Cool. More than that -- I expect when they actually try the rules, they'll realize that it isn't DBA at all. Opposed dice rolls, command points, and small scale makes people who haven't played Triumph think DBA -- but there are more differences than similarities when you actually play the game. We've heard "DBA" comments from grognards who haven't played Triumph before, but we rarely hear that from people who have played the game a few times -- especially in games in the Biblical period, or that use a lot of shooting, or games that don't focus on 4-pt stands where the illusion of similarity to DBA is stronger. There are still lots of differences even in the High Medieval period, but they are more subtle (ZOC is totally different; how ZOC is used is totally different; etc. etc. etc)
We don't spend much time and effort on comparing Triumph to DBA because we aren't actively trying to convert DBA players -- catching the people who once played DBA, or who currently play 3.0, is not our market model. More power to them if they like 3.0 -- no damage to us. We're trying to expand the pool of players by having a good game, with good graphics, and good online support, and aspects (like Meshwesh) that had never even been conceived of before in historical gaming, and a bunch of products in the pipeline, and marketing it to people who haven't played miniatures (or historical miniatures) before. Fighting for a diminishing small pool of DBA players is not the way forward.
We think we have a much better product. But there's lots of room in the world for other opinions too. The Dutch eat salted licorice and raw herring smeared in chopped onions -- more power to them, but that isn't to my taste. But I'm not going to try and fight them and get them to eat Poutine. (I'm only half Dutch).