|
|
Post by goldenhord on Oct 21, 2019 17:19:50 GMT
An article in slingshot may/june 2019 from Joe Collins asked us to test 3 modifications for a DBA3.x
one for AX, one for Pike and one for Bx arguing historical references
What do you think about that ?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 21, 2019 17:22:54 GMT
An article in slingshot may/june 2019 from Joe Collins asked us to test 3 modifications for a DBA3.x one for AX, one for Pike and one for Bx arguing historical references What do you think about that ? Thank you. we play tested as part of the recent Bakewell matched pairs and I remain unconvinced- it’s tinkering around the edges, without getting to the nub of the issue, for me. Solid Ax and Bw need a simple increase in CF against heavy foot and I think that solves it better... P |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 21, 2019 18:02:20 GMT
An article in slingshot may/june 2019 from Joe Collins asked us to test 3 modifications for a DBA3.x one for AX, one for Pike and one for Bx arguing historical references What do you think about that ? Thank you. we play tested as part of the recent Bakewell matched pairs and I remain unconvinced- it’s tinkering around the edges, without getting to the nub of the issue, for me. Solid Ax and Bw need a simple increase in CF against heavy foot and I think that solves it better... P The feedback was interesting. It was to put it mildly, "all over the place". Most interesting was the roughly equal numbers commenting that the changes made the troop types too powerful or that the changes did nothing at all.. Even more oddly was that the changes to Bow were better received than the changes to Pike. I am still digesting the results. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 22, 2019 4:00:07 GMT
I have not play tested the suggestions because I believe in the strict interpretation of the rules as written. Well, as best as we can anyway. I see any changes leading along the road of DBA3 Plus. I am all for creative house rules, especially for applying to specific battles. I can accept some scenario specific rules for a tournament battle. Just no need for rule changes that override the rules as written for general play. Not every one liked all the rules that Phil put into DBA3, but they are as they are, as he wrote, and that is the game I will play. It is Phil's model of ancient warfare, not someone elses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 22, 2019 7:22:27 GMT
I quite liked the bow rules.
I played a few games where I had to assault lines of bows once with Blade and once with spears and also defended against a spear assault with bow.
Knocking back a couple of spears making them staggered meant that four bases could cost up to 8 pips which kept the bow in the game.
Bow held off spear for a draw, just. Did take out two spear with missile fire.
Bow got crushed by spear, good pip rolls and not losing a spear to bow on way in helped.
Bow held off blade and aux for a while which was dodgy as cavalry had started to nibble at flanks but once some blade elements got in the bow crumbled.
Bow made a difference but didn't swing the games, didn't have a game where the other rules got played.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 22, 2019 12:09:05 GMT
I have not play tested the suggestions because I believe in the strict interpretation of the rules as written. Well, as best as we can anyway. I see any changes leading along the road of DBA3 Plus. I am all for creative house rules, especially for applying to specific battles. I can accept some scenario specific rules for a tournament battle. Just no need for rule changes that override the rules as written for general play. Not every one liked all the rules that Phil put into DBA3, but they are as they are, as he wrote, and that is the game I will play. It is Phil's model of ancient warfare, not someone elses. Nope Bob. They are leading the way towards DBA 3.1. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 14:53:37 GMT
I’d agree with Joe. The house rules being suggested aren’t huge leaps and they are aimed at making DBA even better without adding complexity that could cause a split. Obviously there can be lots of debate about what rules would become “official” but it would be a shame for DBA to stop evolving. It’s such a wonderful game.
I’d also add that conversations around house rules have been really civil and spirited, so I don’t get the feeling there’s any acrimony. That said I haven’t read the feedback on the slingshot article.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 22, 2019 16:09:28 GMT
Yes Greedo...
The DBA split was caused by the unfortunate combination of the personalities involved... That is no longer an issue.
The question of the future of DBA does remain.
My own hopes for what little they count would for there to be first a 3.1 version produced. This version will still primarily be Phil's language, style, and ideas, but with difficult sections clarified. Further, small tweaks to the combat results would be made to improve the simulation. These would be minor, not major changes. I actually hesitated in writing my section on Bows from concern that the change might be too drastic. Further study convinced me to include it.
After a DBA 3.1 my hope would be for a further development of the game (DBA 4?) much like Tom, Stevie, and many others are proposing...though many of their ideas are not that outside the box and could well make it into a 3.1 as well.
I especially like Tom's idea of taking a base factor and adding descriptive modifiers (though...I think perhaps he stole this idea from Frank Chadwick...or wait...Frank may have lifted it from Tom!). I further of course support the integration of diagrams within the text and other changes to the layout.
All this is far in the future. It is certainly worthy of development and thought. My own focus has been on a DBA 3.1.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2019 16:49:51 GMT
Joe, here’s a thought. Why not have DBA 3.1 with the clarified basic ‘tournament’ rules (incorporating all the current FAQ adjudications) at the front of the book, and all the ‘advanced’ rules at the back in an optional appendix? Would the pure DBA 3.0 players really object to an ‘optional appendix’ (which they can ignore)? And would those who want more playbalance/realism mind having their extra stuff at the back? This seems to be the best way to please everybody.  Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 22, 2019 17:22:31 GMT
Joe, here’s a thought. Why not have DBA 3.1 with the clarified basic ‘tournament’ rules (incorporating all the current FAQ adjudications) at the front of the book, and all the ‘advanced’ rules at the back in an optional appendix? Would the pure DBA 3.0 players really object to an ‘optional appendix’ (which they can ignore)? And would those who want more playbalance/realism mind having their extra stuff at the back? This seems to be the best way to please everybody. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
I would like that idea. Nice one Stevie. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 22, 2019 17:32:58 GMT
Why would we want to do that?
Just kidding...
This isn't a bad idea, but unfortunately it was strongly discarded by Phil during the development phase of the rules. Now, that doesn't mean that it can't be done in the future.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Oct 22, 2019 22:53:42 GMT
An updated version of the rules is OK , based on playing expirences from the last version . What peoples won't like so much is basically a new set of rules ? You only have to look at the fall out between FOW V3 and V4 to see that !
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2019 0:38:59 GMT
An updated version of the rules is OK , based on playing expirences from the last version . What peoples won't like so much is basically a new set of rules ? You only have to look at the fall out between FOW V3 and V4 to see that ! Fair but I feel like wargamers as a group love to b$&@tch about new things because they optimized their way of play for a certain style and once they get used to the new way, they’re good to go. Fow 4 seems to have acclimated to the new way even if people grumble a bit because the new stuff fixes more than it breaks. The same could be true of DBA 3. Fixed a lot of stuff and there are some issues but that is likely no matter what. I also like Stevie a idea of “advanced historical rules” and tournament basic rules.but if it’s rejected then whatcha gonna do. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2019 1:41:57 GMT
An updated version of the rules is OK , based on playing expirences from the last version . What peoples won't like so much is basically a new set of rules ? You only have to look at the fall out between FOW V3 and V4 to see that ! Fair but I feel like wargamers as a group love to b$&@tch about new things because they optimized their way of play for a certain style and once they get used to the new way, they’re good to go. Fow 4 seems to have acclimated to the new way even if people grumble a bit because the new stuff fixes more than it breaks. The same could be true of DBA 3. Fixed a lot of stuff and there are some issues but that is likely no matter what. I also like Stevie a idea of “advanced historical rules” and tournament basic rules.but if it’s rejected then whatcha gonna do. I'd be hoping that the tournament basic rules aren't radically different from the advanced historical rules, and v.v. If one was radically different from the other, it would discourage using both. Folks would lean towards one or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 23, 2019 7:51:24 GMT
|
|
