"DBA Events at Fall In! 2015 (November 6-8 Lancaster, PA)" Topic

Fall In! is rapidly approaching, so here is the full DBA schedule:

TOURNAMENTS AT FALL IN! 2015 (November 6-8 Lancaster, PA)

NASAMW Ancient and Medieval Events

Below is a short description of tournaments being put on by the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers. For more information, please go the the NASAMW registration desk. A single entry fee of $5 USD is charged and covers all events you play in. This goes for trophies and other event expenses.

DBA Events
The DBA & related tournaments and events listed here are presented by the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers (NASAMW). To join just show up and play in an event, or for more information on NASAMW, nasamw.net

Sign-Up Sheets for all events will be at the DBA HQ Table.

ALL of our events are new player friendly. If you show up, there are plenty of people willing to help you learn how to play and help out with loaning an army for an event. Just ask!

DBA events may be 2.2, 2.2+ or 3.0 versions of the rules. Please see specific event listing for the version used. 2.2+ uses the DBA 2.2 armies.

Information related to 2.2+ rules can be found at: wadbag.com/V2.2+

Event size in terms of players is unlimited unless noted below. Players should bring their own terrain but some communal terrain will be available; all battlefields are provided. Players must show up at events 10 minutes prior to the posted start time for assignments.

DBA Manager: David Schlanger

Some online pre-registration is available for specific events where listed in the event details. Please contact David Schlanger with any questions: buckynduke@gmail.com

WAR Invasion, Maneuver and Flank March

Invasion and Maneuver rules as well as a link to download the Invasion and Maneuver ratings that can be used for all DBA 2.2 army lists can be found here:
link

Thursday:

Wheelie Wars
Stooges DBA 2.2+ Chariot Tournament
8PM – 11PM
Rules: v2.2+, 15mm, 3 or 4 rounds.
Eligible 2.2 armies must have 1x Chariot in the army.
GM: Larry Chaban and Rich Baier (The Stooges)

Friday:

Big Battle DBA Doubles
BBDBA 2.2+ Biblical Theme Tournament
9AM – 6PM
Rules: v2.2+
15mm, 30"x60" boards, 3 rounds plus Finals (Friday evening).
BBDBA army from the 2.2 army lists. Teams of two players face-off in Big Battle DBA games. Each team must bring own armies and terrain.
The following BBDBA 2.2 armies are eligible (only allies within this group are permitted):
1abcd, 2ab, 3, 4abcd, 5abcd, 6abc, 7abc,
8abc, 9, 10, 11ab, 12, 14cde, 15, 16, 17ab, 18, 19, 20ab, 21ab, 22ab, 24ab, 25ab, 26ab, 27, 28, 29ab, 30abc, 31ab, 33, 34abc, 35abc, 36, 37ab, 38, 39ab, 40abc, 41, 42, 43a, 44a, 45, 46ab, 47, 48, 51, 53
WAR Invasion and Maneuver Rules in effect.
GM: David Schlanger

DBA 15mm Open
DBA 2.2+ Open Tournament
7:30PM – 11PM
Rules: DBA 2.2+, 15mm, 3 rounds.
Bring any legal 2.2 army. Historical matchups if possible in the first round.
WAR Invasion and Maneuver Rules in effect.
GM: Roland Fricke

Saturday:

Medieval Mayhem 1201AD
DBA 2.2+ Theme Tournament
9AM – 1PM
Rules: DBA 2.2+, 15mm, 3 or 4 rounds.
Eligible armies:
Any DBA 2.2 army that existed in 1201AD.
WAR Invasion and Maneuver Rules in effect.
GM: Rodney Cain

DBA 25mm Open
DBA 2.2+ Open Tournament
1PM – 5PM
Rules: DBA 2.2+, 25mm, 3 or 4 rounds.
Bring any legal 2.2 army. Historical matchups if possible in the first round.
Loaners available.
GM: Ron Giampapa and Bill Brown

New Kid on the Block: Greek vs. Latin 200BC
Pikes meets Legion: Macedonia, Seleucid, Ptolemies… and Rome!
A Two Davids DBA 2.2+ Campaign Theme
5PM – 11PM
Rules: DBA 2.2+, 15mm, 30 inch boards
It is 200 BC. In the 120 years since the death of Alexander his Successors have squabbled and fought in back-and-forth wars that have stabilized into three great empires: Macedonia under Philip V, Seleucia under Antiochus III ("the Great"), and the Ptolemaics under various feuding regents for the boy king, Ptolemy V Epiphanies (under whose later reign the Rosetta Stone was carved).

These great empires have stabilized, but it is the stability of constant war and backstabbing, and all the minor principalities nearby (Pergamon, Epirus, Nabataea, Kappadokia, Galatea, Bithynia, Pontus, and so on) try to get in on the wheeling, dealing, treachery and fun.

But now there's a new kid in town. And he's a bully. Mighty Rome has just emerged victorious in a terrible war, destroying its old enemy Carthage, sending Hannibal Barca fleeing to the court of Antiochus for sanctuary. Rome has the armies, the logistics, and the wealth -- and suddenly nobody in the Western Mediterranean to fight with. How sad.

Sad, that is, for the Greek-speaking World -- because the Senate of Rome, all dressed up with no one to fight, declared that it was intervening for "The Freedom of the Greeks." And now all the minor kingdoms had another option when one of their Successor neighbors got uppity -- instead of sucking up to one of its two major Successor enemies, now they could suck up to Rome as well. An option that Pergamon and Rhodes used so successfully over the next few decades that they emerged massively more powerful than before.

Rome had finished with Carthage; now it dipped its toe for the first time into the Eastern Mediterranean. With treachery, politics, backstabbing, and now the Senate of Rome getting involved, perhaps it is time to move to Bactria!
Eligible Armies:
Media Atropatene: 2x 4Kn, 2x LH or Ps or 3Bw, 1x 4Kn or LH or 3Ax, 7x LH.
Arabian Tribes (II/23a).
Nabataea (II/22a).
Pergamum (II/34): 1x 3Kn, 1x LH, 1x 3Cv, 6x 4Ax or 6x Ps, 2x Ps, 1x 4Wb or 4Ax.
Aitolia (II/31j): Hilly Wild. 2x LH, 4x 4Ax or Ps, 6x Ps.
Achaean League (II/31g): 1x 3Kn (Gen), 1x LH, 6x 4Pk, 1x 4Ax, 1x 3/4Ax, 2x Ps.
Hellenic League (II/31h): 1x 3Kn (Gen), 1x LH, 4x 4Sp, 4x 4Ax, 2x Ps.
Galatians (II/30b): 1x LCh or 3Cv, or 4Wb (Gen), 2x 3Cv, 8x 4Wb, 1x Ps.
Armenian (II/28b): 2x 4Kn, 4x LH, 4x 3Ax, 2x Ps.
Kappadokian (II/14): 3x 3Cv, 2x LH, 5x 3Ax, 2x Ps.
Bithynian (II/6): 1x 3Cv, 1x LH, 7x 3Ax, 1x 4Wb or 3Ax, 2x Ps.
Thracians (I/48): Hilly, Wild. 1x 3Cv, 3x LH or 3Ax, 6x 3Ax, 2x Ps.
Illyrians (I/47): Hilly, Wild. 1x LH, 9x 3Ax, 2x Ps.
Macedonia (1-2): (II/35): 1x 3Cv, 1x LH, 6x Pk, 2x 4Ax, 1x 3Ax or 4Wb or Ps, 1x Ps.
Ptolemies (1-2): (II/20b): 2x 3Kn, 1x LH, 6x 4Pk, 1x 4Ax, 1x El, 1x Ps.
Seleucids (2-3): (II/19c): 1x 3/4Kn, 1x 4Kn, 4x 4Pk, 1x SCh, 1x El, 1x 3Cm or 3Cv or 3Ax, 1x Ps or 4Wb, 2x Ps.
Roman Armies (2-3): (II/33) Polybian Roman: 2x 3Cv, 2x 4Sp, 6x 4Bd, 2x Ps. [Roman armies have some required changes detailed on the Fanaticus Forum campaign theme discussion thread]
There are campaign specific rules that will be outlined at the event and detailed here on this Fanaticus Forum thread:
link also pre-register there.
Please see the url for pre-registration
GM: David Kuijt and David Schlanger

Sunday:

HotT Open
9 AM – Noon
Rules: Hordes of the Things, 25/28mm, 3 rounds
Bring out your 24 point armies for a punch up!
Brute and Phalanx extended rules will be used.
Loaner Armies Available!
GM: David Kuijt

The only thing I see listed that isn't DBA 2.2+ is HOTT. Is there any DBA 3.0???

Chris

No… WADBAG runs the conventions.

They are the authors of 2.2+. You won't see much DBA 3 unless outsiders run it. Tom Thomas from Atlanta and Bob Beattie usually run the 3.0 events, but they aren't local to the area and can't make all the conventions.

Joe Collins

"You won't see much DBA 3 unless outsiders run it."

That's a pity. Having played both, I much prefer 3.0. Ah well, each to their own.

One WADBAGGER on the Yahoo DBA group has now openly declared:

"want to be DBA champion of the USA, play DBA 2.2 with this variant (+)."

Looks like the organisers are putting a lot of effort into making it a memorable event for those who attend, something to commend them for.

Are they now putting up the army lists? – they are a copyright part of the rules? I am surprised that no one has challenged them on IPR.

@maddaz111

You dont want to say, that listing 10 armies (from an old DBA version) for a campaign is violating copyright?

Where will it end? Can i tell, that DBA uses 6cm base width for 25mm, or is that also a violation of copyright?

the whole book is copyright, still in print, and under international law at least the people printing any excerpts would appear to be in breach of the IPR. The Author (or rights holder) would need to challenge them, and some parts of the game design are as far as I am aware not open, so an open translation of them would also be technically in breach (Based on advice I received from the IP officer in Sheffield)

(did you seek the copyrights holders permission before sharing the information, or did you do it wilfully, or is your excerpt part of a review or permitted by fair use clauses under the various acts?)

Whether or not something is a violation of copyright is a legal issue. Until such time as the original owners of the text bring this to a court, our discussions have no meaning. What I find troubling is the use of the term DBA in reference to something that is not Phil Barker's DBA. This is confusing to people who think they're getting into one thing but they're getting into something different. A Phil Barker DBA newbie who shows up at a game would actually not be able to play given the changes in the rules. The games should be listed in the program in such a way as to make it clear that they are not Phil Barker DBA but rather homegrown version of DBA. Not using DBA in the title for example. Why don't they just give these rules of theirs a unique name of their own, instead of building on Phil's reputation.

I agree, They should do their own research as well, rather than copy and paste thousands of man hours (mine included) from DBA and fanaticus, otherwise they should stop distributing + and either play DBA 2.2 or 3, or go and find another rule set to amend.

Do one's own research. Advice we ALL should head.

1) It is not called DBA v2.2+. It is simply called v2.2+
2) It is not a free standing set of rules. Rather it is a series of line edits modifying the DBA v2.2 rules. There is a link to Lulu.com to get the John Curry version of the rules.

Where there is a questionable use of the rules is the Unofficial Guide. With this, a play sheet and a link to DBAOL, you could play a game of DBA v2.2.

Before anyone gets on me about being a v2.2+ fanboy, you'd best reserve your judgement. I don't care for 2.2+ and see no need for it myself. But, if you own the game and that is what you like, who am I to say it is wrong? That there falls under fair use. The authors have gone out of their way to lead the potential users to a legal copy of DBA v2.2.

Look for yourself here. wadbag.com/V2.2+

want to be DBA champion of the USA, play DBA 2.2 with this variant (+).

The whole message is worth a read for context.
link

It is said in another thread that the poster in the message does not speak for the rest of the WADBAG guys.

I'm a member of the yahoo group, if dba + isn't dba + then why is it marketed at the event in the message at the top of the page.

And all of my posts are only my opinions.

Are they now putting up the army lists? – they are a copyright part of the rules? I am surprised that no one has challenged them on IPR.

Maddaz111…

If you bothered to read the list you would see that these are a specific lists of countries in the campaign some with modifications for the campaign…. hence the list. They are not copyrighted. Neither is the acronym DBA for that matter.

I find it interesting how many people are so concerned about what version of game rules other people choose to play? Why do you care?

Joe,
WADBAG does not run the convention…. Dave organizes the DBA and HOTT events. Anybody is welcome to and encouraged to present any version of DBA or HOTT they want.

The issue is that the people most qualified to run 3.0 events have refused to offer events unless they can do it on their terms. So when they did decide to run them, they conflicted with other events and they ended up competing for participants.

There was a 3.0 event at the last Cold Wars, we could not get any of the 3.0 experts to participate….. We could not even get the 3.0 event in the in the same area…. because it was seen as a competition? So there were separate 3.0 events running in a separate area of the convention? Why?

This "how dare you heretic" approach is really getting old and turning some people off of DBA 3.0.

Sell it on it's merits instead of complaining about variants of the game other people choose to play.

Dervel:
Dave is a major part of WADBAG. I have participated multiple times in the East tournaments… and quite frankly won many. Wadbag runs them. Period. So let us dismiss that nonsense now.

The events at Cold Wars were held separately because the person running them didn't feel comfortable with Wadbag running the DBA events. While I didn't at the time completely agree with him, I certainly sympathized and understood his position. After the bile spewed by them in the last 24 hours I agree with his position.

As to the "How dare you approach". No. I will continue to defend DBA 3 in the manner I see fit.

Joe Collins

Joe, you stated that he "ran the convention"…. Sorry that is incorrect the convention is run by HMGS. Dave schedules events. I can do the same, thing, so can you. I am running a tournament, I don't belong to WADBAG, I choose what I wanted to run. The lack of 3.0 events is directly related to the lack of 3.0 advocates choosing to run events. Nobody is stopping them.

Bob choose to run his event in isolation and got a lot fewer participants as the result. I don't see how that helped if the goal was to introduce more people to DBA 3.0.

As to your approach to promoting DBA, suit yourself. If you really feel this all or nothing approach to promoting 3.0 is the best way to go obviously nobody can convince you otherwise.

What I would like to know is why the WADBAG people continue to use the DBA title for their tournament announcments using their 2.2+ variant, when both the Barkers have asked them not to. I don't question the right of people to create their own rules variants..that's part of the fun of wargaming. I think if WADBAG honored the Barkers request & called it something else, it would help ease some of the contention. Sue Barker even had suggetions of what they can call it here: link

"What I find troubling is the use of the term DBA in reference to something that is not Phil Barker's DBA."

I cant see, why it is not Phil Barkers DBA? It is his rules version 2.2 with house rules added.

The only problem for some people is, that these house rules are more successful in a part of the USA than DBA 3.

I am coming from napoleonic gaming. There nobody would challenge you, if you used Napoleons Battles or Shako with house rules at a conevention.

"I think if WADBAG honored the Barkers request & called it something else, it would help ease some of the contention."

Really? I cant beleave that. If WADBAG had used a different name from the beginning, the Barkers surely had critisized, that they falsely claim, these are their own rules. (And that critic would have been right IMO.)

The reason all "DBA" events at Cold Wars are being run using a local variant is that those are the local club rules developed by the organizers of the con. They insist that all "DBA" events be scheduled through them something which Bob Beatie does not adhere to when he runs events but I do.

One of the Davids (who run all the events) has already publicly corrected Dervel on this point. I ran the official DBA events within their schedule and tried to avoid conflicts at Historicon.

It would be much better to run at least some of the events using the official rules of DBA to benefit newcomers and in general put our best foot forward by using the most current and advanced rules. But this is not the decision of the local club running the events. I have asked them to be as clear as possible when listing/running events that they are using their own variant rules.

I live in Atlanta and cannot make all the Eastern Cons. I will be at Historicon running official DBA 3.0 events as well as my fantasy variant A Game of Ice and Fire. I will continue to cooperate with the two Davids as to schedule and promotion – they have been nothing but helpful in this regard.

There is no National Championship for DBA in the US (they have one in England). The two Davids run a Championship for their rule system. As the feeder tournament system for DBA gets going again I may try to run one eventually. We already have events going at Siege of Augusta, NashCon and Historicon. Please let me know if your running local tournaments and forward me the results so I can include the winners in any invitation system.

For outsiders looking in, don't let any of this nonsense disuade you from grabbing a copy of DBA 3.0 and having some great games.

TomT

Decebalus: The issue is that the Barkers have asked that WADBAG call their variant something else than DBA, plain & simple. They have their reasons. The question now is whether their request will be honored. I think that honoring the Barker's request would be the right thing for WADBAG to do.

Hey Tom, what was I publicly corrected on by the Davids? Sorry guess I missed it?

or is this more of this "Dervel trashing" you mentioned on Fanaticus and then decided to not explain?

This is all "how the sausage is made" information and no one may really care, but I'm bored on a Friday afternoon so I thought I'd just toss it out there…

1. HMGS runs three big conventions in the US each year: Cold Wars, Historicon, and Fall In!

2. HMGS delegates responsibility for Ancients tournaments to NASAMW.

3. NASAMW allocates space to each of the various rulesets (DBA, FOG, ADLG, etc.) and delegates scheduling of events to the Chief Umpire for each ruleset.

(It's probably worth keeping in mind that NASAMW, despite the nifty name, isn't a large, well-funded and staffed corporation. It's a couple of guys who spend a lot of their free time making all the fun stuff at conventions possible.)

4. Dave Schlanger is currently the Chief Umpire for DBA at these conventions. His job is to put out notices seeking people to run games, collect the responses, work out scheduling conflicts, and then post the schedule online and submit it for the PEL. He also makes sure that we have things like sign-up sheets for the events and plaques for event winners.

5. And finally, the Game Masters run the events at the convention. They plan the event, match players, track the time, and keep score.

Making a convention happen takes a lot of work. All of it done by volunteers.

Now you can say that WADBAG runs DBA at the convention and make it sound all sinister. But what really happens is that some people at HMGS and some people at NASAMW and the DBA Chief Umpire and bunch of game masters put in a lot of work to make the events happen. Most of those people are not part of WADBAG.

And to end this excessively long post (sorry about that), I'll just add that everyone is invited to step up and run an event using whatever version of DBA you like. This all runs on volunteers--the more the merrier.

- Jack

I am new to DBA in the last year and have been open minded. My first experience has been with v2.2+ and found the WADBAG group very friendly and welcoming to new players. I have been open minded about DBA 3.0 and no comments from WADBAG members to stay away.

The posting of various advocates of DBA 3.0 on various message boards and manner of attacks on people who play 2.2+ have turned me off from trying DBA 3.0 to the point that I would rather spend my money and play L'Art de la Guerre than buy and play DBA 3.0. I have moved from open minded about DBA 3.0 to wanting to stay away and no WADBAG member moved me that way. It was actually 3.0 advocates who did that.

take this post for example. Dave does an excellent job organizing events, and he was announcing the events for Fall In. We have advocates of DBA 3.0 hijacking it to make points separate from the schedule of events and some implied persecution of DBA 3.0.

At this point I plan to play in v2.2+ (whether you call it house rules, a version, variant or whatever)in events where played and then others where given the choice between L'Art de la Guerre and DBA 3.0, I will chose L'Art de la Guerre

Diocletian284,
Well said, I rarely play DBA but have always found the 2.2+ corner at Lancaster cons very friendly and never push their version on anyone or say it's better because of X y and z .

The folks who run the DBA with modifications games at the Eastern Cons are very nice people, I challenge anyone who would say otherwise. For the 10 years I was the NASAMW DBA Chief Umpire, they ran many games and then when DBA 3 went into development the WADBAG members offered their own version of the game instead of struggling with Phil to get their ideas across. Instead of keeping 2.2 going or trying to get early 3 versions played, I left the Umpireship to Dave.

I wonder of whom DIOCLETIAN284 speaks when he talks about "attacks on people who play the" other game. I notice no personal attacks, or even attacks on the actual variant rules. What I complain about, and others too, is that the current listing of DBA events at the big Eastern Conventions is confusing.

These games are listed as DBA but they are not really what people consider DBA. That is, they are not Phil Barker's DBA. A person who knows Phil Barker's version of DBA would not be able to sit down an play a game of what is called DBA at the cons. Moreover so now that there are so many new rules related to invasion and maneuver.

Dervel keeps asking why I ran my DBA 3 games "in isolation" from the not really Phil Barker DBA-like games. Well, note that "Who asked this joker" says that those are not really DBA anyway, they are just 2.2+. As he says see wadbag.com/V2.2+. I was running the real Phil Barker 3.0 and did not want to be confused with the wadbag.com/V2.2+. Also, most people agree that the new Phil Barker DBA 3.0 is very different from his version of DBA2.2. Very different, as different as DBM is different from DBMM. This games are run independently, just as I ran DBA 3 independently.

So, the Wadbagers are good guys with their rules, I am a good guy with my doing Phil Barker rules. The rules are good, people can play whatever they want. My point is only that rules that are not Phil Barker's DBA should not be labelled as DBA so people will know what the options are. WADBAG should not hide behind the reputation of Phil but should make their own reputation.

Seems very clear to me which version it is as wadbag always announce it and like Diocletian284 will personally call it DBA as it is a Barker 2.2 version with house rules.
I personally don't really care who the ' " joker " ' is and what he says , I'm sure he's a jolly decent fellow. Just because a small number of people think something dosent mean the rest of us have tp follow, I believe most people will continue calling it DBA.

Bob people were asking me why the wadbag guys wouldn't allow you to run your games in the usual area, so I appreciate your explanation at least for clearing up that it was your choice.

Regarding the differences between DBA versions I think we are talking oranges and tangerines, and I think promoting DBx games is not being served as well as it could be with this approach.

When I run DBA events with newbies I introduce and explain the house rules I may be using and show them the new 3.0 and 2.2 books. Sometimes I even dare to mention DBMM or God forbid DBM

Has anyone ever actually been confused about what is the actual published rules set from seeing any game, DBA or other, run with amendments to the rules?

At Historicon, when Tom Thomas' events using 3.0 and his house rules for 3.0/HotT were run at the same time and in the same area as v2.2+ events it did not leave anyone confused.

If someone came up and asked about 3.0 we sent them to Tom; worked great.

DS