PDA

View Full Version : Question About DBA 3.0


BigMadAl
03-24-2011, 01:16 PM
I know this can only be answered by those who have playtested. For those people: I'm not asking for specifics, which I know you can't give anyway.

I only have one small question: Does what you've seen of DBA 3.0 contain a lot of rule changes? Or, is it mostly clarification & list updates?

I envision this to be a yea-or-nay answer. Thank you, in advance.

David Constable
03-24-2011, 01:26 PM
I know this can only be answered by those who have playtested. For those people: I'm not asking for specifics, which I know you can't give anyway.

I only have one small question: Does what you've seen of DBA 3.0 contain a lot of rule changes? Or, is it mostly clarification & list updates?

I envision this to be a yea-or-nay answer. Thank you, in advance.

A lot is relative, however I suspect that there will be a lot of changes, not just clarifications, this will result in play balance changing.

It will be a new set of rules in effect.

The big unknown is bases at the moment.

David Constable

david kuijt
03-24-2011, 01:31 PM
The big unknown is bases at the moment.


???

The big unknown is movement distances, conforming, ZOC, shooting, terrain, edge of the world rules, and a partridge in a pear tree. Bases are WAY down the list as far as I'm concerned.

BigMadAl
03-24-2011, 01:33 PM
Thank you, gentlemen, that answers the question nicely, & I'll now move on to chewing my fingernails until the new rules are released.

Martyn
03-24-2011, 01:39 PM
???

The big unknown is movement distances, conforming, ZOC, shooting, terrain, edge of the world rules, and a partridge in a pear tree. Bases are WAY down the list as far as I'm concerned.

Glad to see that there are not too many changes. :rolleyes

I suppose this means that the previously identified time scale is unlikely to be met. ;)

Rich Gause
03-24-2011, 02:04 PM
???

The big unknown is movement distances, conforming, ZOC, shooting, terrain, edge of the world rules, and a partridge in a pear tree. Bases are WAY down the list as far as I'm concerned.

I have been skimming through my recently purchased set of the DBMM rules lately. My initial impression is that it is a very different game than DBA and not something I would be very interested in; hypercomplex and nitpicky. As far as importing mechanics goes I think the conforming rules could definitely improve DBA, maybe not the exact rules but the idea that individual elements or 1 element wide column groups conform to the moving group in general I think is a good one. The idea that a ZOC or threat zone should not be blocked by an intervening element may work fine in DBMM where you usually deploy in more than one rank because of bonuses and the fact that you have lots more elements but in a 12 element game where most units have no bonus for a two rank deployment? Sounds like a recipe to make the first element killed a more decisive advantage as preventing flank roll ups from holes in your line becomes much more difficult as your second rank will now be ZOC'd... Mights as well not bother with a reserve at all. We have already discussed the more limited maneuver consequence of drastically increasing the relative speed of heavy foot, its good if you want to make the game a beginner game for DBMM with the same move rates and decreasing the affect of skill on the game, otherwise not. The DBMM shooting mechanics are more restrictive on who you can shoot at and are more difficult to implement. The current mechanics(the ones out of the Unofficial guide anyway) are chrystal clear and easy to implement as they only involve measuring from corner to corner instead of basing stuff on half elements. Not so sure if the greater number of shooters in a DBMM game is what makes less freedom of where to shoot desirable for them but I think it is a negative for DBA, it would become much easier to dictate that enemy bow shoot at your blade for example than something more vulnerable. Don't have an opinion yet on terrain and edge of the world rules. Compared to the apparent direction of making DBA 3.0, insofar as I can surmise, into a beginners/entry game for DBMM I would agree that bases are such a small thing especially since we have already been told that current DBA/DBMM bases will be grandfathered in to whatever the new system is.

Martyn
03-24-2011, 02:30 PM
I have been skimming through my recently purchased set of the DBMM rules lately. My initial impression is that it is a very different game than DBA and not something I would be very interested in; hypercomplex and nitpicky. As far as importing mechanics goes I think the conforming rules could definitely improve DBA, maybe not the exact rules but the idea that individual elements or 1 element wide column groups conform to the moving group in general I think is a good one.

I thought that this is the same as DBM, it wasnít introduced from DBM into DBA so it may not from DBMM.

The idea that a ZOC or threat zone should not be blocked by an intervening element may work fine in DBMM where you usually deploy in more than one rank because of bonuses and the fact that you have lots more elements but in a 12 element game where most units have no bonus for a two rank deployment? Sounds like a recipe to make the first element killed a more decisive advantage as preventing flank roll ups from holes in your line becomes much more difficult as your second rank will now be ZOC'd... Mights as well not bother with a reserve at all.

Iím not sure I agree with the analysis but agree with the sentiment, I would prefer to keep blocking ZOCs

We have already discussed the more limited maneuver consequence of drastically increasing the relative speed of heavy foot, its good if you want to make the game a beginner game for DBMM with the same move rates and decreasing the affect of skill on the game, otherwise not.

It needs to be balanced by other changes if introduced. This is a classic example of us getting worked up about a suggestion of a change. Without knowing how other parts of the rules (board size, terrain size, shooting ranges, etc) may change we are not able to consider the full impact or otherwise.

The DBMM shooting mechanics are more restrictive on who you can shoot at and are more difficult to implement. The current mechanics(the ones out of the Unofficial guide anyway) are chrystal clear and easy to implement as they only involve measuring from corner to corner instead of basing stuff on half elements. Not so sure if the greater number of shooters in a DBMM game is what makes less freedom of where to shoot desirable for them but I think it is a negative for DBA, it would become much easier to dictate that enemy bow shoot at your blade for example than something more vulnerable.

They are similar to DBM in that generally you shoot at who ever is directly in front of the shooter, not so easy to gang up as in DBA. There are additional restrictions where part of a target is concealed which I like.

Don't have an opinion yet on terrain and edge of the world rules. Compared to the apparent direction of making DBA 3.0, insofar as I can surmise, into a beginners/entry game for DBMM I would agree that bases are such a small thing especially since we have already been told that current DBA/DBMM bases will be grandfathered in to whatever the new system is.

Considering the original differences between DBA and DBM I am doubtful that the DBMM mechanics will be imported wholesale.

Rich Gause
03-24-2011, 02:57 PM
I thought that this is the same as DBM, it wasn’t introduced from DBM into DBA so it may not from DBMM.



I’m not sure I agree with the analysis but agree with the sentiment, I would prefer to keep blocking ZOCs



It needs to be balanced by other changes if introduced. This is a classic example of us getting worked up about a suggestion of a change. Without knowing how other parts of the rules (board size, terrain size, shooting ranges, etc) may change we are not able to consider the full impact or otherwise.


Yes, other changes could help determine how and how much much movement change rates affect DBA. When using an an artificial IGOUGO game mechanic(which you are almost forced to do to have a playable game) it can be tricky to balance how much happens a turn and exactly what affect it has. My initial impression looking at the movement rate changes in isolation because nobody knows what else will be changed is that heavy foot can move to much in a turn.





They are similar to DBM in that generally you shoot at who ever is directly in front of the shooter, not so easy to gang up as in DBA. There are additional restrictions where part of a target is concealed which I like.



Considering the original differences between DBA and DBM I am doubtful that the DBMM mechanics will be imported wholesale.

I hope you are right.

Bobgnar
03-24-2011, 10:16 PM
???

The big unknown is movement distances, conforming, ZOC, shooting, terrain, edge of the world rules, and a partridge in a pear tree. Bases are WAY down the list as far as I'm concerned.

I like David's alluding to the 12 Days of Christmas. Consider how many items your sweetheart gives to you by the 12th day. If you consider the changes and the changes to changes, there might be that many :)

To his specific list I would add deployment, PIP usage, groups, close combat, tactical factors and support and winning and losing and 12 Lords (or Elements) a leaping.

David Constable
03-25-2011, 11:10 AM
???

The big unknown is movement distances, conforming, ZOC, shooting, terrain, edge of the world rules, and a partridge in a pear tree. Bases are WAY down the list as far as I'm concerned.

Hello DK.

The problem with bases is that I was going to do armies with WWg, 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn next, now do I build them with temporary bases, and find I might have painted too many figures, hold painting anything, or what.

In fact for the rest of this year I am trying to hold off doing any painting, or buying (not successfully).

David Constable

kontos
03-25-2011, 11:16 AM
Hello DK.

The problem with bases is that I was going to do armies with WWg, 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn next, now do I build them with temporary bases, and find I might have painted too many figures, hold painting anything, or what.

In fact for the rest of this year I am trying to hold off doing any painting, or buying (not successfully).

David Constable

I know the question was not directed at me but many of us are using the time to paint other periods until the DBA dust settles. None of the listed elements are in DBA-RRR so that's where I am putting my brush efforts. :up

ferrency
03-25-2011, 11:40 AM
The problem with bases is that I was going to do armies with WWg, 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn next, now do I build them with temporary bases, and find I might have painted too many figures, hold painting anything, or what.

In fact for the rest of this year I am trying to hold off doing any painting, or buying (not successfully).

The DBA3 basing only matters if someone ends up playing the rules. Therefore, making the rules playable is the most important goal.

Even then, I'm sure you'll find most events allowing 2.2 armies for quite some time.

Personally I'm not worrying about it.

Alan

david kuijt
03-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Hello DK.

The problem with bases is that I was going to do armies with WWg, 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn next, now do I build them with temporary bases, and find I might have painted too many figures, hold painting anything, or what.

In fact for the rest of this year I am trying to hold off doing any painting, or buying (not successfully).

David Constable

I understand completely.

I was just stepping in to avoid any misunderstanding -- you responded to the original question saying that "the big unknown is bases."

Basing is an unresolved issue, but in general terms we know what's going to happen -- some armies will change a lot, some will stay the same, most will have only a very few changes. Most of our current bases will be fine, and some people will be very upset at particular changes that hit them where they live.

But I would never say the big unknown is basing. Because the big unknown is really whether 3.0 is going to suck or not. And none of the basing discussion, no decision on any issue mentioned with basing, would break the game. That makes it, in my mind, a minor issue. If a broken rule gets put in place for ZOC, or movement, or command control, or any of a dozen other things -- that could make 3.0 suck. If several of them get in place, 3.0 will suck.

Whether or not 4Wb are based on 20mm bases or on 15mm bases may piss off people who have a lot of 4Wb, but it won't make 3.0 suck.

Tony Aguilar
03-25-2011, 12:18 PM
I know the question was not directed at me but many of us are using the time to paint other periods until the DBA dust settles. None of the listed elements are in DBA-RRR so that's where I am putting my brush efforts. :up

There are several armies with WWg in DBA-RRR.
Whether or not they are ones in your painting queue is a different matter.

kontos
03-25-2011, 12:22 PM
There are several armies with WWg in DBA-RRR.
Whether or not they are ones in your painting queue is a different matter.

I guess that was an indifference to me as I mount my WWg on 2 40mm square bases so either basing works for me.

Tony Aguilar
03-25-2011, 12:27 PM
I guess that was an indifference to me as I mount my WWg on 2 40mm square bases so either basing works for me.

This might be the wisest thing you have ever done, Frank. ;)

David Constable
03-25-2011, 01:25 PM
I understand completely.

I was just stepping in to avoid any misunderstanding -- you responded to the original question saying that "the big unknown is bases."

Basing is an unresolved issue, but in general terms we know what's going to happen -- some armies will change a lot, some will stay the same, most will have only a very few changes. Most of our current bases will be fine, and some people will be very upset at particular changes that hit them where they live.

PART CUT

Never took it any other way.

But basing to me is more important than combat factors. I might not like parts of the new rules, but if in general they are OK, then I can live with them.

But do I build armies for 2.2 or wait, that to me, and I suspect a lot of people is more important at the moment.

At Wolverhampton (UK) this month three figure manufacturers had noticed a drop of in DBA armies sold, while generally sales had gone up.

David Constable

Redwilde
03-25-2011, 02:52 PM
But do I build armies for 2.2 or wait, that to me, and I suspect a lot of people is more important at the moment.


For me, that's a temporary concern, and not a big one. For new armies, I'm trimming figures, organising them by 2.2 lists and sorting them into baggies with my painting notes. I'll begin painting them once this issue is sorted out. The new armies are a handful of Hundred Years War ones, and I have a fair amount of excess figures on hand anyway since I was buying from different sources to get a wide variety of poses and visual distinctions between the armies.

I suspect I'll have enough excess figures on hand to make adjustments for any changes in the lists. If not, I'll just have to get some more figures, and that will probably lead to adding another army while I'm at it to maximise the shipping cost benefit -- oh the horror :cool

So, the upcoming changes didn't slow down my acquisitions.

For actual painting, I'm working on armies that are already in various stages of completion. And I've got plenty of those. So this isn't slowing down my actual painting time either.

pozanias
03-25-2011, 02:56 PM
Never took it any other way.

But basing to me is more important than combat factors. I might not like parts of the new rules, but if in general they are OK, then I can live with them.

But do I build armies for 2.2 or wait, that to me, and I suspect a lot of people is more important at the moment.

At Wolverhampton (UK) this month three figure manufacturers had noticed a drop of in DBA armies sold, while generally sales had gone up.

David Constable

Really? Of course everyone has different opinions and different reasons for playing -- but why would you even want to play a game that is broken? Basing seems irrelevent at that point. I would take a great game with bad basing, over a bad game with great basing every day of the week (and twice on Sundays).

Also, I think its way easier to "fix" basing (if necessary) as a community with generally accepted house rules than it is to fix things like movement and combat.

I should add that what I consider "broken" you may consider "parts you don't like but can live with". So we may just be worlds apart in what we are looking for out of DBA.

BigMadAl
03-25-2011, 03:05 PM
For actual painting, I'm working on armies that are already in various stages of completion. And I've got plenty of those. So this isn't slowing down my actual painting time either.

I'm in that same boat.

Kingo
03-25-2011, 03:09 PM
Either DBA 3 will be ok and may have a few changes by convention like 2.2 does, or I will stick with 2.2 .

Kingo

Bobgnar
03-25-2011, 03:57 PM
Sue has been saying, and Phil nothing to the contrary, that the base sizes will remain the same. Neither has said anything about changing WWg to be on a square base. That is one big change in basing or not. But only for a few armies.

As to other deeper than a square base, you need to look at Sue's proposed army lists. Are there armies with 6 mounted types, or 8 foot types? I do not plan to make any armies in the next 4 months that would have those types. I will actually not be doing any new armies until the new lists are published because of the troop types that may change in various armies.

The classic Indians, for example, of which I have 4 armies in both 25mm and 15mm, now have a horde. I may need to re-muster a number of elements for those and other armies. How do I now make up 4 hordes for each scale. 15mm might be easy, I have spare figs, but the 25's were bought painted.

So we can conclude there are to be basing issues but resolved in 3-4 months. I can wait.

Roland Fricke
03-26-2011, 09:28 AM
I'm not worried about rebasing. I'll just allow 2.2 lists and basing for a long time. I'm worried about how the game plays. Base size only has minor effects on a few elements but movement, contacting, ZOC affect everything you do in the game. If those types of changes are unpalatable - I'll play 2.2 or a slightly modified 2.2. And I have no issue running any events at cons as 2.2+ if 3.0 is deemed a dud by the community.

Lobotomy
03-26-2011, 02:51 PM
wisest . . . ., Frank.

I have never seen those two words in the same sentence before. A signal day in the history of mankind!:silly