dba 2.0 vs 2.2

[whefam]

Chaps,

We only have 2.0 and I see lots of posts talking about 2.2. Also I have read Bob's excellent commentaries but they obviously refer to 2.2.

Can someone outline to me the difference between 2.2 and 2.0.

Is it worth me buying 2.2?

I would need to persuade all my club members to change over as well (tight wad lot they are!).

Andy

[Macbeth]

Hi Andy,

buried somewhere on this forum is an earlier thread where the differences were discussed, but in short most of the changes were made between v2.0 and v2.1 where

BUAs became optional for Arable in that the compulsory feature was BUA or Road.
Ps Support for Bd/Sp/Ax counted when attacking a BUA, as did Pk support.
BUA's defensive bonus became +3 down from +4.

WWg's combat bonus against foot went down from +4 to +3

Wb became Bad Going able

2.1 was given out as an amendment sheet where you did the old cross out and replace.

Come 2.2, which was published, all of the 2.1 changes were incorporated and there was a change to the text for measuring movement (more wordy but designed to counter the Martian Flip)- the short version - measure all corners.

WWg could shoot all round, and count the first side contacted as the front edge for combat.

Ps support for Sp/Bd/Ax counts against Wb.

This is not exhaustive but I think I've covered the main points.

Cheers

[beckerdo]

Also camps changed in maximum size from 6 elements total-length-plus-width to 4 elements total-length-plus-width.

Thanks, Dan

[Pthomas]

The 2.0 to 2.1 changes are available under the Tips and Guides section.

[cpagano]

Originally posted by Pthomas:
The 2.0 to 2.1 changes are available under the Tips and Guides section. Is there some reason why the 2.0 to 2.2 changes cannot be posted there, or is it just that nobody has gotten around to doing it?

Nobody really cares any more about 2.0 to 2.1 (or 2.1 to 2.2), since the two published versions are 2.0 and 2.2.

-Chris P.

[xeswop]

If you want 2.2, buy the book.

The 2.1 changes were put on the web because they were not published. The 2.2 changes are in published form, so not posted for the same reason the whole book is not put on the web.

[cpagano]

Originally posted by Bob.:
If you want 2.2, buy the book.

The 2.1 changes were put on the web because they were not published. The 2.2 changes are in published form, so not posted for the same reason the whole book is not put on the web. It is not my intention to use something that I have not paid for, if it is something that I should pay for, but is there anything wrong with marking a copy of 2.0 with the 2.0-2.2 changes instead of purchasing 2.2 – given that I have paid for 2.0?

Note that the 2.0-2.2 changes cannot be used unless you have purchased 2.0.

Does posting the 2.0-2.2 changes break some copywrite or other laws, or is it just thought to be in bad form?
Similarly, does marking the 2.0-2.2 changes in my 2.0 book break some copywrite or other laws, or is it just thought to be in bad form? I paid for 2.0 and I have run events at conferences that have caused other to buy 2.2, so I don't feel guilty about it, but I don't want to get nasty looks from using a marked copy of 2.0 at cons and I don't want to encourage misbehavior in others.

Are people who own 2.0 buying 2.2 because hey feel they owe Phil the additional money for these changes or are they simply doing it for the luxury of not using a marked-up older copy?

That being said, the only reason why i have not yet purchased 2.2 is because no copies have ever been available at the cons that I have attended. I prefer to hold off purchases until the cons in order to support the vendors who haul their stuff to cons (one of which is the con I run). I will purchase 2.2 as soon as I come accross a copy at one of these regional southeartern cons I go to. Until then I'll continue to use my copy of 2.0.

[whefam]

I originally purchased 1.1 and then had to buy 2.0.

We have decided to STOP at 2.0 and go no further.

There does not seems to be too many fundamental changes to the rules from 2.0 to 2.2.

Anyway I think warband are to strong in 2.2

[Macbeth]

Interesting that you feel that way Andy,

good for you if that is the case. However, except for the furthest corner rule, most of the heated discussion about rules interpreations on this forum involves the core rules that have been unchanged since v2.0

Personally I think that the jump to 2.1 (using the amendment sheet) is worth the trouble. It deals a blow to the dominance of BUAs, cuts down the solidity of Art (as a Sung Chinese General this hurts me more than it hurts you) and gives Wb a fighting chance against other troops.

Wb will never be too strong so long as there are Kn on the table. Giving them the chance to hide in the BG was the best gift they could get.

I bought 2.2 mostly for the convenience of not having to read my own scrawl.

Cheers

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by whefam:

Anyway I think warband are to strong in 2.2 Without wanting to subvert this thread, I would maintain that Wb are almost the weakest troop type around in 2.0, and are still a bit iffy in 2.2. They are at a disadvantage in the open against LH, Camels, and Cav; they are at an EXTREME disadvantage in the open against Knights or Elephants. They fight Spear and Blade even-up in the open (more or less -- with Psiloi support I would say the Wb are on the negative end of that equation), and they fight Bad-going troops even-up in bad going.

So if you are looking for a super-troop, Wb ain't it, even in 2.2! :D

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by whefam:
I originally purchased 1.1 and then had to buy 2.0.

We have decided to STOP at 2.0 and go no further.

There does not seems to be too many fundamental changes to the rules from 2.0 to 2.2.

Anyway I think warband are to strong in 2.2 I can certainly understand this position. The big problem of having fairly frequent rules changes (even if they are relatively small changes) is that people that play DBA only occassionally get frustrated.

I play DBA almost exclusively (some DBM and some other stuff, but not much) so it's not as big an issue. And, I've felt that each version is an improvement on the previous version. Sort of a one step backward, two steps forward thing. So, the new versions don't bother me in and of themselves. What's frustrating for me is the time and effort required to get a common understanding of the new rules seems to be almost exactly the amount of time between versions.
:( So, it seems as though just as the DBA community has settled in, a new version comes out. But, it's always that "one step back" part of the new version that necessitates another new version somewhere down the road.

Oh, and Warband are not too powerful. :D

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by cpagano:
Are people who own 2.0 buying 2.2 because hey feel they owe Phil the additional money for these changes or are they simply doing it for the luxury of not using a marked-up older copy?
For myself, it is purely because I prefer a clean copy.

I've been meaning to go through the 2.1 and 2.2 rules line-by-line and come up with the exact changes. I'll post those as soon as I get them done. (Though you shouldn't hold your breath. I've been intending to do this for the last year :rolleyes: ). Should I actually get this done, combined with the 2.1 admendments, they will get you to 2.2.

- Jack

[cpagano]

I'm not sure if Phil really intended 2.2 as a "new edition" over 2.0.

As I understand it he ran out of copies of 2.0 and figured that if he was going to print more he may as well make a few fixes.

If everyone who owns 2.0 treats 2.2 as a new edition and runs out and buys it then the copies of 2.2 will be exhausted by those who already own 2.0, defeating the purpose of the reprinting in the first place!

I have heard that people have had trouble finding copies of 2.2. The vendors at the regional cons I attend would normally carry it, but they have always been out by the time they got to these smaller cons. Newbies at these cons may have bought copies if they were available. Once the newbie leaves the con without a copy in hand there is a chance that the urge will pass and they may never get around to becoming involved with DBA (and possibly starting it up at their local group).

Perhaps it would have been better if the experienced players who already owned 2.0 used marked copies at least until the supply of 2.2 for the newbies were ample.

-Chris P.

P.S., along with DK I think that Wb improvement by itself may make the price of 2.2 worthwhile.

[xeswop]

Following Chris' logic, all players should buy two copies of 2.2 so it will run fast so we can get a new edition to fix all the problems in 2.2. I bought two, one for home, on a string in the basement as the reference copy at games, and one to carry around.

Moreover, how do we know WRG did not print twice as many copies of 2.2 for all the previoius owners to have a new copy and for all the newbies too.

Whenever an author publishes a new edition of a book, is it fair for some people to buy a copy and then someone make copies of the changes to give to others for free? I was brought up to believe in copywrite laws, to not give away intellectual property, and to pay a publisher and author their due.

[cpagano]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Following Chris' logic, all players should buy two copies of 2.2 so it will run fast so we can get a new edition to fix all the problems in 2.2. Another piece of logic is that if an author rushes a flawed set of rules to press and then publishes a fixed version they will sell twice as many copies and make twice as much money as an author who is careful to get it right the first time.

I'm sure that this was not Phil's intent, but it seems to have been the result.

Originally posted by Bob.:
Moreover, how do we know WRG did not print twice as many copies of 2.2 for all the previous owners to have a new copy and for all the newbies too.If WRG produced 2.2 with the intention of having all of the 2.0 owners buy a new copy then I wonder if the owners of 2.0 would feel cheated. 2.0 has a 2001 publication year on it. What is the pub year on 2.2? When we buy a rule set how long should we expect it to last? If one has to update too soon then one should allow free upgrades, as is the case with software. This is also the case with many rule sets that offer a listing of changes or erratum.

Originally posted by Bob.:
Whenever an author publishes a new edition of a book, is it fair for some people to buy a copy and then someone make copies of the changes to give to others for free? I was brought up to believe in copywrite laws, to not give away intellectual property, and to pay a publisher and author their due. I agree with this.

It makes a difference whether or not WRG intended current owners of 2.0 to buy 2.2.

I figured that Phil did not have problem with us marking our copies of 2.0, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I will buy 2.2 when I came across a copy at one of my smaller local cons. I don't mind putting down money to support the vendors that make these cons possible and I don't mind supporting Phil & WRG who have produced a product that has given me a great deal of enjoyment. Nonetheless, I would be disappointed to think that they are purposely withholding the posting of 2.0 to 2.2 changes in order to get 2.0 owners to buy 2.2.

[ May 29, 2005, 00:39: Message edited by: cpagano ]

[Nixalsverdrus]

Originally posted by cpagano:
Another piece of logic is ... Chris, you are applying logic from a faulty point of view. You can not assume that DBA is meant to earn money, the way it is published.

You have to look at it as the service for tabletop gamers that it is.

If Phil doubles the publishing rate he doubles his losses - I can not believe that DBA is making him any real money.

I for one have always been very astonished to watch gamers spend hundreds of bugs on tin they will never get arround to paint and on the other hand think that 5 Pounds for a two-yearly update of the rulebook is a huge investion.

When DBA 2.2 came out, I ordered a handful of the books and gave them away in my gaming group to make shure everyone plays by the same rules. I am sure any trader of the small cons will bring you a sixpack of 2.2. if you mail him in advance.

:) Stefan

[xeswop]

Since 1990 there have been 4 printed versions of DBA:
1990, 1995,2001, and 2004.

[cpagano]

Originally posted by Nixalsverdrus:

I for one have always been very astonished to watch gamers spend hundreds of bugs on tin they will never get arround to paint and on the other hand think that 5 Pounds for a two-yearly update of the rulebook is a huge investion.
This is a very good point.
When we factor in all of the costs of our hobby the rules are really only a very small fraction, especially if travel expenses are included. Just dinner whil at a con or the shipping costs for an order of minis can be more than the price of the DBA rulebook.

A similar thing can be said about gamers who put a great deal of effort into well-crafted minis and terrain but then provide shoddy playing aids for those playing in their games. Sometimes too little value is placed on the rules. (Not that I'm knocking those who provide well-crafted minis and terrain!)

Originally posted by Bob.:

Since 1990 there have been 4 printed versions of DBA:
1990, 1995,2001, and 2004. The 2001-2004 gap seems a bit short to me, but overall I admit that this is not a bad track record. A new edition every 5 years is very reasonable, and on average Phil has come close to this.

-Chris P.

[ May 30, 2005, 13:37: Message edited by: cpagano ]

[Macbeth]

A very profound point by Stefan, and one I wil take to heart.

Personally I always pick up the new editions, because I find my own scrawl difficult to read so I pity anyone else that tries.

However unpainted tin continues to be a tradeable commodity for decades. You can sell it, swap it, or give it away to generate goodwill or encourage a new recruit (I've done all of this). Wheras a copy of a previous edition of the rules is merely a thing that takes up space, even though we don't use it anymore I find it hard to throw out old rules or lists.

Anyone else like me?

Cheers