Towards DBA 3.1

I agree fundamentally with the trajectory proposed by Stevie. As a primary point regarding 4Ax, it seems to me as if Ax should really be Light Infantry - javelin throwers, able to engage successfully in close combat in the right terrain. And then there are a slew of troop types that seem to require a different classification (MI) that fought toe to toe, but would ultimately slowly be ground back by HI. I am not certain 4Ax as written, or with the extra recoil, really adequately captures this sort of troop type. Spanish Scutarii, early pre-hoplites (Lydia), Republican Allied legions are all glaring examples for me.

Bob, I think you may have misinterpreted the last post that I wrote above on this page.
My fault for not making things clear (and I had the cheek to complain about the rules being unclear! ).

You of all people have campaigned more than most to have more Clarity in DBA.
Are you honestly saying that all the rules as currently written are totally clear and understandable?
And that DBA 3.0’s presentation is perfect in it’s present form and cannot be improved?

If it is so perfect, then why does the FAQ exist?
Are you against having the FAQ rulings added to a future version to be called DBA 3.1?
Good grief…if we cannot even get a consensus on that then what hope is there of ever progressing, improving and evolving DBA into a better form.

Remember, I am not advocating any Changes (at least, not at this time).
Instead I’m trying to get an agreement on existing rules that we all know could do with some re-wording and improvement, in the sake of Clarity…and unity.

Let us at least agree that the Clarity and rule layout could be improved.
That goal alone would be worthy of a new version of DBA.


(And I really think that talk of changing the Ax should be in a separate thread.
My fault…I shouldn’t have answered Joe Collins first post.
After all, it was his idea…forgive me for agreeing with him.)



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

I agree DBA as with all things needs to move forward and develop. My fear is the wrangling, animosity and bad feeling will again re-surface to the degradation of the game and the community surrounding it.

Deleated.

David Constable

Re: 3.1

This involves two issues:

1) Clarification of existing rule questions
2) Improvements to balance/simulation value/gameplay.

Let me say at the outset that DBA 3.0 represents the pinnacle of DBX design; it has much of DBMM’s historical feel but with much less rules overhead. It addressed and solved some basic DBX problems in quite clever and elegant ways. It even improved rule presentation (at least a bit).

In the end though and having though long and hard about DBX’s future, I came to the conclusion that the rules presentation issue could not be solved with the current methods. So I re-thought DBX from the ground up and created a new methodology for rule presentation and how to use DBX mechanics. So A Game of Fire and Ice (or A Game of Knights and Knaves – if you prefer) has already solved the above problems for me and my group of players. I sincerely hope this homage to Phil Barker’s DBX ideas will keep alive this great work for generations to come. So I’m a bit detached philosophically about the progress of any DBA 3.1s.

Nevertheless, DBA 3.0 remains the rule set for tournament competitions and needs to be as easy to use as possible given the presentation style. The central problem will be to get Phil to sign on to reviewing DBA and the need for a 3.1. He’s been asked to at least fix the known typos in 3.0 when it goes in for a new printing but shown no interest in doing so. He simply has too many other projects to deal with. If we can get him to endorse, I’m all for it but suspect any 3.1 will be a player created unofficial version.

Getting the FAQ endorsed clarifications included would be an easy first set. But even here we can’t get consensus on some basic issues. Likewise fixing misprints in Army Lists.

Even worse is trying to fix simulation/balance/gameplay issues. This thread already contains a few wistful 2.2 supporters wanting a return to the grossly disproportionate Ps support rule and the endless rule lawyering regarding conforming. Powerful troop types make for popular armies each of which has a large lobbying group firmly opposed to watering down their core elements. They attribute their dominance to great generalering; their opponents to broken troop types. The truth soon gets muddled.

The "element type" system while dear to DBX has proved to be its biggest long term weakness - too many troop types crammed into some category - like Aux. The solution is not more troop types (you only really need four) but to vary the the "big four" by weapon, armor etc (much like we do with Fast). But within the current confines of DBA this will never be accepted.

That said here are some basic reforms we put into Knights and Knaves which have proved very successful:

1) Foot Recoil a BW or a Base Depth (makes the rule for Mounted/Foot the same).
2) Great Beasts (i.e. Elephants) are +4 v. Foot (it’s the number of missiles pelting the Beasts which cause them to react not whether a .303 can kill in one shot – think of a Regiment armed with .303s)
3) Stands in TZ can move to Overlap position (makes X-Ray TZ much less obnoxious)
4) “Light” troops have the Evade Ability agonist any Stand (except any w/Bow in Close Combat) with a lower MA in current Terrain. Evade converts a Doubled Result into a Flee Result. (This replaces Shock (or Quick Kill Ability) of LH v. Knights. (So Aux can Evade slower troops esp. in Rough/Difficult).
5) Fast Recoil on ties from all Shooting (so Fast v. Fast Bow mutually Recoil on ties).Fast lose Cry Havoc (Cry Havoc: Knights Destroyed on Ties). Palestinian club men would have to become non-Fast .
6) Polearms: count +5 v. Foot, +4 v. Mounted but +3 v. any Bow Shooting. Don’t give Shieldwall (Side Support for Spears). Do get Cry Havoc.
7) Let Warband Rear Support count against Mounted.
8) Let each Pike element become two Stands but with a +2 Rear Support factor against both Foot and Mounted (so they are +5 v. Foot; +6 v. Mounted in combo). The still “die” Stand by Stand but count as only ½ Stand for “Defeat”.
9) Destroyed LF (i.e. Ps) count as only ½ Stand for “Defeat”.
10) Oh and a point system….

These and many other suggestions will never be adopted by the majority of DBA 3.0 tournament players. But they are fun to discuss.

If you really interested in expanding DBX capabilities and creating user friendly DBX mechanics get a copy of Fire and Ice – dive in and provide feedback. It’s a living rule system, electronic published so it can change and update as needed.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games

Great Glossary:

Cry Havoc = Ability to Destroy Knights on Ties
Evade = Ability to convert Destroyed Results into Flees
Shock = Ability to convert More Results into Destroyed Results