This is the latest respone from Justin, with my posted reply inserted.
Regards
Dave
--- In
NZWargaming_Discuss@yahoogroups.com, "J G Taylor" <group> wrote:
(DM) Thanks for replying to my post as you have done. I tried to find words that asked you questions rather than challenged you. From the tone of your reply, you recognised that:-)
I've added some comments in text...
>
> >Could you check with your contact if these players are like myself,
> >too few games to be able to contribute or are they really playing
> >many games in a strange hope that they will "get the jump" on the
> >rest of us?
>
> What he said was (in effect) that they were using the excuse of playtesting
> to get familar with the rules prior to the official launch.
(DM) Seems a strange way to go about learning a rule-set to me. IMHO a "closed circuit" is not a good way to advance understanding of rules as you are at risk of perpetuating misunderstandings and stereotyping poor tactics.
>
> >I don't think not posting feedback or battle reports is a crime,
> >perhaps they, like me, were not confident of their understanding of
> >the rules to be sure they had struck a problem or simply
> >misunderstood the rule?
>
> Well they are keen tourny players, at the top of the tree playing WAB here
> in the UK.
(DM) Ah, I took it you meant DBM players, hence my reply naming two of those players I know in Manc. I don't know the WAB scene, but welcome their interest in other rulesets. Perhaps your contact should encourage them to widen their outlook and get involved with the DBM players testing FOG?
>
> >DM) I know many of the players from Manchester who are testing the
> >FOG rules. Notable among them are Dave Ruddock and James Hamilton,
> >who do post regularly to the FOG forum (which is open to public view
> >so you can check my statement.) Are these players from the club in
> >question?
>
> No idea but I thought that James Hamiltion is part of Slitherine.
(DM) James (Hammy) is a bit of a wargames junkie:-) Very good player of DBM and has done a lot of DBMM testing even winning a couple of early DBMM comps here. He is a moderator on the Slitherine forum, but to my knowledge completely independant of Slitherine the company.
Hammy is also a thoughoughly nice chap and is always ready and willing to share knowledge and is good company over a pint or more. Just don't ask him how his games went....;-p
>
> >(DM) As you are promoting your own rules, albeit free, you are perhaps
> >not entirely unbiased?;-p
>
> Well since people are discussing what rules are out there and the comment
> was made about wanting an enjoyable game. I thought I would throw my hat
> into the ring and offer the rules for free to the members of this forum.
(DM) OK, wargaming is a broad church and we are all free to choose what we wish to play. I only raised the issue as there was a hint (perhaps inadvertantly) of negativity about one ruleset in order to promote another. I believe comparisons are the way to do that and your OP seemed to make out that FOG is a secret cabal trying to keep others out. Due to commercial concerns, the FOG process has been more restricted than we as wargamers are accustomed to, but the whole process is open to all provided you pre-order a set of rules. This close to publication, I don't see the harm in that as IMHO Slitherine/Osprey have a right to protect their IP.
>
> Unlike most rules, they are actually designed to play historical battles and
> for that reason there are no army lists. IMHO if you want to play what-if,
> equal points games then any army list will do.
(DM) I think most people agree that the most lasting legacy of DBM is the excellent army list books that continue to be drawn upon by other rulesets, your own included.
>
> Anyway they are there, you can make your own mind up.
>
(DM) For my part I am still playing DBM 3.1 and playing the odd game of FOG. I haven't decided yet if FOG is my ruleset of choice for the future, but I haven't yet tried DBMM and frankly am unlikely to, until the next version. The current DBMM has too much "chrome" for my liking.
Again, thanks for the tone of your reply.
Regards
Dave M
