Oswald
Munifex
Back to DBA!
Posts: 20 
|
Post by Oswald on Jul 25, 2020 16:08:43 GMT
You do realize that you're the first two to respond to this thread since, 2016, right?!. There has to be a message in that somewhere.  Yes the message is... the "other" club in our area went to 3.0. We 2.0-2.2 players left that club and then because only 3 of us we set DBA aside. Praise be to GOD that 4 of our former DBAers saw the light and returned from that other club. So now we'll have at least 7 active players for our DBA craving, plus working to recruit more. So what did we do when we left DBA? We'd gravitated to ACW with RF&F / BF&F. Phil B should take multiple lessons on how to write, construct, diagram / picture DBA from the Fire & Fury team. RF&F / BF&F in my experience is the best rule set from the development, testing, and publishing process that I've seen in 50 years of gaming. yes, sure is a message there ... as my better half says, I have a tendency to hang onto the past until it rips |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jul 25, 2020 18:34:29 GMT
Good result on getting more gamers playing DBA
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 27, 2020 21:18:44 GMT
I always find it odd that people stuck with 2.2 for alleged simplicity. I find 3.0 much more logical and easier to teach (though I fully agree the Purple Book is not introductory material). I spent most of my DBA 2.whatever getting rule lawyered re conforming and watching my favorite armies get run over. I have gotten several DBX critics to give the updated DBA 3.0 mechanics (admittedly further modernized by me) to come round to the systems virtues after some rather rough experiences with older versions.
One of our goals was to get things to work in a more smooth and logical manner.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by braisdefer on Feb 20, 2021 0:01:50 GMT
I regress to DBA1 for a breath of simplicity but then the majority of my games are played solo. 😼
|
|
|
|
Post by krigare on Feb 21, 2021 6:19:35 GMT
Still 2.2 for us. I see basically the same type of questions and clarification of rules for 3.0. Appears to have fixed some things but created other questions. Still doesn’t appear worth the hassle for us to switch.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Feb 21, 2021 9:56:40 GMT
I think you're right Krigare, but then there never will be a perfect set of rules that suits everyone. Therefore I guess unless you want to play solo or travel you have to go with what's played locally. Also if you want to play in competitions you have to be fairly familiar with the rule set being used. So I suppose it depends on what each person's motivation for playing is.
Personally I enjoyed 5th Edition, never got on with 6th, so played other stuff, came back into Ancients with DBM, but the others in our group never took to DBMM or FOG so I played DBR for a year or so, then took up DBA 2.2 and HOTT after seeing them played at conventions.
I do think there are some things in 3.0 that aren't as good as 2.2 (such as pinning elements through other troops) but it's what is played here and it still gives a good game.
I think it's a shame when a wargaming period fractures into many different rule sets (though I'm not sorry to see the hard nose competitive types play games other than DBA) but when things split it does mean some people may leave the hobby altogether, which isn't good for it's overall future.
|
|
|
|
Post by krigare on Feb 27, 2021 5:30:24 GMT
I think it's a shame when a wargaming period fractures into many different rule sets (though I'm not sorry to see the hard nose competitive types play games other than DBA) but when things split it does mean some people may leave the hobby altogether, which isn't good for it's overall future. Could not agree with you more on this!! |
|
