Help support TMP


"What's up on the DBMM yahoo list" Topic


De Bellis Magistrorum Militum

22 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the De Bellis Magistrorum Militum Rules Board


Areas of Interest

Ancients
Medieval
Renaissance

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Hack in the Dark


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

28mm Acolyte Vampires - Based

The Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.


Featured Book Review


1,140 hits since 3 Jan 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
aynsley68329 Aug 2015 6:00 a.m. PST

So I had a quick look on the MM yahoo list and they seem all stirred up on Phil with topic titles of 'how to destroy DBMM'.

A large number seem upset over having no copies of rules or lists and the fact printing seems a long way off.

Also it seems Phil asked if people wanted some things tidied up in th rules but is changing things in a big way which is also upsetting some with talk of going over to ADLG.

Anyone know what's going on with MM?

Winston Smith29 Aug 2015 6:43 a.m. PST

Not having read or played DBMM, but going by past history…
One thing that turned a lot of people off to WRG and DBM was the constant tinkering with perfectly serviceable rules.
The game is "fixed" to please the Byzantine and Roman whiners, and then the Late Middle Early Seleucids get their own fix. Which upsets the Samurai and Sumerians, who get theirs.
Then the Inca needs pole arms that are both staff sling and halberd.
It sounds like history repeating itself.

Toronto4829 Aug 2015 7:08 a.m. PST

John how can you make a statement like yours when you openly state "Not having read or played DBMM,"

DBMM has been around a long time and is still widely played and the talk of going over to "ADLG" is talk. AS you can see from our own Forum a small number of fanboys or critics can cause a stir that may or may not represent the majority who play the game.

I like the fixes as they are needed to keep the rules up to date based on new interpretations Having to search a forum for a revised Army list is a pain and leads the process open to the "yeah but,… ? crowd. At least, it is there to provide some guidelines and limits the tendency of players to start using their own versions of the rules

DBMM players may be upset because a new and certainly improved version of DBA has come out and now they are looking for a newly revised DBMM and the army lists to go with it. DBMM is still a good set of rules despite its age Again with any Barker type rules once you ask the "man" for help he will jump in with both feet and do what he thinks is right but that is Phil

elsyrsyn29 Aug 2015 7:32 a.m. PST

John how can you make a statement like yours when you openly state "Not having read or played DBMM,"

He pretty clearly stated "but going by past history…" and referred to what happened with WRG Ancients and DBM.

Late Middle Early Seleucids

As all right thinking gamers should know, any game in which Late Middle Early Seleucids fail to win 75%+ of their battles is obviously inherently flawed. wink

DBMM players may be upset because a new and certainly improved version of DBA has come out and now they are looking for a newly revised DBMM and the army lists to go with it.

Having seen the long and winding kerfluffle that it took to get DBA 3 out, do DBMM players REALLY want to get into that sort of mess?

Doug

Winston Smith29 Aug 2015 8:18 a.m. PST

"Those that do not learn from the past are condemned to buy Version 3.2 of the Rules."
---Count Baron von Lederhosen

Been there. Done that. Am not the least bit surprised.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
---Somebody misquoting Einstein

aynsley68329 Aug 2015 8:25 a.m. PST

When people like Richard Aynsley start critising Phil I think it means something though.

Winston Smith29 Aug 2015 8:27 a.m. PST

It's quite simple. If you want to keep re-learning your favorite set of rules on the average of every 18 months because somebody's favorite army is not winning as often as it should, continue what you are doing.
And if you are cynical enough, do you want to keep buying new rules because the first print run ran out and it's old and stale and not selling and everyone will "have to" get the new version….

Again, be my guest.
This is one of the many reasons I sold all my Ancient armies.

Winston Smith29 Aug 2015 8:29 a.m. PST

I had better stop now. Lest I be accused of "harassing" DBX players. grin

Just remember. The first version of a set of rules is ALWAYS the best.
With the exception of TSATF of course. And the 20th anniversary edition has not been tinkered with in 16 years.

aynsley68329 Aug 2015 8:43 a.m. PST

Actually MM players are harrassing each other and Phil so I think you are safe.
I was just surprised to see it that's all.

JPKelly29 Aug 2015 9:18 a.m. PST

What might ADLG be?

YogiBearMinis Supporting Member of TMP29 Aug 2015 9:26 a.m. PST

The problem is 2/3s as Winston says, and 1/3 genuine rule improvements. At least that is what we have seen in last 15 years of DBx development. The newest rules are undoubtedly better, but many changes over the years seem to reflect the tastes and biases of the designers/play testers rather than any objective need.

aapch4529 Aug 2015 10:06 a.m. PST

ADLG, as far as I know is " arte DE LA guerre"….right?

Thanks
Austin

Skeptic29 Aug 2015 10:27 a.m. PST

I wish that they'd move over to a proper forum, though. The Yahoo!-style email list-server approach is too prone to hi-jacking, e.g. when a thread about the appearance of some ancient troop type becomes a vehicle for silly wit or chatter about some very local little gaming event…

aynsley68329 Aug 2015 11:12 a.m. PST

Some of the people complaining are very prominent players in the MM community as well as being the original play testers, yes they have some minor nitwits complaining about their favourite troop type or army.
The main reason I am surprised by the reactions over on that forum is the very strict rule about saying anything negitive about Phil or the game as what has DBX ever done for us-
link
I have no real care which way they go as I play the, according to Phil, "the obsolete DBM rules", I just need to replace one of the list books as its falling apart. Should scan the others into a PDF so I will have them permanent I suppose.

hindsTMP Supporting Member of TMP29 Aug 2015 2:09 p.m. PST

It's quite simple. If you want to keep re-learning your favorite set of rules on the average of every 18 months because somebody's favorite army is not winning as often as it should, continue what you are doing.
And if you are cynical enough, do you want to keep buying new rules because the first print run ran out and it's old and stale and not selling and everyone will "have to" get the new version….

I'm a "DBx" player since about 1990, and I tend to agree with you. Most of what proponents of DBA 3.0 claim as "improvements" are IMHO merely tweaks to make favorite armies play better, or to make their more effective opponents' armies play worse. Being human, they refuse to admit this, of course.

The only possibly legitimate excuse for issuing new versions of rules is the Designer's desire to continue to make a living. (Didn't Sam Mustafa replace Grande Armee with Blucher)? It can still be annoying to the players, though.

That being said, I am now mostly playing 3.0 as most people, including new players, gravitate to the latest version. Don't get me wrong, DBA 3.0 is still worth buying, but I would have been perfectly happy with 1.1.

MH

jameshammyhamilton29 Aug 2015 2:15 p.m. PST

Which list book do you need Richard? I have probably got a spare and as I no longer play or have any desire to play any DBx game I see little harm in letting it go to a loving home.

Of course if you want the DBMM lists I have none of those as I left DBMM pretty much as soon as it crawled out from under the stone of play test in a form that I could not stand.

Thomas Thomas31 Aug 2015 1:19 p.m. PST

As one of the original DBMM2.0 playtesters, I would be very interested in a revised version esp if it improved playability and used some of the breakthroughs of DBA 3.0.

The changes to DBA focused on making it easier to get into contact, increasing movement to reward more dynamic play, getting rid of cockeyed recoil death (something DBMM did but with a much more complex rule) and improving the historical interactions of various troop types esp blade, spear and bow.

DBA had not had an upgrade since 2.2 which lasted over a decade and was really showing its age. The intent was to fix problems and improve the game. Phil is 82 not broke and in no particular need to make more money. He does want to leave a lasting legacy of designing good games.

Very interested in what he wants to do with brillant but overly complex DBMM.

TomT

Dexter Ward01 Sep 2015 2:54 a.m. PST

Why isn't Phil focussing on getting 'Horse, Foot & Guns' into print instead of fiddling with DBMM which works fine as it is?

aynsley68301 Sep 2015 4:08 a.m. PST

One of the things Phil wants is to allow mounted to pass through Lh in any direction but not allow Lh to pass through Lh which has got a lot of them over there uneasy with his 'changes' especially as they only asked for tidy ups.

Phil reasoning for it is along the lines 'big horses push little ones out the way but same sized you only get kicking and biting going on' which dosent happen at all with horses and also by the nature of Lh they are a dispersed open order type group so other Lh should be able to pass through as well.

Dexter the players other there just want the rules and lists printed as they are having trouble getting new players according to them.

Father Grigori01 Sep 2015 8:12 a.m. PST

I think Dexter Ward's comment is the most relevant. The Ancients community has had very much the lion's share of Phil's attention – it would be nice if some other periods got a look in. The last Napoleonic set published was the 1685 – 1845 set (remind me when it was published). It would be nice to see HFG in a published form, rather than relying on downloads. Similarly, DBR could do with a major review, especially if it's now back in print. DBA, DBM, DBMM….they've had too much attention. Let's look at some of the others.

Oldroman11 Mar 2016 11:58 p.m. PST

Well here we are six months later and you still cannot buy a set for love or money. The priorities of any publishing group should be to make some effort to meet the demand. Openly refusing to reprint a set of rules that are clearly in demand is just suicidal – or worse – arrogant!
Clearly it is the business model of the Barkerids to p*** people off so that they look elsewhere for rules.
Who cares if DBMM is "the best set of ancient rules ever" if you can't buy the damned things?
Move on. Already looked elsewhere. Already found. Never coming back.

lkmjbc312 Mar 2016 10:53 a.m. PST

The new updated version should be hitting the shelves within 45 days or so…

I even know some of the rule changes… but I'm not telling.


Joe Collins

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.