Beta Here At Last

[Redwilde]

Wahoo! It's coffee time and now I can go through the full Beta sheets and notes. For those of us who have been on the GM development list, we've been seeing each stage of the playsheet leading up to this one as the line items have met with group approval. Now with all items having passed, we all get to see the first unveiling of the full test version.

I'm quite looking forward to running full public beta test games in the coming weeks and months.

Having been playing DBA since version 1.0 in 1990 and through all it's official versions up through 2.2, I was disappointed to see that 3.0 was in all likelihood heading off into development directions that I would not enjoy as much as any of the previous editions. Initially, my plan was to just develop my own personal amendment sheet to use at home and for hosting games at local clubs and conventions. But then I was very excited when WADBAG organised the development of 2.2+. I think this is a much stronger approach to unify our community efforts to polish up a common set of amendments to put the final shine on the rules that we all love.

I look forward to continued participation of a larger community of convention players with 2.2+ as it develops from its Beta version into its final form.

Cheers!
Maureen Reddington-Wilde

[Rich Gause]

I really do like the 2.2+ ammendments. I like every change better than straight 2.2. There might be things that are not perfect yet but taken as a whole it is pretty much what I was hoping 3.0 would be. I would encourage everybody to test it with an open mind and try to offer constructive feed back.

[Ammianus]

Thanks to all involved! Interesting times ahead; eager to see where 2.2+ and 3.0 end up. :up

[Martyn]

Thanks to all involved! Interesting times ahead; eager to see where 2.2+ and 3.0 end up. :up

Hopefully not at each others throats. :rolleyes

Looking forward to checking the details, thanks to all who put in the effort.

[Pavane]

Thank you WADBAG for starting this project and suffering through all of the slings and arrows. Your continuing contributions (and those of other WADBAG-wannabes) have invigorated the DBA community at a time when other DBx gaming opportunities have become moribund. That is quite an achievement. You guys are truly inspirational.

[vexillia]

I'd like to compliment the person who designed the layouts. Clear, clean and light: a joy to read.

Well done.

[Richard Lee]

Thanks to WADBAG and all the other people involved. Am looking forward to having a solo go tomorrow. (It will help if I can get my printer to work.) Can't do much this evening I am afraid, because I have been at the beer and rakia.

[winterbadger]

Huzzah! I've been enjoying playtesting some of the early drafts, and IMO this is just what was needed for DBA 2.2--a little tinkering around the edges. Others may prefer the full revamp that the new edition brings; more power to them--everyone should play what bring them most pleasure.

Thank you to the gents who have brought us this new variant; I'll be continuing to provide feedback as I test out the changes.

[Ammianus]

#6, I want to echo Vexillia's sentiment; great job on the layout, quick comprehension, easy on the eyes. BRAVO ZULU!

[Viking]

Looked it through briefly and I have two questions/concerns, which someone who has participated in the development process might know the answer to:

- Cataphracts. +1 vs foot compared to Kn, but lose all QKs. I'm curious about the reasoning here, are they thought of as being too slow to charge through and destroy a beaten enemy? Just seems strange as they are faster than most foot troops, but perhaps there's something else to be thought of here (game balance, historical evidence?). For what I understand, cataphracts were historically used to charge infantry formations but it seems to me that a combat factor of 3 with QK will almost always be preferable to one of 4 for that task.

- BUAs. Totally agree that long and complex BUA rules are a waste of space, but I don't see why they could not be used as impassable terrain. That way, they can become an interesting tactical challenge (and allow people with nicely painted BUAs to use them), while not requiring much text at all and not having too much influence on the game if they still must be placed near the edge of the table.

[Rich Gause]

I like the effect of the Cat with +4 and no quick kills. They are less likely to kill infantry outright but also much less vulnerable to being killed in turn if they don't. I think it is also nice to have them differentiated a bit more from Kn than just the movement rates. If they were still +3 with the quick kill and no impetuosity I would almost always prefer Cat to Kn, now there is more of a choice to be made. I would suggest trying the rules and leaving feedback at the Beta site Who knows?; If enough people want actual BUAs they might get put into the next version.

[Snoopy]

I would like to thank all the contributors to this effort.:2up

Burt

[pozanias]

I think your questions are good ones. I'll give my best shot at giving some of my personal rationale.


- Cataphracts. +1 vs foot compared to Kn, but lose all QKs. I'm curious about the reasoning here, are they thought of as being too slow to charge through and destroy a beaten enemy? Just seems strange as they are faster than most foot troops, but perhaps there's something else to be thought of here (game balance, historical evidence?). For what I understand, cataphracts were historically used to charge infantry formations but it seems to me that a combat factor of 3 with QK will almost always be preferable to one of 4 for that task.

This is an attempt to recognize that although Cataphracts may have charged, generally speaking they were far less impetuous than "other" knights and far less reliant upon a "hard" charge to break their foe.



- BUAs. Totally agree that long and complex BUA rules are a waste of space, but I don't see why they could not be used as impassable terrain. That way, they can become an interesting tactical challenge (and allow people with nicely painted BUAs to use them), while not requiring much text at all and not having too much influence on the game if they still must be placed near the edge of the table.

I think this is also a good solution. It was definitely in the mix of possibilities. As was treating BUAs as "woods". But at the end of the day, I think the general feeling was that BUAs really didn't have any regular or significant impact on battles that are represented historically in DBA so why have them at all.

You can always use your beautiful BUAs as camps. Or just place them next to the game board for effect.

[Snoopy]

Is the changing of type (lt sp, raiders, cataphracts) going to force basing changes?

[winterbadger]

Is the changing of type (lt sp, raiders, cataphracts) going to force basing changes?

No; in fact it keys off the existing official 2.2 basing and army lists (3Sp, 3Bd, 4 Kn).

[Snoopy]

No; in fact it keys off the existing official 2.2 basing and army lists (3Sp, 3Bd, 4 Kn).

That's true, however it still changes the strength of the element and therefore changes the army.

Another question would be why no distinction with 3ax/4ax?

Burt

[Rich Gause]

That's true, however it still changes the strength of the element and therefore changes the army.

Another question would be why no distinction with 3ax/4ax?

Burt

If you look at DBM/MM where DBA gets its 3/4 distinctions from some of them mean fast vs not fast elements some of them mean regular vs irregular. Bow and Aux it means regular vs irregular so you can't really use their differences for DBA. DBM/MM 3 Bd is Bd(f) for fast and anything that is 3 Bd in DBA can be represented by the Raider type.

[Snoopy]

If you look at DBM/MM where DBA gets its 3/4 distinctions from some of them mean fast vs not fast elements some of them mean regular vs irregular. Bow and Aux it means regular vs irregular so you can't really use their differences for DBA. DBM/MM 3 Bd is Bd(f) for fast and anything that is 3 Bd in DBA can be represented by the Raider type.

Rich, I thought that was THE or A major problem comparing DBA (which I play) to DBM/MM (which I do not play, nor have read, or even looked at).

So if I get your reasoning, some armies will change based on DBM/MM.

BTW I am not being difficult, just looking for answers.:cool

Burt

[Rich Gause]

Rich, I thought that was THE or A major problem comparing DBA (which I play) to DBM/MM (which I do not play, nor have read, or even looked at).

So if I get your reasoning, some armies will change based on DBM/MM.

BTW I am not being difficult, just looking for answers.:cool

Burt

No, they are changing based on what the DBA 2.2 army lists say. I suppose what I explained before is where the 2.2 army lists came from. In any case there is no rebasing or changes to the elements from 2.2 to 2.2+, some of them just have some different rules.

[Redwilde]

Another question would be why no distinction with 3ax/4ax?


This question was raised in the GM group. The criteria for which basing distinctions were worth giving rules distinctions I think boiled down these:

* does the distinction add both a layer of both historical detail and tactical subtlety which is otherwise missing from DBA?

* does it do so without making one set of the pairing a super troop under the proposed rules mechanics? i.e. if a 3Ax would always be a preferable choice over a 4Ax, then that would be bad.

* does it do so within the basic simplicity of the DBA rules mechanics and not needing extra special case rules which would bog down the elegance of the rules? For people who don't mind having lots of special case rules, the DBMx family already caters to that.

Especially for 3Bd and 3Sp Dark Age armies, and for differencing Cataphract armies from Knight armies the answers to all of the above came in very affirmatively.

No one could come up with compelling changes for 3/4 Ax, Bw, or Wb.

If anyone comes up with brilliant ideas that might work, please share!

The philosophy is that adding rules complexity is bad. But adding tactical nuance and a greater range in the feel of how armies play is good.

[ferrency]

Rich, I thought that was THE or A major problem comparing DBA (which I play) to DBM/MM (which I do not play, nor have read, or even looked at).

So if I get your reasoning, some armies will change based on DBM/MM.

BTW I am not being difficult, just looking for answers.:cool


The important aspect is the history.

The Raider, Light Spear, Cataphract, and Pavise rules have all been added to make historical troop interactions work more accurately.

Other troop types have been changed to improve their historical performance.

In other cases of elements that have multiple basings, such as Ax, Bw, and Wb, there isn't enough difference in their historical performance to justify a separate rule in a game that works at DBA's level of abstraction.

It's a matter of degrees. Nobody wants the fine grained troop grades that DBM/DBMM have. That would multiply our element count by a factor of 5, instead of adding a few distinct elements.

Drawing the line between what to include and what not to include is a design decision, and the 2.2+ designers have decided to draw it where you see it. The decision was made based on history and performance, and not with conformity to other rule sets or needless consistency in mind.

The new element types you see here are different enough, improve history enough, and appear in enough armies to warrant inclusion. Other element types that were considered have not met these criteria and were not included.

Alan

[El' Jocko]

So if I get your reasoning, some armies will change based on DBM/MM.

BTW I am not being difficult, just looking for answers.:cool

I don't think anything is changing based on DBM or DBMM! :up

But the basing conventions that DBA inherits from DBM allows us to distinguish certain element types from each other. The DBA 2.2 army lists include both 4Bd and 3Bd, and the army lists separate different troops into these two categories based on the historical prototypes.

And that allows us create a new type, Raiders, without making anyone rebase their armies to use v2.2+. But the impetus for this is that we thought that Raiders were a valuable element type to include in the game--not that we were trying to match the element types in DBM.

Of course there are lots of other element types that DBM and DBMM distinguish that we didn't think worth adding to v2.2+. The ones that we chose were those that seemed to provide the biggest benefit with the least increase in complexity.

- Jack

[david kuijt]

Looked it through briefly and I have two questions/concerns, which someone who has participated in the development process might know the answer to:

For what I understand, cataphracts were historically used to charge infantry formations but it seems to me that a combat factor of 3 with QK will almost always be preferable to one of 4 for that task.


(to that last) Depends -- if you don't want to die, 4 with no QK is much better than 3 with a QK and impetuous! Plus much better against archery, which is the big bugaboo of Knights.

My understanding is that Cataphracts are a type of troop that developed in the steppes fighting against mounted archery, not against foot. Their development traces through the Sarmatians (who were still psycho-charging, so still rated as Kn) to the Parthians, then through contact with the Parthians we get Cataphracts in the Seleucids, and so on. I'm not sure that any Cataphracts were developed to charge infantry formations until the Kataphractoi of the Nikephorian Byzantines, and those were a reinvention after the troop type had been unused for hundreds of years, so the original purpose and focus had long-since been obscured.

Hope this (brief) answer touches some of your concerns. We've tried Cataphracts in multiple playtest sessions, and some of our playtesters like them among the best of the changes in 2.2+. If you try them, hopefully you'll think so too!

[winterbadger]

That's true, however it still changes the strength of the element and therefore changes the army.

Yes, but the question you asked was whether basing changes would be needed, not whether it changed the nature of the army.

Of course it will change the nature of the army; the only way it didn't would be if the rules for the new type were the same as the rules for the old type. :silly

[Snoopy]

Wow talk about defending a position.

Gentlemen thank you very much for your comments and your help. The statements and reasoning behind them should alleviate any further questions on the subject. At least for those of us who support v2.2+.

See you at Cold Wars, Burt:2up

[winterbadger]

The important aspect is the history.

The Raider, Light Spear, Cataphract, and Pavise rules have all been added to make historical troop interactions work more accurately.

Other troop types have been changed to improve their historical performance.

In other cases of elements that have multiple basings, such as Ax, Bw, and Wb, there isn't enough difference in their historical performance to justify a separate rule in a game that works at DBA's level of abstraction.

For my part, I would kind of like to see Bw, especially 3 Bw, move at 4 MU. It would, to my mind, complete the distinction between the lighter and looser Bow (still more of a massed shooting type than Ps) and the Pavise troops with their admixture of spear or other heavy foot that slow them down and cause them to be affected by BG.

But I accept that that's just me gilding the lily. :rolleyes

[MJT]

Wow talk about defending a position.

Gentlemen thank you very much for your comments and your help. The statements and reasoning behind them should alleviate any further questions on the subject. At least for those of us who support v2.2+.

See you at Cold Wars, Burt:2up

Hello Burt,
I generally sit off and watch these discussions without comment ... but perhaps I can add this ...

It's not so much about "defending the position" but there has been a lot of discussion and playtests around the very points you have raised. We have heard and argued these issues and much of it is resolved in our minds.

It's important that you (and others) continue to ask these questions and challenge our position so we can confirm the sense of it or change it - if the counter argument is valid. I guess we need to be a little less forthright in our assumptions!

Thanks for giving 2.2+ a go. I think you'll like it.

P.S. I'm not 100% won over on the Cataphracts thing either ... but they are way better than the Knight substitute we used to have. Only playtesting will tell.

Thanks
Marcus
2.2+ Team

[Viking]

Plus much better against archery, which is the big bugaboo of Knights.
Ah, nice one, didn't notice Bw don't have QK on contact with them. With 4QK against 4 Bw will be a speedbump, so that's a clear use for them then. Interesting!

My understanding is that Cataphracts are a type of troop that developed in the steppes fighting against mounted archery, not against foot.
That doesn't seem to be modelled in their stats, though. Same stats against LH/Cv as Kn and slower, so it seems to me like they're worse against those enemies compared to Kn. Unless I've missed something... again ;) No ideas for how to change it though; removing the LH QK on them seems like it would make them very powerful.



By the way, another thing which I started to think about when reading in the BUA thread but which belongs here: now that 1/2 base widths are used rather than inches, I think something should be said about terrain sizes. Placement is stated to be as per 2.2, but is it intended that the old measurements (in inches) should also be used for them?

Further, regarding Litters, the way I read it they are meant to still be 40x80 mm, while WWg becomes 40x40 again. Is my understanding correct here?

And I'd like to add that I really like that you must be faster in order to break off from the enemy. Might give some more flexibility to maneuver armies and I'm looking forward to testing it.

[kontos]

Unless my tired old eyes missed it, I see that Cavalry still flees from Spear but Light Spear are not listed in that combat outcome. Is it the intent they become "otherwise" and would destroy cavalry? Every place else in the edits Light Spear and Spear are distinguished but not so in this combat outcome. What's the intent here? I want to play test it correctly. Thanks in advance.

BTW - well done 2.2+ Team!!!

[snowcat]

Neat layout.:up

In friendly games (at least), there's no reason why the 3.0 army lists couldn't be used/converted to 2.2+ is there?

[ferrency]

That doesn't seem to be modelled in their stats, though. Same stats against LH/Cv as Kn and slower, so it seems to me like they're worse against those enemies compared to Kn.

Knights are relatively strong against LH and Cv when they first make contact, because of their superior combat factors. But they're very vulnerable once they follow up into double overlaps.

Cataphracts don't follow up, so they can maintain their combat factors after they win.

To me, Cataphracts feel a bit like mounted spears. They're tough and survive well, but they don't kill quickly.



By the way, another thing which I started to think about when reading in the BUA thread but which belongs here: now that 1/2 base widths are used rather than inches, I think something should be said about terrain sizes. Placement is stated to be as per 2.2, but is it intended that the old measurements (in inches) should also be used for them?

As far as I know, the 2.2 rules measure terrain size in base widths (maximum 9 base widths for the sum of the length plus width) and not in inches. This was already universal across both scales supported by the rules.


Further, regarding Litters, the way I read it they are meant to still be 40x80 mm, while WWg becomes 40x40 again. Is my understanding correct here?

I think this is correct. Litters don't share the bulk of the weird WWg rules, so they don't benefit as much from being smaller. The main odd situation is when they turn to face, since they're so huge.

Alan

[ferrency]

Unless my tired old eyes missed it, I see that Cavalry still flees from Spear but Light Spear are not listed in that combat outcome. Is it the intent they become "otherwise" and would destroy cavalry? Every place else in the edits Light Spear and Spear are distinguished but not so in this combat outcome. What's the intent here? I want to play test it correctly. Thanks in advance.

This is a good question.

Light Spear is a bit of a mix between Spear and Pike; but Cav flees from both. I would expect that Cav should flee from Light Spear as well, and that it was simply forgotten.

Alan

[ferrency]

As far as I know, the 2.2 rules measure terrain size in base widths (maximum 9 base widths for the sum of the length plus width) and not in inches. This was already universal across both scales supported by the rules.

I'm sorry: I forgot that Waterway depth is measured in inches.

Alan

[david kuijt]

That doesn't seem to be modelled in their stats, though. Same stats against LH/Cv as Kn and slower, so it seems to me like they're worse against those enemies compared to Kn. Unless I've missed something... again ;)


Not impetuous. Knights don't get killed by LH much on first contact; it is when they get pulled into single and double overlaps that they start dying. Not impetuous means that Cat are better than Kn against LH, and Cav too. Kn players need to be really careful about initiating contact against LH -- if they don't get some kills, they are going to be in nasty situations on the enemy bound. Cat players not so much.

[david kuijt]

In friendly games (at least), there's no reason why the 3.0 army lists couldn't be used/converted to 2.2+ is there?

Haven't looked at them recently, but in many past versions the 3.0 army lists lose data that is important -- 3Sp and 3Bd differentiation, for example.

Other than that, sure.

[david kuijt]

This is a good question.

Light Spear is a bit of a mix between Spear and Pike; but Cav flees from both. I would expect that Cav should flee from Light Spear as well, and that it was simply forgotten.

Alan

That's an error, yes. Thought we'd fixed that one.

[snowcat]

Haven't looked at them recently, but in many past versions the 3.0 army lists lose data that is important -- 3Sp and 3Bd differentiation, for example.

Other than that, sure.

Good. There's a couple of lists (at least) that I'm attempting to get fixed/corrected. One (Tibetan) has already been sent to Phil (actually Bill MacGillivray's list) and the Wallachian/Moldavian that I'm working on. Hopefully the Hunnic (amongst others) has already been sorted, etc.

[peleset]

I'd like to compliment the person who designed the layouts. Clear, clean and light: a joy to read.

Well done.

I very much agree.
A refreshing read of ease unlike the main rule book which seems doomed to always being a hostile dense mass I would like to ride down with my sexy new Cataphracts. :)
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h220/peleset/Late%20Rome/cataphractsb.jpg
How much more could this game be if written in a different style, such as the Guide?

Since changes are being made, would it not be simpler if psiloi rear support were restricted to the element directly in front, as has been mentioned by others elsewhere, as (I believe) was the case in a previous version of the rules?

[Viking]

Knights are relatively strong against LH and Cv when they first make contact, because of their superior combat factors. But they're very vulnerable once they follow up into double overlaps.

Cataphracts don't follow up, so they can maintain their combat factors after they win.

To me, Cataphracts feel a bit like mounted spears. They're tough and survive well, but they don't kill quickly.
Not impetuous. Knights don't get killed by LH much on first contact; it is when they get pulled into single and double overlaps that they start dying. Not impetuous means that Cat are better than Kn against LH, and Cav too. Kn players need to be really careful about initiating contact against LH -- if they don't get some kills, they are going to be in nasty situations on the enemy bound. Cat players not so much.
Ah, now I'm starting to see how you've been thinking. Sounds great, makes me wish I had an army with 4Kn so I could test this out.

As far as I know, the 2.2 rules measure terrain size in base widths (maximum 9 base widths for the sum of the length plus width) and not in inches. This was already universal across both scales supported by the rules.
Oh, I see now that I was very unclear, I was thinking of those specific terrain types where some measures are given in paces. That's just the case for rivers and waterways, but something said about that would be nice.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I have had a good study of the 2.2+ sheet etc and would like to make a few comments.

Movement
Hate it! Honestly I think you have scored an own goal on this one. As it appears you may have looked at some DBMM mechanisms I would have thought you would have incorporated the DBMM movement rates. Measuring in element widths is so easy to do, you just use a spare element to measure distances. I hate fiddling about with half measurements. I also feel that the 3 MU for most foot is far too slow and I fear this will impact on the types of armies that will appear on the table. I also fail to see where auxilia and Psiloi get to move faster than the new 'Cataphract' type as this is not borne out by the historical information about how fast 'Cataphracts' could move. I suggest that they move no faster than Cataphracts to be honest.

Combat
I feel that camelry should not destroy Knights as this again does not bear out the history. Rather, Knights and Cataphracts should be forced to flee if not doubled by camels. Cataphracts should destroy cavalry, auxilia, Psiloi, light spear and raider not recoil them if they beat those types. This is based on Vegetius statement about the effectiveness of Cataphracts/Clibanarii. As Cataphracts do not appear to quick kill anything in their bound then I fail to see why anyone will bother to take them if they have the option to take Knights. Is there any provision for artillery to shoot over the heads of others if they are on a hill?

There are some interesting bits in 2.2+ but I feel its rather spoilt by having far too many troop types now, to be perfectly honest I'd rather play DBMM100 now due to the increase in both element types and the different combat effects as its not that far removed from from DBMM100 in my opinion.

[Viking]

Cataphracts should destroy cavalry, auxilia, Psiloi, light spear and raider not recoil them if they beat those types. This is based on Vegetius statement about the effectiveness of Cataphracts/Clibanarii.
Having a QK against all of those seems to me like it would make them a super-element, considering their high combat factors.

As Cataphracts do not appear to quick kill anything in their bound then I fail to see why anyone will bother to take them if they have the option to take Knights.
I raised this question earlier in the thread, but it was pointed out by others that they are a trump card against Bw (which they quick kill, and which Kn hate) and due to no pursuit they will be better in a drawn-out fight, especially when fighting things which have QK against them. So they can definitely be very useful.

[kontos]

I have had a good study of the 2.2+ sheet etc and would like to make a few comments.

Movement
Hate it! Honestly I think you have scored an own goal on this one. As it appears you may have looked at some DBMM mechanisms I would have thought you would have incorporated the DBMM movement rates. Measuring in element widths is so easy to do, you just use a spare element to measure distances. I hate fiddling about with half measurements. I also feel that the 3 MU for most foot is far too slow and I fear this will impact on the types of armies that will appear on the table. I also fail to see where auxilia and Psiloi get to move faster than the new 'Cataphract' type as this is not borne out by the historical information about how fast 'Cataphracts' could move. I suggest that they move no faster than Cataphracts to be honest.


There are some interesting bits in 2.2+ but I feel its rather spoilt by having far too many troop types now, to be perfectly honest I'd rather play DBMM100 now due to the increase in both element types and the different combat effects as its not that far removed from from DBMM100 in my opinion.

You can still use a spare element to measure distances. A 40x20 is perfect for this. As for the movement rates, it appears MUs (half BW) are the closest to v2.2 published movement rates so if heavy foot are too slow in 2.2+, they were too slow in 2.2. None of that has changed. That, I believe, was the whole point. 2.2+ players do not want the speed of 3.0. I like the new troop types adding variety without complexity. They fit into the rules nicely and add some historical choices. I don't play DBM100 so I cannot compare. I like what I see in 2.2+ so far. It is great we all have the privilege of choice. :up

[Doug]

You can still use a spare element to measure distances. A 40x20 is perfect for this. As for the movement rates, it appears MUs (half BW) are the closest to v2.2 published movement rates so if heavy foot are too slow in 2.2+, they were too slow in 2.2. None of that has changed. That, I believe, was the whole point. 2.2+ players do not want the speed of 3.0. I like the new troop types adding variety without complexity. They fit into the rules nicely and add some historical choices. I don't play DBM100 so I cannot compare. I like what I see in 2.2+ so far. It is great we all have the privilege of choice. :up

"Some" 2.2 players don't want the movement speed of DBA3! As a 2.2 player I do have an opinion.

And why is it that changes in 3 'add complexity' while 2.2+ adds 'variety'.

Sounds to me like WADBAG have some spin-doctors working for them.

[arnopov]

"Some" 2.2 players don't want the movement speed of DBA3! As a 2.2 player I do have an opinion.

And why is it that changes in 3 'add complexity' while 2.2+ adds 'variety'.

Sounds to me like WADBAG have some spin-doctors working for them.


If you really want to be fair, Kontos never said, nor even implied, that 3.0 added complexity. You are reading what you want here.

And yes, it's the change in speed that seems to be the main fracture line.

Arnopov

[david kuijt]

And why is it that changes in 3 'add complexity' while 2.2+ adds 'variety'.

Sounds to me like WADBAG have some spin-doctors working for them.


Whether someone finds 3.0 to be to their taste, or prefers 2.2+, is going to be a matter of personal taste. Using phrases like "spin-doctoring" to attack others expressing their preference in a public forum is rude, and a little hypocritical for someone who has been extolling his vision of the virtues of 3.0 in the same public forum for many months.

[prich]

What we are going to do with our 60x60 tables?
Why haven't you continued with the 60x60 tables if the LH quick kill on Sp and Pk has been removed? I always thought that 75x75 tables were adopted as a solution for the LH quick-killing issue.
Why have you changed the "100 paces=1 inch" to "1 MU=1/2 BW"? Troops move faster than in v2.2. Is this done due to the compulsory use of 75x75 table?

Yes, my old 60x60 DBA game mat is crying right now...

[david kuijt]

What we are going to do with our 60x60 tables?

Sorry, Prich. Keep playing on 60x60, if you like. 75x75 is a better game, but 60x60 is still a fun game with most armies and most opponents.

Why haven't you continued with the 60x60 tables if the LH quick kill on Sp and Pk has been removed? I always thought that 75x75 tables were adopted as a solution for the LH quick-killing issue.

The reverse, actually. Phil put the LH QK in as a reaction to the 75x75 board advocates. The 75x75 board is a solution to other issues, mostly edge-of-the-world oddities.


Why have you changed the "100 paces=1 inch" to "1 MU=1/2 BW"? Troops move faster than in v2.2.


Try it out, Prich. See what you think. Many of the tournament organizers and GMs who worked on it had the same initial reaction, but really swung around once they had playtested it a few times.

[Doug]

Whether someone finds 3.0 to be to their taste, or prefers 2.2+, is going to be a matter of personal taste. Using phrases like "spin-doctoring" to attack others expressing their preference in a public forum is rude, and a little hypocritical for someone who has been extolling his vision of the virtues of 3.0 in the same public forum for many months.

I see some virtues in the current version of DBA3. I have also (in the test circles) been a trenchant critic where I see significant issues or additional complexity for no real gain.

To be fair, I think we are in exactly the same position, we both want a development of 2.2 that gives a good game, remains true to the spirit of DBA, and will attract new players to the game.

I have never tried to 'spin' the realities of change. And it is not an 'attack' it is just a comparison of the criticisms that have been raised of DBA3 vs 2.2+ and any comparison between 'complexity and sophistication' depends largely on where most commentators have pinned their colours.

So for example, I would like BUA simplified and made less easy to exploit. DBA3 has made some changes towards this, 2.2+ has scrapped BUA. Both approaches are not what I want.

I don't mind the longer moves in DBA3, 2.2+ uses (generally) smaller increments and has more base movement rates. I could make the case that 2.2+ has unnecessary complexity, you could make the case that the longer moves in DBA3 affect the game interactions in strange ways.

Other things in DBA3 and 2.2+ are identical.. (changed Elephant factors, rear support in some circumstances, and so on).

What I was surprised at was what I saw as a degree of 'slant' or 'spin' where additional rules/changes that some people didn't like were labelled as "unnecessary complexity", whereas other rule changes were "adding variety" or "verisimilitude".

Each is a matter of opinion; so I was just pointing out that to make statements as if one side held the tablets of stone, was at best disingenuous.

In my experience (for example) there was no great clamour for cataphracts to be treated differently.

So all I am saying is - let's not make this an ideoological war, but let's acknowledge that each side should be careful about the claims that are made? neither side is 100% right so it shouldn't be adversarial.

By doing so we make it much more likely that two separate threads of development can be combined at some point in the future and lessen potential schisms and holy wars?

[winterbadger]

If you really want to be fair, Kontos never said, nor even implied, that 3.0 added complexity. You are reading what you want here.

Well, that and he deliberately misrepresented Kontos's reply. What Kontos said, and what Doug quoted, was

2.2+ players do not want the speed of 3.0.

But because that wouldn't suit his agenda of attacking anything but his favoured system, he replied

"Some" 2.2 players don't want the movement speed of DBA3! As a 2.2 player I do have an opinion.

That's deceptive and dishonest; he's pretending to reply to something that Kontos never actually said.

But that's par for the course. :(

[david Crenshaw]

Try it out, Prich. See what you think. Many of the tournament organizers and GMs who worked on it had the same initial reaction, but really swung around once they had playtested it a few times.

I had the same reaction, as did others, but mostly I think because the movement is just different (though proportionally about the same as 2.2), not due to any consideration of how it affects the game. DK and Alan were kind enough to provide a movement template which helped enormously in our subsequent games and I rather enjoyed the games. I'm still getting used to the larger boards, but I think they will end up adding a nice richness to the games. I was especially pleased with the new element types/distinctions.

David

[david kuijt]

So all I am saying is - let's not make this an ideoological war, but let's acknowledge that each side should be careful about the claims that are made? neither side is 100% right so it shouldn't be adversarial.


Sure. I'd certainly be happy if you toned down the adversarial rhetoric -- one of your posts today used the word "unconscionable" when referring to the efforts of the v2.2+ GM list vis-a-vis your perception of Phil's copyrights; referring to people who express a positive opinion of v2.2+ as being engaged in "spin-control" is another example. You have the right to express your opinion, of course, but so do others who find 3.0 not as much to their taste as you do.

[Ammianus]

Not to change the subject, but...

I've tried a couple of games on 2.2+ now. In the first, Sub Roman Brits edged the Picts, 4-3; a triumph of heavy spear over light spear I suppose. Next, LIR (W), my old standbys, burned early Visigoths, 6-1. (sorry Alaric)

With rear support retained and the new movement rates, these games both felt very 2.2ish, very similar results to what I'm used to in the past with these armies. I like 2.2, 2.2+ and am still open to 3.0, particularly Bob & Dog's suggested elimination of rear supports across the board.

I lost my copy years ago, but someone on this forum had published a QRS that incorporated different movement rates for the different elements 3,4,5 WB, etc. I thought that a clever idea at the time.

I imagine some of us will steal what we think best from the various DBA's, & play our own mix. Lots of food for thought from the various constructive conversations. Keep up the good work all!

[Doug]

Well, that and he deliberately misrepresented Kontos's reply. What Kontos said, and what Doug quoted, was



But because that wouldn't suit his agenda of attacking anything but his favoured system, he replied



That's deceptive and dishonest; he's pretending to reply to something that Kontos never actually said.

But that's par for the course. :(


One of the ongoing criticisms of 3 has been 'unnecessary' complexity - if you have not made this statement, I apologise, but it has been made, and repeated on this site. My point (obviously) is that necessary vs unnecessary complexity is very much in the subjective eye of the beholder.

And stating that 2.2+ players like 2.2+ is not necessarily a revelation, I confess I read this as '2.2 players prefer 2.2+ movement' - if this wasn't what was stated, again I apologise.

But I absolutely refute any intent to be deceptive or dishonest. I have not been either during this whole discussion, and I think I have made an effort to be civil.

If you want to call me that, then I suggest you come up with some examples where I have been dishonest, or you can make an apology. I haven't called anyone a liar - you just have.

[Rock]

I have stayed out of the conversation to date. I have just reviewed the beta 2.2+ files and I hope to test them with several friends locally ASAP. I simply want to express my respect and appreciation for all of you who have invested much thought and time into this. Having played DBA and BBDBA against a number of you, I already respect you as gamers and good people with whom I enjoy playing games for hours on end. Thank you again.

[Doug]

Sure. I'd certainly be happy if you toned down the adversarial rhetoric -- one of your posts today used the word "unconscionable" when referring to the efforts of the v2.2+ GM list vis-a-vis your perception of Phil's copyrights; referring to people who express a positive opinion of v2.2+ as being engaged in "spin-control" is another example. You have the right to express your opinion, of course, but so do others who find 3.0 not as much to their taste as you do.

David, that post was in a different context, and a separate thread. I don't resile from it.

My use of the term 'spin doctors' in this thread seems to have raised a few hackles, and therefore I suspect that the term has a more pejorative meaning in other milieus. But my point (which I think is valid) is that "unnecessary complexity" versus "added sophistication" is very much a matter of perception, and the terminology used is biased and likely to arouse a different reaction depending on how the statement is framed.

Poll Question...
- adding 'raiders' is dependent on basing, requires changed factors and combat results, do you think this is an unnecessary complication?
- adding raiders to DBA allows you to better model a troop type not currently well-represented, do you think this additional sophistication adds to the game?

[Redwilde]

The distinction and balance between adding more tactical nuance within the framework of the existing rules without adding unwanted complication needs to be approached carefully. But for myself, there is a clear tipping point. I think this was also clear in the approach and testing of the 2.2+ GM group that we were being mindful to maintain that balance.

If I liked a lot of complexity, I would play DBMx. I don't. I certainly do think that DBA can benefit by a little more variety in troop types if they are not burdened with special case rules. These are not contradictory opinions.

I believe it is probably harder for people who do enjoy playing DBMx (and other WRG games before that) to understand that there is a hard line somewhere along the spectrum of complexity, that if it is crossed, then DBA would no longer be enjoyable for those of us who just don't enjoy the other games.

It's as simple as "I'd like a little more Wasabi." "I do not want a lot more Wasabi." No amount of argument is going to change my tastes.

[Viking]

Although I feel more enthusiastic about 2.2+ than 3.0, I must say I think Doug raises some good points which would be good to keep in mind even though I don't agree with other things he says.

There's a lot of rhethoric and defensiveness on both sides of the fence, a lot of people seem to find the most negative interpretation of what others say and then stick with that. It may actually be better to accept that people will have different views and will prefer different games, and hope that many people will be open to not just ever playing one version. Constant attacks on the "opposition" may reach the point where it does not further one's own cause. (Case in point: although I haven't been involved in the 3.0 or 2.2+ discussions on the Yahoo list, Phil's postings there have ensured that I will most likely not ever buy a copy of 3.0 as I would not want to support him financially in any way, although I'm still open about playing it in case one of my gaming buddies buys one.)

2.2+ is definitely more complex than 2.2 and I would be surprised if anyone had expected differently, in that respect it is similar to 3.0. Adding house rules to a game tends to do that in my experience, not saying it's a bad thing though. Certainly, there are some aspects in which 3.0 is "cleaner", like the loss of most rear supports (which I think is great in itself, although it seems like there has been a failure in making up for this game balance-wise).

[ValentinianVictrix]

The distinction and balance between adding more tactical nuance within the framework of the existing rules without adding unwanted complication needs to be approached carefully. But for myself, there is a clear tipping point. I think this was also clear in the approach and testing of the 2.2+ GM group that we were being mindful to maintain that balance.

If I liked a lot of complexity, I would play DBMx. I don't. I certainly do think that DBA can benefit by a little more variety in troop types if they are not burdened with special case rules. These are not contradictory opinions.

I believe it is probably harder for people who do enjoy playing DBMx (and other WRG games before that) to understand that there is a hard line somewhere along the spectrum of complexity, that if it is crossed, then DBA would no longer be enjoyable for those of us who just don't enjoy the other games.

It's as simple as "I'd like a little more Wasabi." "I do not want a lot more Wasabi." No amount of argument is going to change my tastes.

As one of the original playtesters of the DBA prototypes I feel that perhaps the complexity line has already been crossed by 2.2+ purely by the addition of the new troop types. The more troop types you start adding the more you veer towards DBMM territory. Not that I think its a bad idea, there is a thought that as Phil has stated he believes DBMM is the best set of Ancients rules he has ever written (Not the best written I would add but probably the most enjoyable set of ancients rules I have played in recent years) then perhaps he should have considered letting DBA die a natural death and instead pushed DBMM100 as the small scale ancients game of choice.

But, that is probably not within the scope of this threads debate...

[Doug]

I just posted to the DBA 3 test group...

"In all seriousness there is a complex and very rich set of ancients rules called DBMM. I think we should remain cognisant of the relative strengths, intent, and weaknesses of the DBMM vs DBA model. Each has their place, and if you really want added complexity with small numbers of elements play DBMM100.

DBA is still the "simplest set compatible with historical accuracy" and everything needs to be considered through that prism. The recent discussions have been very interesting, but they have taken DBA3 away from that model of simplicity of interaction and simple mechanics modelling game aspects.

My personal preference would be to:
1. Use existing mechanics (inherent factor plus tactical (inc. rear support) plus outcome interactions (destroy/recoil/flee) for each of beat/double etc. so no MB/YB
2. Dont encourage [largely] unhistorical behaviour (like infantry charging Knights)
3. Retain only the existing troop types as far as it is compatible with 1 & 2.
4. Maintain at least some value for each troop type ( the main test “ can you conceive of a choice between troop types where it is always “ regardless of opponents - 100% one way a decision x“ if so.. it's a problem.)
5. Remove Gamesmanship (loosely defined as the ability to play the rules as opposed to playing historical choice) by implementing or rewarding behaviours characteristic of that type/unhistorical formation/board positioning."

So hopefully you can see that the processes are broadly the same and 3 isnt speaking Swahili to Chinese.

[Rich Gause]

I don't think a greater variety of troop types is enough of an added complexity to be an issue. It is usually just remembering a couple extra factors, in many cases the same factors as an existing type and maybe a different outcome result or two also in many cases very similiar to an existing type. Nobody has to figure out exactly how a new concept works or figure out all the unintended consequences. It was encouraging to see how quickly and 3easily most DBA-RRR players internalised most of the new element rules for example. Added complexity that has potential problems for appealing to players who want a simpler game than DBMM100 IMO are new game mechanics that are difficult to explain and remember like bound or odd/even specific outcomes, quality ratings, group conforming rules etc....

[david kuijt]

As one of the original playtesters of the DBA prototypes I feel that perhaps the complexity line has already been crossed by 2.2+ purely by the addition of the new troop types.

Sure. We were all aware that some people would feel that way. I found it amusing that some people posted that as soon as they heard there were any new troop types, without any knowledge of what they were or playtesting to determine if they worked or not -- but that's what happens. It's a big world, with lots of different people.

It is my firm belief that the majority of people who now play v2.2, who try v2.2+, will like it. That's the experience we had for the long list of GMs and tournament organizers who have worked on it so far. But we never thought everyone was going to like it -- that would be silly. Heck, Bob often posts that he thinks DBA v1.1 was the best version.

So if you think the introduction of new element types makes it not to your taste -- that's fine. Some will certainly agree with you. Some others will think we didn't go far enough. What we did was we tried to make the best evolution of 2.2 we could, that still felt like DBA 2.2. There was never any chance every person would agree with us -- you can't get universal agreement about the color of the sky.

[Rich Gause]

I just posted to the DBA 3 test group...

4. Maintain at least some value for each troop type ( the main test “ can you conceive of a choice between troop types where it is always “ regardless of opponents - 100% one way a decision x“ if so.. it's a problem.)


I really like your point above. I think that is pretty essential in a game with no point system that is restricted to 12 elements per army.

[elsyr]

Thanks for making the beta available, and for the obvious effort that went into creating it.

One question regarding movement and the MU: unless I'm just missing it, I do not see anything concerning outcome movements. By this can I assume the 2.2 rules are unchanged? I was rather hoping for outcome moves independent of base depth.

Thanks,
Doug

[Pavane]

Thanks for making the beta available, and for the obvious effort that went into creating it.

One question regarding movement and the MU: unless I'm just missing it, I do not see anything concerning outcome movements. By this can I assume the 2.2 rules are unchanged? I was rather hoping for outcome moves independent of base depth.

Thanks,
Doug
It is pure DBA 2.2, unchanged.

[ferrency]

Since changes are being made, would it not be simpler if psiloi rear support were restricted to the element directly in front?

Yes. But simpler is not always better. There are many things about DBA 3 that are "simpler" than they were in 2.2, and many of those are also reasons I am not interested in playing DBA 3.

Alan

[Doug]

I don't think a greater variety of troop types is enough of an added complexity to be an issue. It is usually just remembering a couple extra factors, in many cases the same factors as an existing type and maybe a different outcome result or two also in many cases very similiar to an existing type. Nobody has to figure out exactly how a new concept works or figure out all the unintended consequences. It was encouraging to see how quickly and 3easily most DBA-RRR players internalised most of the new element rules for example. Added complexity that has potential problems for appealing to players who want a simpler game than DBMM100 IMO are new game mechanics that are difficult to explain and remember like bound or odd/even specific outcomes, quality ratings, group conforming rules etc....

Rich - completely agree. Same mechanics but different factors is much easier than different mechanics, I could argue that 'typical' interactions don't need new troop types, but they are all defensible (accepting that the level of granularity sought varies between individuals, so for example.. I don't think that Viking fighting styles changed sufficiently between 3Bd and 4Bd in a game at DBA scale to need to have different types.) Of course - opinion swill differ.

[Doug]

Yes. But simpler is not always better. There are many things about DBA 3 that are "simpler" than they were in 2.2, and many of those are also reasons I am not interested in playing DBA 3.

Alan

I do wish you would articulate these in more detail, so I can represent them to Phil, and potentially - make better-supported arguments to get them changed in DBA3-

Seriously, if it doesnt work for you, pass the message on, any test games and they will get put in front of him.. regardless of whether you think Bob, myself or anyone else are 'fanboys' - we have all fought about various things at various times. Including movement rates I will say.

[David Schlanger]

I do wish you would articulate these in more detail, so I can represent them to Phil, and potentially - make better-supported arguments to get them changed in DBA3-

Seriously, if it doesnt work for you, pass the message on, any test games and they will get put in front of him.. regardless of whether you think Bob, myself or anyone else are 'fanboys' - we have all fought about various things at various times. Including movement rates I will say.

Doug,

I respect your efforts to continue to improve 3.0. But this section of the forum is for comments regarding v2.2+, feedback, play test results, etc. etc.

Please keep the 3.0 requests in the 3.0 section.

Thanks,
DS

[Pavane]

Doug,

I respect your efforts to continue to improve 3.0. But this section of the forum is for comments regarding v2.2+, feedback, play test results, etc. etc.

Please keep the 3.0 requests in the 3.0 section.

Thanks,
DS
Yes, I second that. I would like a space where DBA 2.2+ can grow and flourish without reference to DBA 3.0. If I want to contribute to the development of DBA 3.0 I will do so in that section.

[elsyr]

It is pure DBA 2.2, unchanged.

Then the all in this text might be considered a bit misleading:

All distances (except board size) are measured in movement units (MU).
1 MU = ½ base width.

Doug

[Pavane]

Then the all in this text might be considered a bit misleading:



Doug
Good catch.

[Matt]

Did a quick review this morning over coffee. My initial thought was SCh seemed very strong.

I have only played with them once, so I am no expert, but +4 Cf vs. foot, with no "soft" overlap penalty seemed devastating against Bd, and maybe Sp, which isn't the case historically.

Will try to get in some play tests with my Pontics to see how it works out.

Great looking layout! Wish other rule sets could be this clear.

[Rich Gause]

I do wish you would articulate these in more detail, so I can represent them to Phil, and potentially - make better-supported arguments to get them changed in DBA3-

Seriously, if it doesnt work for you, pass the message on, any test games and they will get put in front of him.. regardless of whether you think Bob, myself or anyone else are 'fanboys' - we have all fought about various things at various times. Including movement rates I will say.

I was not referring to you or Bob as "fanboys", that was for the rabid fanatics who gang up on everybody who says something critical of 3.0 or Phil on the yahoogroup. You and Bob I have found to be reasonable people with valid points who are willing to discuss things rationally without atttacking others for their opinion differences.

[Pavane]

Did a quick review this morning over coffee. My initial thought was SCh seemed very strong.

I have only played with them once, so I am no expert, but +4 Cf vs. foot, with no "soft' overlap penalty seemed devastating against Bd, and maybe Sp, which isn't the case historically.

Will try to get in some play tests with my Pontics to see how it works out.

Great looking layout! Wish other rule sets could be this clear.
Others will be better at explaining the change in more detail, but the gyst of it was to encourage historical usage. In 2.2 play SCh tended to be used in wide, double-move sweeps on the flanks or in overlaps. In reality they were used in a frontal charge to create confusion and hopefully gaps in the enemy line prior to your main line engaging.

[Xavi]

Hello. Flak post, so consider yourself warned. If you are on a thin skin, do not read further, thx :)



Hi there,

Well, I have read 2.2+. Other people in Spain have read it as well. IN the Spanish forum the most positive comment about 2.2+ I could read before reading it myself was “it is 3.0, just better written”. I disagree with that statement, but I think it gets some merit. Read below:

In general I think it is a work of love. Unfortunately it ended up worse than I expected, really. :( It is more than a simple revision of 2.2. More like a 3.1 than a 2.2 really. However, it did not correct some of the BLATANT mistakes of 2.2 while introduces A LOT of extra features that make no much sense. My conclusion is that as written it will not be played in Spain at all. 3.0 has already been discarded, so you are leaving 100+ players by the wayside here. Or a whole country if you prefer. One that had 15 DBA tournaments last year. I think this might be something to consider.

So, from a first reading:

1. USING THE PLAYSHEET
I would make it say “use the unofficial guide” as opposed to “use the DBA rules”, since we already know there are points of contention between the 2. That is just a sidenote.

2. MEASUREMENTS
New measurement system. Unnecessary. Renders all play aids worthless. First thing people disliked around here.

3. TROOP TYPES
3 new element types. Err…. Why? Totally unnecessary added complication. I can get convinced on pavisiers but raiders and cataphracts are a no-no. You could even REDUCE the elements in 2.2 by dropping Litters (use camp) and Pike (use Sp with wider rear support) easily. The introductions of these troop types do not look necessary. All the extra troops could be solved just giving Ax a +3 vs mounted.

4. LITTER
A more elegant solution is to just let litter die as a troop type. Easier. This just adds complication for no real gain.

5. BOARD
New board size. Here people took the torches and burned the 2.2+ at the stake. A RECOMMENDED board size of 3’” is OK. An imposed board size of 30” is a “no way”. This puts DBA 2.2+ in the “pile of rulebooks I will never playtest” for Spaniards. IOt will never get support with a compulsory 30” board. Coincidentially it is EXACTLY the same mistake that 2.2 did with the 24” boards. Stamping an option that was not liked by everyone as the only option. Allowing both would be better.

6. TERRAIN:
6.1 I have always voiced my opinion that arable should be allowed gentle hills as core terrain as well.
6.2 Rivers have not been dealt with AT ALL. A feature that is BANNED from 90% of the tournaments cannot be well designed in the first place, so I was quite surprised it was not dealt with.
6.3 No options for gentle hills in hilly. Curious.
6.3 All Littoral people know that Zama is just 30 metres from the coast. IMO Littoral armies should have the same options as arable and not exist as an option. Normandy landings were not that common. If you want that feature work on FLANKING for everybody, that was a much more common battle event.

7. TERRAIN PLACEMENT.
I like the idea. A lot. For me it is the best part of the whole document. I would say that it is too difficult for the attacker to modify the battlefield, specially with the last point, but hey. Beats hands down 3.0 by a large margin. Good job. Still, it does not solve either the “potato field” nor the “golf course” terrain placements. Changing a terrain feature and moving it a few inches could be better, so you can place a freakin pizza-sized terrain halfway towards the middle of the board if your opponent placed a post stamp in a corner (golf course) or you could replace one of those pizzas in the middle of the board for a postage stamp and sent it kicking to Nepal so it does not interfere much with the battle (potato field). Still, better than current rules, and better than 3.0.

8. DISMOUNTING.
OK.

9. GROUP MOVES.
OK. A good feature of 3.0

10. BREAKING FROM COMBAT.
OK. No need to specify the last 2 bullet points, since it is exactly like that in 2.2.

11. MOVING TO CONTACT
11.1 Contact solo element generalizes the LH/Ps rule. OK. However, the base depth thingy still makes it REALLY easy to exploit the rule. I would remove it. If you are alone and cannot recoil, tough luck.
11.2 Flank rear contact. OK and OK in both paragraphs. A 3.0 rule that made sense.

12. TACTICAL MOVES
Unnecessary change as said. You increase board size and speed of everyone as well as shooting ranges. Result is that only flanking is affected, and not by much. I deeply dislike the games that try to be so general that are hard to understand. This is a clear example of this. Give measurements in inches or centimeters, but not in base sizes. That is just annoying.

13. CLOSE COMBAT
13.1 Scythed chariot. An unnecessary rule. SCh will still not be used in their historical role (they are still a Cv on asteroids, that dies of heart attack if beaten) since in DBA losing an element screws you so much that it is not worth it to throw the SCh so lightly at the start of the battle. Just adds word count that is nit worth the hassle.
13.2 With board sixe and new troop types you put your head in the trunk and gave the sword to the executioner. Here you give the mark for the sword to fall on your own neck.
The changes in Cm and Ellies make no sense at all (reduced factors vs mounted and increased vs infantry) since 2.2 was already cool in those areas. Light spear just confirms that is a secondary name for an auxilia and raiders are Bd by another name. If you want this level of granularity go play DBM. We do not want it in DBA.

Just giving a +3 vs mounted to Ax and Wb would solve everything. If you consider any troop changes here necessary. I am not convinced of that, but hey.

SHOOTING
The -1 for Bd is not something I consider necessary but OK if you want the hassle. I think shooting already works well in 2.2 so I would not have toiuched that section.

COMBAT
REAR SUPPORT
The change to Pk just sounds like a mounted element’s wet dream with no much basis.

As written, no changes over 2.2 so I do not understand why it is here. Anyway, Sp should have support against most stuff, since otherwise the Greeks would have been plain morons. And I am sure they were quite smart. IN fact I would give Sp a +1 or +2 vs almost everything and remove Pk from the game, but hey, that is me.

You just generalize rear support to your new element types and give Pk (one of the worst elements in normal DBA already) a downturn. OK.

RESULTS TABLE
Looks quite incomplete. Cataphracts do nto kill horde, light spear and Bd kill Cv while normal Sp does not and LCm does not kill Ps while all the other mounted on steeds do.

I also think that (in case you want to keep them) Riders and light spears should pursue, but hey. As said, I would have dropped both anyway.


Overall I think this is an improvement over 2.2 in some areas, but the whole product looks more 3.1 than 2.2+: too many changes than what it was advertised at. It has some good ideas but a lot of extra “just because” stuff was thrown in as well. The result is far from promising. Adds complication, does a lot of the same mistakes as 3.0 and the changes are not really justified. It even ignored a feature that is set in stone in the tournament circuit: “no rivers”.

As a 0.1 version it might be OK, but it needs a lot of work to be acceptable. Review your essay and resubmit within the next 2 weeks ;)

kind regards,
Xavi

[david kuijt]

Did a quick review this morning over coffee. My initial thought was SCh seemed very strong.

Note that SCh have lost quite a bit of power (compared to v2.2). The only thing they gain is the ability to be not-disadvantaged when sent hurling frontally at enemy -- which was historically how they were used. Encouraging historical use is always good.

SCh were a powerful troop type in v2.2 -- but experienced players preferred to use them in completely unhistorical ways. Double-move flanking attacks with an 8" move -- devastating. All that is gone now.


Great looking layout! Wish other rule sets could be this clear.

Danke, danke, we'll be here all week. Try the veal!

[david kuijt]

It did not correct some of the BLATANT mistakes of 2.2 while introduces A LOT of extra features that make no much sense. My conclusion is that as written it will not be played in Spain at all. 3.0 has already been discarded, so you are leaving 100+ players by the wayside here. Or a whole country if you prefer. One that had 15 DBA tournaments last year. I think this might be something to consider.

Hey, Xavi,

I was a little disappointed that nobody from Spain (you or Prich, for example) didn't step forward to get on the GM list.

Many of your concerns were discussed at great length there; others are new, and it would have been valuable to hear them earlier.

More later -- gotta go teach undergraduate Computer Science students.

[Xavi]

I would have liked, but there are 2 issues here:

1. I am on a work peak. THere iused to be 3 people around here doing what I do. Now it is just me. The workload has not decreased. Guess what happened with my available time? ;)

2. I told this to the other David when he sent me an email: I am unsure this whole project is a good idea. IN a few months time? Sure, once people has tested 3.0 and decided to go back to 2.2. At the same time as 3.0 is being released? It just sounds like a kindergarten brawl between grown ups, and IMO it has a much bigger chance to split the community than 3.0 ever had. So eve if I had free time I am not sure if I would have thrown myself into this project. I am somewhat wary and guarded of it.

But frankly I expected better from this project. I think it reproduces many of the mistakes of 3.0 (ficxing what is not broken) without being a definitive improvement on 2.2. Better than 3.0 for sure, but that is not much of a benchmark.

Xavi

[David Schlanger]

2. I told this to the other David when he sent me an email


Xavi,

Hmm... I didn't get your response. Or maybe my spam filter got it, or something? I am sorry I missed it. I tried several avenues to reach you!

We really wanted to include Spain and its "100+ players" and "a whole country if you prefer" and "one that had 15 DBA tournaments last year" in the full development process.

It is still not too late to try v2.2+ and give feedback. We would really appreciate you going beyond just an initial read.

Kind regards,
DS

[Xavi]

Just sent the response as a private message to you just in case. Wrote it in a rush a few days ago, but basically was saying the same as in the previous message (workload + wary with the potential split/bad moment to be doing this right now). What I fear the most is that all this flying crap in the 3.0 2.2+ processes will end up with Spain stopping playing DBA completely. Not far from the mark here. One of the selling points of DBA was the "cool and helpful semi-official forum". Not anymore and people is looking too much into other rulebooks lately... Well, just my (hopefully unfounded) fears here.

Xavi

[Matt]

Note that SCh have lost quite a bit of power (compared to v2.2). The only thing they gain is the ability to be not-disadvantaged when sent hurling frontally at enemy -- which was historically how they were used. Encouraging historical use is always good.



Get it and dig it. Anything that encourages historical behavior is "right" in my book. Will try it out with Pontus v. Marians.

Not committed to one camp or the other, but I like what you guys are attempting!

[Matt]

More later -- gotta go teach undergraduate Computer Science students.


I have to say it, boy, that sounds like fun! :D

[ferrency]

Hello. Flak post, so consider yourself warned. If you are on a thin skin, do not read further, thx :)

My summary response is that we would really appreciate it if you would play the rules. If you don't want to, then I'm sorry they turned out not to be what you were looking for.

Personally, I like 2.2+ better than 2.2. There are changes I didn't like until I played with them, so I know that playtesting is a better test than reading the rules.

I'll address a few of your specific comments here, but I'll leave the rest for others.


2. MEASUREMENTS
New measurement system. Unnecessary. Renders all play aids worthless. First thing people disliked around here.


If you intend to playtest 2.2+, send me your address and I will mail you a handful of custom laser cut v2.2+ measurement tools to make it easy for you.

The MU movement rates do help a lot in actual play, but it is not easy to see how until you actually play with them. Your wheel sticks are not worthless, they can also be used to measure movement now. A wheel stick and a 20x40mm base are all you need to measure all movement and command radiuses.


5. BOARD
New board size. Here people took the torches and burned the 2.2+ at the stake. A RECOMMENDED board size of 3’” is OK. An imposed board size of 30” is a “no way”.

I'm sorry to hear that. You can feel free to do what we've been doing for years, and simply use the board size you prefer.


Allowing both would be better.

There are too many complications for this to work. Simply put: What do you do when the opponents disagree on the board size to be used? That's what rules are for. On the other hand, if you both agree, you don't need the rules: just do what you agree on :)


6.2 Rivers have not been dealt with AT ALL. A feature that is BANNED from 90% of the tournaments cannot be well designed in the first place, so I was quite surprised it was not dealt with.

We all want a better solution for rivers. To me, this means "a better solution for timed tournament play" since this is the only place where they don't work already. If you have ideas on this, please share them (probably in a different thread); we went over many ideas and didn't find any clear winners.

I'd rather have no rivers in tournaments than write a rule that breaks rivers in campaigns and still not have them quite good enough to use in a tournament.

Alan

[Matt]

If you intend to playtest 2.2+, send me your address and I will mail you a handful of custom laser cut v2.2+ measurement tools to make it easy for you.

Alan

If you are willing to share, I would be interested. PM will be sent.

[Gascap]

Well, I have read 2.2+. Other people in Spain have read it as well.

Thanks for the thorough feedback. I want to address a few of your concerns. Maybe if enough of the 2.2+ folks address your concerns, you'll end up with a complete response :)


In general I think it is a work of love. And it ended up worse than I expected, really. It did not correct some of the BLATANT mistakes of 2.2


Could you please elaborate on some of the 2.2 mistakes that remain uncorrected? I see that you mention mandated board size and too many units. Were there others?

It would be very useful to hear what the Spanish players perceive as 2.2's defects. While we tried to recruit a large body of developers, admittedly there is a concentration of eastern North American players. Regional play "dialects" exist, so we may have missed some faults while focusing on the faults that we perceived in our own regions.


4. LITTER
A more elegant solution is to just let litter die as a troop type. Easier. This just adds complication for no real gain.


That might be a more elegant solution, but it would be a bit harder than ours. In our case, we simply changed a unit. If the litter type were removed, we'd have to fill in that gap with an additional unit. I'll take the case of the Mound Builders, since that's the litter-using army I'm most familiar with. We chose Bd for their litter, because the litter is accompanied by noble bodyguards, who happen to otherwise be classified as Bd (there is another stand of noble Bd in the army -- but they are not the general's bodyguards). Removing the litter would make us look at the rest of the list, and "upscale" it based on the next most common unit. In this case, the next most common unit is either Bw or Wb. Neither of these troops is fit to be the general -- the Bw and Wb are regular warriors and lower-class "stinkards," respectively. So now we're left with a lack of general's stand. (This, coincidentally, is the case with other litter-using armies: the litter is always the general, who else is important enough to be carried around?) The next most reasonable unit in the army to be the general would be that stand of noble Bd I mentioned earlier. Only, it's not the general's stand. It's a separate unit. So maybe we add in an additional Bd as the general's stand, and forget about the extra Bw or Wb. But now we're back where we started when we simply changed Lit to Bd. See what I did there? :)



6. TERRAIN:
6.1 I have always voiced my opinion that arable should be allowed gentle hills as core terrain as well.


We are considering mandatory roughs (that is: roads OR roughs). I would be interested in your thoughts on that consideration, as well as why you propose gentle hills.


6.3 All Littoral people know that Zama is just 30 metres from the coast. IMO Littoral armies should have the same options as arable and not exist as an option. Normandy landings were not that common. If you want that feature work on FLANKING for everybody, that was a much more common battle event.


The concept of flanking as a rule behaving similarly to littoral landings was discussed, but it was deemed too far beyond the scope of 2.2+, since it would require re-examination of the army lists in a non-automatic way (our new units are easy to change automatically).

JM

[david kuijt]

What I fear the most is that all this flying crap in the 3.0 2.2+ processes will end up with Spain stopping playing DBA completely. Not far from the mark here. One of the selling points of DBA was the "cool and helpful semi-official forum".

I hear what you're saying, Xavi.

But you already said that you (Spain) had already decided not to do 3.0. Fair enough -- but what are you going to do? If you try 2.2+ and like it, you can play that. If you try 2.2+ and don't like it, then you can play 2.2. And if you don't try 2.2+, you are in the same position you would have been if nobody ever put together 2.2+ -- your options are to continue playing 2.2, or to try and convert to 3.0.

In other words, the existence of 2.2+ hasn't affected your options except to give you one more option. If you don't like 2.2+, you are in the same situation you would have been in, if 2.2+ had never existed.

So while I'm sympathetic to your plight, the way I see it, the v2.2+ project hasn't had any negative impact on you. If you don't like it, you haven't lost anything.

I would encourage you to try it, of course. But if you've already made up your mind, that's fine too -- just let us know that, so we don't get frustrated trying to explain stuff you won't be trying.

[Xavi]

Right now I am listening. The part about rivers by ferrency was enlightening, for example.

Xavi

[david kuijt]

We all want a better solution for rivers. To me, this means "a better solution for timed tournament play" since this is the only place where they don't work already. If you have ideas on this, please share them (probably in a different thread); we went over many ideas and didn't find any clear winners.

I'd rather have no rivers in tournaments than write a rule that breaks rivers in campaigns and still not have them quite good enough to use in a tournament.


As Alan says (talking to Xavi) -- the GM list bounced around a large large selection of ideas, without making too much progress. The fundamental problem is this -- the three objectives are:

Historically reasonable behavior
Creates an interesting game
Doesn't slow the game so much as to be unusable in time-limit tournaments

(Plus avoiding complicated rules)

The major problem the GM list came up against can probably be characterized like this -- there don't seem to be any river rules that fulfill all three characteristics. Rules that don't slow the game down either aren't interesting, or don't work like real rivers do (don't cause historical effects). Rules that cause historical effects either are really boring (there was a good reason why most battles across rivers didn't happen in history) or make it hard for a game to finish within the usual 50-60 minute timeslot for most tournaments. And so on.

Further, it is important to recognize that River rules should avoiding crossing the conceptual line of pre-battle strategic maneuver that doesn't appear in DBA games -- and that last is very difficult to achieve, because a huge number of historical battles associated with rivers involve a major focus on the pre-battle strategic maneuvering to even make the battles happen in the first place.

If this is an issue that you (meaning Spain) has put a lot of thought into, maybe you guys have a solution that the GM list didn't think of.

[Kingo]

Is this it? 2.2+, or is this the first draft? and are you looking for suggestions for 2.2+1?

Kingo

[El' Jocko]

Is this it? 2.2+, or is this the first draft? and are you looking for suggestions for 2.2+1?


This is the beta of v2.2+. Suggestions are good. The best thing is playtesting results, especially if they expose any weaknesses that we were unaware of or had underestimated.

The results of this process will be incorporated in the final version of v2.2+.

- Jack

p.s.: I'll add that this is far from a first draft. According to my count, it's the 13th version of the playsheet that I've produced. (Hope that's not unlucky! :o ) It's been through a lot of playtesting. It's not perfect, but it's been worked over pretty heavily.

[Kingo]

This is the beta of v2.2+. Suggestions are good. The best thing is playtesting results, especially if they expose any weaknesses that we were unaware of or had underestimated.

The results of this process will be incorporated in the final version of v2.2+.

- Jack

p.s.: I'll add that this is far from a first draft. According to my count, it's the 13th version of the playsheet that I've produced. (Hope that's not unlucky! :o ) It's been through a lot of playtesting. It's not perfect, but it's been worked over pretty heavily.

Its got some interesting stuff in it, I like the layout and I can edit out the bits I do'nt like for club games.

Kingo

[Gascap]

Its got some interesting stuff in it, I like the layout and I can edit out the bits I do'nt like for club games.

Kingo

Please do your best to test the rules as written, without additions or deletions. It is hard to evaluate feedback if you're playing a different version than others are. Further, the changes are designed to work as a system. New units don't work without the new movements, for example, because they no longer fit in.

I hope you and your club enjoy!

JM

[SBSchifani]

I'll do my best to get games in this weekend. Congratulations and thank you! It addressed just about every 2.2 issue I've ever had.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Just a quick question again, how long do you feel a typical game of 2.2+ should last?

[kontos]

Just a quick question again, how long do you feel a typical game of 2.2+ should last?

About the same as 2.2 - 45 minutes to an hour typically. Your mileage may vary. :)

[david kuijt]

Just a quick question again, how long do you feel a typical game of 2.2+ should last?

Same as v2.2 is our experience, and not sure why it would change anyway -- movement distances are essentially the same, deployment distances are essentially the same, and so on, and so on. It looks and feels like 2.2.

[ValentinianVictrix]

About the same as 2.2 - 45 minutes to an hour typically. Your mileage may vary. :)

I would start questioning things if games are taking over 45 minutes to complete. DBA was designed to be played in under an hour, with most games taking between 30 minutes and 45 minutes long depending on the players familiarity with the rules.

I personally have only ever had a game that did not finish when the umpire called time, and that was because my opponent was totally unfamiliar with the rules (and I was almost in the same boat having not played DBA for years and having to forget I was not playing DBMM at the time!). My games last less than 30 minutes, I have played games that lasted less than 15 minutes. Admittedly this was with games that were played on 24" boards with pre-set terrain.

The philosophy behind DBA was that it is supposed to be a fun, quick game that enables you to play upto six games at a one day competition. The one hour maximum game time includes all the start of game activities such as terrain placment and deployment.

Would increasing board size to 30/36" not increase playing time?

[david kuijt]

I would start questioning things if games are taking over 45 minutes to complete.

Why would you think things take longer? Just the board size? Let me reassure you.


I personally have only ever had a game that did not finish when the umpire called time, and that was because my opponent was totally unfamiliar with the rules (and I was almost in the same boat having not played DBA for years and having to forget I was not playing DBMM at the time!). My games last less than 30 minutes, I have played games that lasted less than 15 minutes. Admittedly this was with games that were played on 24" boards with pre-set terrain.


24" or 30" boards makes no difference to game length, as it turns out. Bob Beattie was worried about that when 30" were first introduced, eight or ten years ago; they've been playtested with 2.2 for that long, and the increase in playing time is pretty much zero.

Pre-set terrain makes a big difference, of course. I've had very few games ever not finish -- but one of them was where my opponent took 25 minutes to choose his terrain and deploy. He didn't play quickly either.


The philosophy behind DBA was that it is supposed to be a fun, quick game that enables you to play upto six games at a one day competition. The one hour maximum game time includes all the start of game activities such as terrain placment and deployment.

Would increasing board size to 30/36" not increase playing time?

Where did 36" come from?

As I say above, 30" boards may be new to your area, but they are very extensively tested for about a decade, in hundreds of tournaments and thousands of games. The extra 3" on all edges has essentially zero effect on increasing playing time. In fact, the more open board can make games run shorter, and the slight increase in maneuver armies (who are now less likely to get stuffed by the board edges) makes for tournaments with slightly fewer of the slow/methodical/pounding heavy foot armies who don't get a result quickly.

If you give 30" boards a try, you will probably be pleasantly surprised.

[Martyn]

Hello. Flak post, so consider yourself warned. If you are on a thin skin, do not read further, thx :)
Xavi, lots of interesting points and comments, I would like to add/comment further. I have cut your post up and taken bits out to make life easier. I hope you don’t mind. These comments are made on the basis of clarity and understanding, I have no axe to grind. The discussion has probably moved on a bit since this post and it may be that these comments are better made in separate threads, so please bear with me.
However, it did not correct some of the BLATANT mistakes of 2.2 while introduces A LOT of extra features that make no much sense.
I am with you here, I don’t know quite what I expected from 2.2+ but I had hoped that some of the issues that crop up regularily on this forum would be laid to rest.
1. USING THE PLAYSHEET
I would make it say “use the unofficial guide” as opposed to “use the DBA rules”, since we already know there are points of contention between the 2. That is just a sidenote.
Making reference to the UG would, seem to me to, be vital to help explain a lot of the confusion in 2.2, after all the UG is the accepted interpretation of many rules.
2. MEASUREMENTS
New measurement system. Unnecessary. Renders all play aids worthless. First thing people disliked around here.
I do wonder why the change? Making Heavy Infantry move 60mm instead of 50mm is it worth changing, and every body can measure mms why create a new unit of measure?
(EDIT: Just notice the new thread on this)
3. TROOP TYPES
3 new element types. Err…. Why? Totally unnecessary added complication. I can get convinced on pavisiers but raiders and cataphracts are a no-no. You could even REDUCE the elements in 2.2 by dropping Litters (use camp) and Pike (use Sp with wider rear support) easily. The introductions of these troop types do not look necessary. All the extra troops could be solved just giving Ax a +3 vs mounted.
These are interesting add ons which provide additional flavour, but I agree are they really necessary? I have been following the discussions on Pv and Lt Sp not sure where Raiders and Cataphracts come from. If we add these should we not also think about the difference between 3/4Ax or 3/4Bw as it can be argued that there is sufficient variation in their use and performance to warrant different attributes.
4. LITTER
A more elegant solution is to just let litter die as a troop type. Easier. This just adds complication for no real gain.
I am ambivalent on this. It is such a minority element that its not worth spending a lot of effort on.
5. BOARD
New board size. Here people took the torches and burned the 2.2+ at the stake. A RECOMMENDED board size of 3’” is OK. An imposed board size of 30” is a “no way”. This puts DBA 2.2+ in the “pile of rulebooks I will never playtest” for Spaniards. IOt will never get support with a compulsory 30” board. Coincidentially it is EXACTLY the same mistake that 2.2 did with the 24” boards. Stamping an option that was not liked by everyone as the only option. Allowing both would be better.
Yes keep it optional, maybe have a recommended size but keep a degree of choice.
6. TERRAIN:
6.2 Rivers have not been dealt with AT ALL. A feature that is BANNED from 90% of the tournaments cannot be well designed in the first place, so I was quite surprised it was not dealt with.
Rivers are problematic, is there anything wrong with the v3 proposal (duck)
6.3 All Littoral people know that Zama is just 30 metres from the coast. IMO Littoral armies should have the same options as arable and not exist as an option. Normandy landings were not that common. If you want that feature work on FLANKING for everybody, that was a much more common battle event.
I have always had a problem with the rational of littorial landings and their paucity in history. Flank attacks are more common, why not give all armies the option of a flank attack which works similar to Littorial but needs a pip die score of 5/6 or 6 to arrive.
13. CLOSE COMBAT
13.1 Scythed chariot. An unnecessary rule. SCh will still not be used in their historical role (they are still a Cv on asteroids, that dies of heart attack if beaten) since in DBA losing an element screws you so much that it is not worth it to throw the SCh so lightly at the start of the battle. Just adds word count that is nit worth the hassle.
Does this make SCh too powerful? Need to play test.
The changes in Cm and Ellies make no sense at all (reduced factors vs mounted and increased vs infantry) since 2.2 was already cool in those areas.
Presumably the changes to El combine with the retention of the rear support but loss of some QKs against Heavy Inf. Need to play test the balance
SHOOTING
The -1 for Bd is not something I consider necessary but OK if you want the hassle. I think shooting already works well in 2.2 so I would not have toiuched that section.
Interested in the rational for this change.
COMBAT
REAR SUPPORT
The change to Pk just sounds like a mounted element’s wet dream with no much basis.
Minor change to combat factors balanced by removal of QK by Lh and El, not sure why but I don’t have an issue with it.
RESULTS TABLE
Looks quite incomplete. Cataphracts do nto kill horde, light spear and Bd kill Cv while normal Sp does not and LCm does not kill Ps while all the other mounted on steeds do.
Some tweaking needed.
I also think that (in case you want to keep them) Riders and light spears should pursue, but hey. As said, I would have dropped both anyway.
Raiders certainly, not sure about Lt Sp

Looking forward to a bit of play testing.

Thanks again to all who put in the effort. :up

[Snoopy]

Question. How does 2.2+ play on a 24" board?

Or have 24" boards been discarded forever?

Burt

[winterbadger]

Question. How does 2.2+ play on a 24" board?

Or have 24" boards been discarded forever?

It plays fine on 24" boards. We often use those because the shop where I frequently play has a supply of nice board ready-made; I've been bringing my own 30" board for playtesting as well, though. I vastly prefer the 30" board; it's less claustrophobic, particularly for armies with large numbers of mounted elements.

[ferrency]

Question. How does 2.2+ play on a 24" board?

Or have 24" boards been discarded forever?

It works, but not as well as it works on a 30" board... just like 2.2 :)

It is not as extreme a difference as 3.0, which even some die hard 24" players believe doesn't work without a 30" board.

I believe there may be recommended adjustments attached to the final 2.2+ for playing on a 24" board: basically, reduce the deployment zone from 10MU deep to 6MU deep (maintain 4MU on the sides).

I don't think 2.2+ is trying to force people to play 30" boards. It is simply providing the board size players must use if they don't agree to use something else instead.

Alan

[david kuijt]

Question. How does 2.2+ play on a 24" board?


Plays fine. 30" board is an improvement, but for most armies, and for most opponents, it won't feel much different.

[Redwilde]

30" were first introduced, eight or ten years ago; they've been playtested with 2.2 for that long, and the increase in playing time is pretty much zero.

And actually that proportion of open space was the standard for 25mm play on 48" boards from 1.0 through 2.0 (and beyond for 25mm players who never bothered reducing their boards with 2.1). LH armies have never been unstopable killers in 25mm either. That proportional board size had been thoroughly playtested since 1990! It's just that 24" boards hamper LH more than they need to be, not that 30" gives them new super powers.

32" for 40mm wide bases is exactly proportional to 48" for 60mm wide bases. Give or take a few inches doesn't noticably change the play and time of the game at all. 30" just happens to be a very common width of folding table encountered at convention centers. Any size from 30"-36" for 40mm wide bases greatly reduces edge-of-the-world cheesiness.

[david kuijt]

[talking about the Bd -1 against shooting]

Interested in the rational for this change.


Easy one!

Bd and Sp are differentiated by close-combat fighting style (mostly) and weapons (to some extent).

So, for example, you have Viking 4Bd and Anglo-Danes 4Sp. With exactly the same weapons, and with exactly the same armor, and with exactly the same shields. And the same flesh. And you have Roman Hastati and Principes -- same armor, shields, etc.; but one fight with spears and the other doesn't.

So why are Bd better against shooting? Better in close combat against foot -- sure. Different fighting in close combat. Worse in close combat against mounted -- sure. Different fighting and longer weapons to fend off horsies in close combat.

But why are Bd better than Sp against shooting? A gladius isn't a forcefield.

So the logic is really simple -- Vikings and Anglo-Danes are the same dudes, in the same armor, wearing the same shield-wall formation, and they will catch arrows exactly the same. Nothing about their different performance in close combat makes them good at blocking arrows in distant shooting.

There are lots of other examples in history reflected in DBA where a troop type classification changes from Sp to Bd because of different close combat style, but the armor remains the same. And Bd were not universally known as essentially immune to massed arrow fire. With a -1 factor applied, suddenly all is fixed. They are still VERY powerful against missile fire -- nothing better -- but if they have double overlaps against them, they are now not going to be as happy.

Same thing for Arty -- no reason why Hastati and Princeps should perform differently when taking Ballista fire while they're walking in.

[Martyn]

Easy one!

It is when you explain it. I must admit the logic escaped me but now it makes perfect sense.

Nice touch. :up

[Kingo]

Hi chaps, perhaps you can put page numbers when you publish the next draft.

Much easier in my folder with other house rules.

Kingo

[Pavane]

Hi chaps, perhaps you can put page numbers when you publish the next draft.

Much easier in my folder with other house rules.

Kingo
Check out the upper left hand corner of each page.

[Kingo]

Check out the upper left hand corner of each page.


White on a blue back ground!!!!, my 57 year old eyes like black at the bottom center please!. :D

[Cromwell]

I'd like to compliment the person who designed the layouts. Clear, clean and light: a joy to read.

Well done.

I agree. The layout is excellant :2up

I have a few questions on 2.2+ but I will wait until I have play tested some more before I post them. Sometimes the answers show themselves!

I have one question now.

When can we see the 2.2+ army lists?

[winterbadger]

When can we see the 2.2+ army lists?

I think if you have a copy of 2.2 now you have the army lists. I'm not part of the GM List (only a lowly minion), but it's my understanding that there are no plans to produce a new set of lists.

After all, this is a set of house rules for an existing game (2.2). It is not a new game.

[Pavane]

I think if you have a copy of 2.2 now you have the army lists. I'm not part of the GM List (only a lowly minion), but it's my understanding that there are no plans to produce a new set of lists.

After all, this is a set of house rules for an existing game (2.2). It is not a new game.
That is correct. DBA 2.2+ uses 2.2 army lists.

[Xavi]

I hear what you're saying, Xavi.

But you already said that you (Spain) had already decided not to do 3.0. Fair enough -- but what are you going to do? If you try 2.2+ and like it, you can play that. If you try 2.2+ and don't like it, then you can play 2.2. And if you don't try 2.2+, you are in the same position you would have been if nobody ever put together 2.2+ -- your options are to continue playing 2.2, or to try and convert to 3.0.

In other words, the existence of 2.2+ hasn't affected your options except to give you one more option. If you don't like 2.2+, you are in the same situation you would have been in, if 2.2+ had never existed.

So while I'm sympathetic to your plight, the way I see it, the v2.2+ project hasn't had any negative impact on you. If you don't like it, you haven't lost anything

The failure to this argument is that it does not take into account that people read Fanaticus and the DBA list. That has had a realy bad impact on the attitude of the CURRENT players of DBA towards the game. The whole discussion has contaminated the Spanish community. Just to remain at 2011 tournament levels we will need to do A LOT of the build up that we had done when we first started playing DBA around 2006-2007.

Disenchantment with the whole debate means that DBA is becoming a side game to a lot of people, not their main game anymore. This is even happening in my gaming group, the most active DBA community I have come across in real life.

So no, we are not in the same situation, we are worse than we were before 3.0 and 2.2+ were released. BUt well, just my concerns being voiced here.

[pozanias]

It is indeed a shame that there has been so much animosity and venom on the boards these past few months. I hope it has not done irreparable harm. We seem to be getting back to civility here on the Forum (from what I hear, its still a bit testy on the Yahoo Group).

Anyway, I hope the Spanish DBAers make it through this difficult period with whatever version of DBA you ultimately choose. If the release of 2.2+ has caused you grief, I apologize. That was certainly not the intent. We simply wanted to give those DBA players that were not happy with 3.0 an alternative to keep them/us playing DBA. For example, if 3.0 were my only choice -- I would likely stop playing DBA all together.

[david kuijt]

The failure to this argument is that it does not take into account that people read Fanaticus and the DBA list. That has had a realy bad impact on the attitude of the CURRENT players of DBA towards the game. The whole discussion has contaminated the Spanish community. Just to remain at 2011 tournament levels we will need to do A LOT of the build up that we had done when we first started playing DBA around 2006-2007.

Disenchantment with the whole debate means that DBA is becoming a side game to a lot of people, not their main game anymore. This is even happening in my gaming group, the most active DBA community I have come across in real life.

So no, we are not in the same situation, we are worse than we were before 3.0 and 2.2+ were released. BUt well, just my concerns being voiced here.

And I hear your concerns. But wait -- why should the 2.2+ group get blamed for this fuss? Are you saying that if the 2.2+ group hadn't put together a game that they liked, none of this would have happened?

Sorry, that's just false. 2.2+ is only the last two months. The debate and the discussion and the nastiness has been going on for more than a year, or even 18 months. If you want to blame 3.0, that's fine. But it isn't 2.2+'s fault. 2.2+ exists as a consequence of 3.0 not being what we would be happy with.

And regardless, the Spanish DBA players are just seeing a magnified version of what everyone is seeing. When a new edition comes out, there is a lot of turmoil. Lots of players everywhere are going to be unhappy. It is worse for you, perhaps, because you had such a helpful experience with the Spanish translation of the WADBAG Guide, and Phil doesn't want any WADBAG guide for 3.0 (English or Spanish or Polish or anything).

So yes, I understand what you are going through. Everyone is, although I think it may be worse for you. But seriously, Xavi, what would you have us do? No action of ours caused this problem of yours. What do you think we can do, that will make it better for you and for DBA in Spain? I'm asking seriously here -- this isn't a trap or an attack.

[winterbadger]

The failure to this argument is that it does not take into account that people read Fanaticus and the DBA list. That has had a realy bad impact on the attitude of the CURRENT players of DBA towards the game. The whole discussion has contaminated the Spanish community.


Seriously? :rolleyes


Seriously? :eek

You're telling us that Spanish players are getting so upset about a discussion that (please excuse me if I'm wrong about this) most of them are not engaging in, which has no impact at all, zilch, on their playing the game however they feel like in their own club, that they are losing interest in DBA?

That's sad.

But it doesn't say anything about Phil or WADBAG or 3.0 or 2.2+.

[Xavi]

More or less, yes.

As someone said, a game can become stale somehow. People was looking forward to 3.0. When the beta of 3.0 proved a fairly massive failure that was a turndown. The flying crap seen in the Fanaticus forum (and as a matter of fact in the Spanish forum) as a consequence affected the community as a whole.

The problem with 2.2 is not the flying crap. That is 100% responsibility of 3.0. The problem with 2.2+ is how it is perceived as a "well, Phil does not listen to us, so we will go to our corner and do our own version of the game in a childish way". This is the main problem with selling the idea of 2.2+ to other people, specially when 2.2 reproduces big changes like 3.0 does instead of changing just what was blatantly broken in 2.2.

That DBA would benefit from a root shake is not something I deny or support. But the ewhole perception of the development is not positive.

I think things might be getting more sedate now (hurrah!), but the forum chatter about DBA is waaaaaaay lower than it used to be.

So yes, you are right. people got upset at something that did not affect them on their games (but that did affect their army-building during the past 18 months) and started playing other things. People do this kind of things.

Xavi

[david kuijt]

The problem with 2.2+ is how it is perceived as a "well, Phil does not listen to us, so we will go to our corner and do our own version of the game in a childish way". This is the main problem with selling the idea of 2.2+ to other people, specially when 2.2 reproduces big changes like 3.0 does instead of changing just what was blatantly broken in 2.2.


Well, that's an image management problem. And it is pretty-much impossible to do image management spin control on a forum we don't participate in, in a language we don't speak.

In other words, I'm sorry they got that impression, but there isn't much I think we can do about it without learning Spanish and signing up on your forum. (and that won't happen this semester)

[David Schlanger]

It is indeed a shame that there has been so much animosity and venom on the boards these past few months. I hope it has not done irreparable harm. We seem to be getting back to civility here on the Forum (from what I hear, its still a bit testy on the Yahoo Group).

I know there was some venom and animosity for all of 2011, but there really was a significant increase in problems after mid-October when Larry Essick joined the forum. Half of the forum had him on ignore... and there is no coincidence that things have been getting back to civility since he was banned.

And at the same time, sure Phil is being as Phil-like as ever on the Yahoo Group, but a big contributor to the "testy" feel over there is the same Larry Essick.

DS

[snowcat]

I know there was some venom and animosity for all of 2011, but there really was a significant increase in problems after mid-October when Larry Essick joined the forum. Half of the forum had him on ignore... and there is no coincidence that things have been getting back to civility since he was banned.

And at the same time, sure Phil is being as Phil-like as ever on the Yahoo Group, but a big contributor to the "testy" feel over there is the same Larry Essick.

DS

And have you noticed Larry's 'mods' appear to be wearing off?

Sorry. I'll get my coat.:o

[Doug]

I know there was some venom and animosity for all of 2011, but there really was a significant increase in problems after mid-October when Larry Essick joined the forum. Half of the forum had him on ignore... and there is no coincidence that things have been getting back to civility since he was banned.

And at the same time, sure Phil is being as Phil-like as ever on the Yahoo Group, but a big contributor to the "testy" feel over there is the same Larry Essick.

DS
I think everyone knows how irascible Phil cam be. Even when you genuinely agree with what he is trying to do, he still manages to make it difficult. Personally I had huge fights with him over Persians during the list process. I still would give him credit that I got invited to the DBA3 development. And the wadbag guys got an invite too. So the least you can say is he doesn't nevessarily want yes-men.
Notably, Larry is not part of the DBA3 development group. I wonder about that.

[prich]

Maybe the "spanish problem" is that we had great expectations about 3.0, and this version was a great change from v2.2, without any explanations of the changes. The development was so obscure, so rare...

We only wanted some minor changes, as several times had been pointed out in this forum .

That was not the DBA that we wanted. It was good to know that v2.2+ was coming as a new thing compared with 3.0, but when the beta version was released, it was like 3.0. A lot of changes, most of them "copied" from 3.0.
Same dog, different collar, but less aggressive that the other, which I appreciate.

And the other problem is that we are waiting for 18 months for a new version of the game that involves changes in the composition of the armies.
I put myself as an example. I want to paint a new army. Should I buy the figures for the 2.2 army list? Should I wait until v3.0 is released, as many armies have new options, new troop types, as I've seen in the drafts?
Finally I bought an army for another ruleset until all the mess is clarified. So I've lost the "momentum" of DBA in favour for other rules.

[winterbadger]

Finally I bought an army for another ruleset until all the mess is clarified. So I've lost the "momentum" of DBA in favour for other rules.

I won't even get into how much I disagree with the rest of your post, but this last bit really takes the biscuit. You had the alternatives of (1) continuing to play 2.2, (2) participate in the development of 2.2+ (surely there must be a number of event organizers in Spain who could have joined the GM development group) and then in the playtesting of the Beta, or (3) participate in the now-open playtest and comment period of 3.0. Instead, you chose to do nothing at all; you threw up your hands and went and bought an army for another game.

Maybe your DBA momentum is lost, but, my friend, that is on YOU, not anyone else.

[David Schlanger]

Maybe your DBA momentum is lost, but, my friend, that is on YOU, not anyone else.

While I don't completely disagree, it is true that the development of 3.0 has had all of us in a sort of limbo state for WAY too long. I am sympathetic to what Prich stated about losing momentum. The 3.0 process has taken WAY too long, and Phil is still making significant changes even after 18+ months of development.

DS

[Xavi]

Thanks winterbadger, I am sure Prich (the guy responsible for bringing DBA to Spain as a hardcore game in the first place) will look forward to playtest 2.2+ after that message.

Xavi

[prich]

Maybe your DBA momentum is lost, but, my friend, that is on YOU, not anyone else.

Well, is not only on me. Nobody of my DBA group (8-10 people) wanted to playtest the 3.0 or the 2.2+ per the reasons explained above.
Ok, you can say that I can playtest solo, but a game with an opponent is better than playing alone.

And, personally, I have not the time to play as much as I want or as I used to play. Now I play 1 game every month. I can't give any significative feedback to any system with such an amount of games.
This is the reason why I'm not into the GM list of 2.2+

[dicemanrick]

Maybe the "spanish problem" is that we had great expectations about 3.0, and this version was a great change from v2.2, without any explanations of the changes. The development was so obscure, so rare...

We only wanted some minor changes, as several times had been pointed out in this forum .

That was not the DBA that we wanted. It was good to know that v2.2+ was coming as a new thing compared with 3.0, but when the beta version was released, it was like 3.0. A lot of changes, most of them "copied" from 3.0.
Same dog, different collar, but less aggressive that the other, which I appreciate.

And the other problem is that we are waiting for 18 months for a new version of the game that involves changes in the composition of the armies.
I put myself as an example. I want to paint a new army. Should I buy the figures for the 2.2 army list? Should I wait until v3.0 is released, as many armies have new options, new troop types, as I've seen in the drafts?
Finally I bought an army for another ruleset until all the mess is clarified. So I've lost the "momentum" of DBA in favour for other rules.

I can appreciate your remarks as I was in the same place for a long time.
I had great hopes for 3.0 and for a while was a part of Bob's play-test group.
The more I saw, the quicker I realized that I liked 2.2 more than 3.0.

At that point I was invited to join WADBAG's cabal of nefarious rules-writers.

2.2+ is a good variant to play. Although it's not just a "cleaner" version of 2.2, it plays more like 2.2 than 3.0 does.

Are there differences...yes. Are the differences so great that 2.2+ is a game-breaker...I don't think so.

Ultimately everyone has to decide what rules to use or to move on.

Personally, I like 2.2 the best but will play 2.2+ if everyone else does. If the Polish gamers want to stick to 2.2, that's fine. No one will force you to change.

But please try playing a few games of 2.2+ before you change your mind for good.

[winterbadger]

Thanks winterbadger, I am sure Prich (the guy responsible for bringing DBA to Spain as a hardcore game in the first place) will look forward to playtest 2.2+ after that message.

Xavi

Because I pointed out that no one is responsible for him not playing DBA but he himself? Yes, I can see why that would be problematic. It seems as there is a lot cutting off one's nose to spite one's face going around.

[Xavi]

His 2 small kids and workload might have something to say regarding that, I guess. And well, looking around and only seeing flying crap and being told that the army lists are being redone when you are playing your next army might color one's expectations and priorities as well. But hey.

Xavi

[Lobotomy]

I won't even get into how much I disagree with the rest of your post, but this last bit really takes the biscuit. You had the alternatives of (1) continuing to play 2.2, (2) participate in the development of 2.2+ (surely there must be a number of event organizers in Spain who could have joined the GM development group) and then in the playtesting of the Beta, or (3) participate in the now-open playtest and comment period of 3.0. Instead, you chose to do nothing at all; you threw up your hands and went and bought an army for another game.

Maybe your DBA momentum is lost, but, my friend, that is on YOU, not anyone else.

Jan,

That was REALLY unnecessary. This is no way to get those with valid concerns about 2.2+ to make attempts to try the beta out. Much of what Xavi and Prich have written about is a lot of what others on the GM pre-beta group expressed. So now they are saying what others have said and do not need such a harsh reaction. Skeptics need engaged not harshly attacked.

I am sure you mother told you the same thing as mine (thought I tend not to practice it either), "If you can't say something nice. . . .."

[Gorgoroth]

Hi there!

Here I am again, too much time since last visit. I belong to the Barcelona playing group. Once the introductions, let's get on agenda.

1st- Thanks for all the work that is behind the 2.2+

2nd- I do not like the tone of some responses. Looks like that it is "you are with us or against us". Dudes, this is JUST A GAME. If you waste your time reading responses, at least, expect them to be educated...

3rd- In MY OPINION, 2.2+ is a version of DBA 2.2 as it is DBA 3.0. What I try to say is that it's not a new version of DBA, its a new entire game. Looks like a good game, but not DBA. This is due to the large number of modifications, while rivers and others have not been modified.

4th- In Spain, not everyone knows enough English to read and understand the rules, so not all of the community are potential playtesters. We have the language barrier.

5th - I will be glad to betatest it, but I am finishing my two careers and my litle spare time I use it in other issues rather than DBA... In two months, i have just played once...

6th- Until I test the game on the board, I'd rather not give my opinion of the rules. I want to compare my first impressions with the game once played.

Kind regards

P.S. I like dots

[pozanias]

Welcome back to the forum Gorgoroth! You may find 2.2+ is not quite as different from 2.2 as it may appear at first. Either way, though, I hope you enjoy it when you do get a chance to play. Let us know if we can help you.

[Gorgoroth]

Let us know if we can help you.

What just I need is about 30 hours per day XDDDD

Kind regards.

[chezstewart]

First, thanks SO much for creating such reasonable (and MINIMAL) fix revisions
to DBA 2.2. They show genius and forethought. Anxious to try them out F2F.

Secondly, here are some minor suggestions from a fresh set of eyes on minor
clarifications.
1. MUs are an ingenious fix. Despite comments suggesting the name be changed
I can’t think of anything better (AI could stand for “Almost Inches”)
2. Took a while to realize that the lists are NOT edited to ADD the new element types.
Maybe adding a line like: “The four new element types, Cataphract, Raider,
Lt Spear, and Pavise, are merely reinterpretations of some elements already in
the 2.2 lists (4Kn, 3Bd, 3Sp, 8Bw and 8Cb) so there is no need to edit the lists
(or rebase these figures)
3. Command Distance threw me at first with the two numbers. Maybe add a note
behind each number like “(obstructed) (clear)”
4. Terrain like “EXTRA woods” and “EXTRA steep hills” sounds like “dense”
And “rugged”. Guess you mean “ANOTHER” or “SECOND”.
5. Dismounting may not be done during defender’s swap (implied).
6. Some observations: roads are “nerfed”. The range of 3 MUs for shooting
seems low….

Thirdly, combining some of the better comment responses might form a very
informative “RATIONALE BEHIND 2.2+”. This would save a lot of repeat questions
and searching.

Lastly, I’m curious how some of the “untouched” issues may be addressed:
A. “Kinked lines”; never seen this gamey situation.
B. Rivers; simply eliminate the “6” roll results, set max width of 1 MU,
Attacker places 2 to 3 fords (4 MUs wide), or some combo.
C. Littoral landings; allow on the first TWO turns? Let high AG littoral armies
(like Vikings) do more often?

You’ve probably seen all these before, just my 2 cents. Keep up the good work!

[Pavane]

4. Terrain like “EXTRA woods” and “EXTRA steep hills” sounds like “dense”
And “rugged”. Guess you mean “ANOTHER” or “SECOND”.
Thanks for the positive feedback. You have a lot of good comments, but I will just respond to a couple. I agree to the above because I was confused at first as well. I think that ADDITIONAL is another clearer possibility.

6. The range of 3 MUs for shooting seems low….
We talked about this in the GM List. I proposed 4MU because I didn't think that it was reasonable that Raiders and Light Spear move faster in a bound than the Bow shooting range. It was quickly pointed out that this was a dramatic change that alters the dynamics of all of the other troop types with regard to shooting, especially heavy infantry. It was tabled for future discussion because of the extensive playtesting required. I have played many more games of 2.2+ since then, and I am not sure 4 MU shooting is worth revisiting.

[ferrency]

4. Terrain like “EXTRA woods” and “EXTRA steep hills” sounds like “dense”
And “rugged”. Guess you mean “ANOTHER” or “SECOND”.

Good point. I like "Additional".

I would like to see clarification on the "maximum pieces of each type" situation.
With 1-2 mandatory and 2-3 optional, can I place 4 woods now?


6. Some observations: roads are “nerfed”.

How so? Road movement range is still the same as Cav movement distance, as it was in 2.2.

The range of 3 MUs for shooting seems low….

This came up on the GM list during discussion of the 4MU movement rate for Raiders and Light Spear.

Shooting range is the same as heavy foot movement, as in 2.2. Increasing it to guarantee one shot against Raiders before contact means also allowing 2 more bounds of shooting before Heavy Infantry can contact the bows. It has unintended consequences that are too big to ignore.

Edit: Don't forget the other benefits bows get now: shooting into/out of overlaps gives them a big benefit that they didn't previously have after lines have already collided.


Alan

[john meunier]

1. MUs are an ingenious fix. Despite comments suggesting the name be changed
I can’t think of anything better (AI could stand for “Almost Inches”)


I still like 100 paces.

[Pavane]

I still like 100 paces.
I like paces as well as long as everyone understands that these are notional and do not imply any scale. I generally don't give any units when I play, and never did. I say "that element moves 4" except now it is MU instead of inches. I never really said 400 paces, but I don't mind if you do. I also like analog wristwatches, when I wear one at all.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

I believe the kinked lines are addressed by the implementation of the HOTT rule regarding group contact with individual elements.

see:
http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=12699

[Rich Gause]

I believe the kinked lines are addressed by the implementation of the HOTT rule regarding group contact with individual elements.

see:
http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=12699

That mitigates the worst of the effects of kinked lines without introducing new effects of cheesy conforming rules IMO. It doesn't totally fix them but totally fixing them IMO involves introducing abililties for the bounding player to make even worse cheesy contact ploys. Think of it as a number line where decreasing cheesy non bounding player ploys increases cheesy bounding player ploys what you want to shoot for is a happy medium you can't ever totally get rid of one without making the other worse. The HOTT rule IMO is the best that can be acheived so far.