|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 16:24:38 GMT
One of the very few points that I liked better in DBA 2.2 was how it allowed for two pairs of the defenders elements to be exchanged after deployment.
Does anyone know why that is gone?
Given the stone-paper-scissor nature of DBA, I always thought that this was a very good rule and that it did a lot to balance the massive bonus of setting up after knowing your opponents positions. Apparently, not everyone thinks that way.
I understand that the massively increased movement distances make DBA 3 much less static than 2.2 was. Still - re-deployment depends on PIP's and is still difficult to do for heavy foot.
I am thinking of re-using that rule in DBA 3 as a house rule. Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts on why I should or should not do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 9, 2017 17:44:19 GMT
One of the very few points that I liked better in DBA 2.2 was how it allowed for two pairs of the defenders elements to be exchanged after deployment. Does anyone know why that is gone? Given the stone-paper-scissor nature of DBA, I always thought that this was a very good rule and that it did a lot to balance the massive bonus of setting up after knowing your opponents positions. Apparently, not everyone thinks that way. I understand that the massively increased movement distances make DBA 3 much less static than 2.2 was. Still - re-deployment depends on PIP's and is still difficult to do for heavy foot. I am thinking of re-using that rule in DBA 3 as a house rule. Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts on why I should or should not do it?
By all means, do try it and let us know how it works for you.
I can think of a few historical scenarios that could make use of such an exchange.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Sept 10, 2017 7:08:28 GMT
I think Phil thought the issue was better addressed by giving the defender the first move. Personally, I can see logic in that opinion. I think many players have been slow to adapt, and continue to set out their elements in a battle line rather than allowing for flexibility.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Sept 10, 2017 7:32:49 GMT
I was not entirely happy with the rule.,It could on the plus side be said to be a tactical ploy by the defender to wrong foot the attacker,or even the best way to represent an ambush by the defender.
On the negative side I felt a defender who could have been out-scouted could still re-deploy without penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 10, 2017 9:49:34 GMT
I think Phil thought the issue was better addressed by giving the defender the first move. Ouch... I might have been playing this wrong all the time. Need to check with my regular opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 10, 2017 20:14:36 GMT
Ditto to Scott. Plus the increased movement makes it easier to realign after deployment. This was seen as more "realistic" then picking up figures and moving them around after deployment.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 13, 2017 15:32:39 GMT
It was eliminated to do away with teleporting elements which tended to produce "perfect" match ups for the teloporter.
It was replaced by using a HOTT mechanic which we had used successfully for years in that game of having the Defender deploy first and then move first, allowing for "real world" redeployment.
It does increase the chance of wrong footing an opponent (redeployment depends more on PIPs than MA) another feature intended to increase dynamics. If you may need a hasty redeployement set up further back and keep some troops in reserve ready to move to the appropriate spot.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 13, 2017 17:09:06 GMT
Actually, I think that this is a good way to handle it and I will do a few more games paying attention to whether I do it in the right order.
The arguments in favour of the DBA 3.0 rulings make perfect sense.
|
|
