1 = Introduction Page 2 = Design Philosophy + Playing Equipment Page 3 = Troop Definitions Page 5 = Basing Your Figures Page 6 = Battlefield Terrain Page 7 = BUA’s + Camps Page 8 = Fighting The Battle (deployment/sequence/PIP’s) + Tactical Moves Page 9 = Tactical Distances (subsequent moves/rivers/interpenetration) + TZ’s + Contact Page 10 = Turning To Face + Shooting + Combat Page 11 = Support & Tactical Factors + Combat Outcomes Page 12 = Destroyed + Recoiling + Fleeing + Pursuing + Victory Page 13 = Big Battle DBA Page 14 = wouldn’t it be nice to have campaign rules, but I’m not going to give you anyPage 15 = the start of the diagrams Page 30 = the last of the diagrams Page 31 = Information about how to read the army lists Pages 32 to 133 = the Army Lists themselves Page 135 onwards = various indexes (You know what I would do?…I’d change your page numbers to fit the above  )
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 10, 2022 20:07:25 GMT
Yes, that is easy, but I'll use the second way: I only have to add 2 to your page numbers. Now I can use your valuable index. Stevie, you should be awarded the DBA Victory Cross with purple ribbon.  |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 14, 2022 17:28:46 GMT
I rarely get bothered by anything these days as I have an excessively optimistic attitude esp. about DBX related stuff. But I have just read to posts which stunned me beyond reason. Apparently "Martin" and "Whitefield" want me to quick posting re DBX and how to improve current presentation I have never met or heard of either of them though I know lots of DB players from years of running tournaments and corresponding. I have just spent two years of gaming time prior to 3.0s introduction working with Phil on almost a daily bases on the rules and playtesting endless concepts (many that didn't make it into the final rules) and wearing out two groups of playtesters trying to get the best version of 3.0 into the community's hands. It consumed my gaming time and most of my vacations to go and introduce 3.0 at conventions for that period. While this process gave us great rules presentation remains an isssue. "Martin" does not seem to understand the difference between a "concept" and presentation. Giving a concept a name isn't my "concept" but just giving it a handle so we find it in a rulebook. (Some of the concepts were mine as part of the design process but most were Phil's). Why should the community consider using a common language - because to be useful a common language needs to be common and descriptive. Most of these names for Phil's concepts (not mine) came from teaching playtesters the new concepts. They took some work and though to come up with but proved tremendously helpful so I offer them as a solution to the presentation problem discussed above.
I'm about solutions and advancing the art of DBA but apparently some are not and take it upon themselves to attack those how are and have (and intended to continue) busting butt to improve the system. I have also tried to answer as many rule questions that come up as possible based on having corresponded with Phil and helped write some sections of 3.0 - sometimes this insider knowledge helps and sometimes I'm just as baffled as everyone else (which I at least try to admit...)
Were Phil still able of course I would be presenting him with new ways to advance DBX - I had intended to get him interested in an entirely new way to classify troops as Big Battle expansion. But Phil is not in a position to do that kind of development anymore - miss greatly our exchange of ideas. All of what I post here would have just been the same type of stuff I sent to Phil about improving this or that aspect of the game. These exchanges back in the DBMM days help spur the creation of 3.0.
I've posted on Fanaticus for years and enjoyed the lively exchanges but now I'm told by "Martin" and his echo "Whitefield" that I'm to "desist". Well as to dealing with the "Martin" and "Whitefields" of the world I'm done. When any organization is faced with a challenge there are generally two responses - the search for solutions or burn the heretics who propose solutions. The former is a sign of health the latter of ultimate decay.
So I guess I'll join the ranks of burn outs. It wasn't the beauty of the base system that caused this but the "Martin" and "Whitefield" intolerance of solutons.
So if you wish plain speak: if your goal is to drive dedicated DBAers away "Martin" you certainly have accomplished it.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 14, 2022 23:27:24 GMT
A thread about a rule question has taken a depressing turn. I must say, it has felt a bit stagnant of late. I guess all rulesets get played until they break or become repetitive. The beauty of DBA3 for me is the genius of the 12 elements and the enormous army lists that allow you to change period quickly with minimal outlay. It keeps the game fresh. A rewrite/revision/review is very much dependant on if/when the rights are acquired. It will never be perfect but I hope that if it does change, it doesn't split the community. It is nice to know that across the globe adults a pushing toy soldiers around (in roughly) the same way. I hope we remain a tolerant group and accept each other's views without antagonism. No rule set will ever be all things to all people. But these few pages still seem to give a great game based on player decisions rather than special rules and buckets of dice. I would love to see a DBA 3.0.5 produced, if not in book form, then as print on demand or PDF, rewriting the current rules in a more accessible way, hopefully with the WRG tick of approval. Cheers Jim At the risk of being accused of flagrant self-promotion, I want to revisit my post from a few days ago, highlighting the non-gaming concerns. I've only ever met two people in person from this forum, stevie and menacussecundus who showed me wonderful hospitality. I'd hoped to meet more but the world went strange a few years ago. However, I've come to know about people like Tony A, timurilank, lkmjbc, and many others that are passionate supporters and promoters of this game. That includes martin and medievalthomas. It saddens me that we may be losing talented people from this community because it is likely this will start to snowball over time. We all know this is an aging hobby. If it is to survive it will need to be a broad church. DBA 3 is a finished product. PB will not be changing it. DBX has a future. There can be changes that become "accepted" and improve the game (think Shooters/Warband in HOTT) but this can only work if we remain tolerant, try new things and share our experiences. I do hope we get out of this rut. Cheers Jim PS To help this, I will commit to a battle report per week with pictures. Nothing helps keep interest alive more than pictures of little men |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 15, 2022 7:38:20 GMT
I rarely get bothered by anything these days as I have an excessively optimistic attitude esp. about DBX related stuff. But I have just read to posts which stunned me beyond reason. Apparently "Martin" and "Whitefield" want me to quick posting re DBX and how to improve current presentation I have never met or heard of either of them though I know lots of DB players from years of running tournaments and corresponding. I have just spent two years of gaming time prior to 3.0s introduction working with Phil on almost a daily bases on the rules and playtesting endless concepts (many that didn't make it into the final rules) and wearing out two groups of playtesters trying to get the best version of 3.0 into the community's hands. It consumed my gaming time and most of my vacations to go and introduce 3.0 at conventions for that period. While this process gave us great rules presentation remains an isssue. "Martin" does not seem to understand the difference between a "concept" and presentation. Giving a concept a name isn't my "concept" but just giving it a handle so we find it in a rulebook. (Some of the concepts were mine as part of the design process but most were Phil's). Why should the community consider using a common language - because to be useful a common language needs to be common and descriptive. Most of these names for Phil's concepts (not mine) came from teaching playtesters the new concepts. They took some work and though to come up with but proved tremendously helpful so I offer them as a solution to the presentation problem discussed above. I'm about solutions and advancing the art of DBA but apparently some are not and take it upon themselves to attack those how are and have (and intended to continue) busting butt to improve the system. I have also tried to answer as many rule questions that come up as possible based on having corresponded with Phil and helped write some sections of 3.0 - sometimes this insider knowledge helps and sometimes I'm just as baffled as everyone else (which I at least try to admit...) Were Phil still able of course I would be presenting him with new ways to advance DBX - I had intended to get him interested in an entirely new way to classify troops as Big Battle expansion. But Phil is not in a position to do that kind of development anymore - miss greatly our exchange of ideas. All of what I post here would have just been the same type of stuff I sent to Phil about improving this or that aspect of the game. These exchanges back in the DBMM days help spur the creation of 3.0. I've posted on Fanaticus for years and enjoyed the lively exchanges but now I'm told by "Martin" and his echo "Whitefield" that I'm to "desist". Well as to dealing with the "Martin" and "Whitefields" of the world I'm done. When any organization is faced with a challenge there are generally two responses - the search for solutions or burn the heretics who propose solutions. The former is a sign of health the latter of ultimate decay. So I guess I'll join the ranks of burn outs. It wasn't the beauty of the base system that caused this but the "Martin" and "Whitefield" intolerance of solutons. So if you wish plain speak: if your goal is to drive dedicated DBAers away "Martin" you certainly have accomplished it. TomT It’s not about content, Tom it’s about tone. (Please, please reread my comments). The content often has very useful thinking behind it, but the issue I have is one of tone. Writing as if you own the rules set can easily mislead readers into thinking you are the sole authority on the rules, which is not the case. THAT is my point. Not some attempt to prevent you from doing anything….just please consider how your posts would be read by someone with the purple book in their hands early in their DBA career. |
|
)
