Don't know if this floats anyones boat, but I saw this in the latest NZ DBMM newsletter which is complied by a gaming friend of mine.
DBF Announcement
WRG is excited to announce the development of a new rule set for fighting the great battles of fantasy literature and film, with the working title of 'De Bella Fantasia'.
Based primarily on DBA v3.0, along with elements of HoTT and including reflections on nearly ten years of play testing of v3.0, these rules add an expanded list of elements that include Heroes, Mages, Clerics, Beasts, Behemoths, Warbows, and Great Flyers. This rule set covers fantasy troop types alongside most of DBA 3's historical types. Magic is featured through the casting of spells and rituals.
Armies are built through a points system and games usually feature around 36 stands of figures per side, with each army split into 2-3 commands, reminiscent of Big Battle DBA, though smaller and much larger battles are certainly possible.
Included are a large number of army lists, two different campaign systems, and many diagrams interwoven with the text, which demonstrate and explain game play.
Designed to appeal both to the new player looking for an excellent, playable fantasy tabletop game and the seasoned DBA player looking to expand his game play into the realms of fantasy, DBF features an easily learned, and quick playing game, with surprising tactical depth.
The DBF development team is looking for groups of people to play test this great new game. To apply to become a play tester, please contact one of the following authors via email:
Joe Collins (mythicheroesandlegends@gmail.com)
Tom Thomas (DBFThomasThomas@gmail.com)
Paul Murgatroyd (pmmurgatroyd@aol.com)
Or post on the Fanaticus website: fanaticus.board.net or via the DBA or DBA/HOTT Facebook pages.
Play testing groups will be limited, so serious inquiries only, please.
Joe, Paul, & Tom
WRG's Latin was bad enough in Barker's day. I see it appears to have deteriorated yet further.
Meow !!
QuoteWRG's Latin was bad enough in Barker's day. I see it appears to have deteriorated yet further.
Gone to the dogs you could say Kitty? ;)
It seems to me like a very 'odd' rules launch, as WRG has the 'Hordes of the Things' (HoTT) set of rules, which are widely regarded as probably the best smaller scale fantasy set of rules in the entire hobby.
They have been around for decades now, virtually unaltered, as the original mechanism work so very well.
Reading the launch info above - I'm not sure what is really being added to the basic HoTT format?
I suspect that it will be the addition of the more (& IMHO unnecessary) over complication of additional troop types/classifications for the basic unit types - as introduced in the recent DBA relaunch - added to the core HoTT unit types and mechanisms.
HoTT's great attraction was its simplicity, that allowed a player the scope to interpret troop types into a deliberately very limited set of unit definitions. For example: a Behemoth unit could be a troop of trolls or equally an elephant or a Swiss pike kiel or even a battering ram. It was all about how the unit performed rather than any real specifics about what it was. The recent DBA changes have seen an attempt to drift towards the older WRG unit classifications - so the length of a spear suddenly mattered (as to whether it was a short or long spear or a pike). Add that overcomplexity to HoTT and you'll ruin a very straight forward and 'beautifully' balanced set of mechanism.
To me, this is a classic case of "if it aint broke, don't fix it!" and echoes some of the recent changes to DBA where the rules have been 'shanghaied' by a small group of players who seem intent on over complicating something that broadly worked really very well.
Hopefully this wont be the end of the thriving HoTT 'scene' across the UK?
Mark
PS: apologies - the above reads as a 'rant' but mucking about with a much loved wargaming 'institution' such as HoTT is a 'dangerous' thing!!!
QuoteWRG's Latin was bad enough in Barker's day. I see it appears to have deteriorated yet further.
Its English was equally incongruous.
I was going to mention Hordes of the things, but big Insect got there first.
So I'll leave you with a through on the DB* systems in general.
There have been many custom versions of DBA for different element count and historic era.
These have provided god examples of ways to break the game.
Very briefly:
Add an excessive number of troop types.
This disrupts the elegant "rock, paper, scissors" match ups of DBA, leading to odd or random outcomes, depending on your play style.
Play with too many elements.
This dilutes the importance of any particular clash, smoothing the outlying results.
It generally favours the force with the better "quality" (ie biggest combat factor) elements.
Is this really a 'WRG' launch - where's Phil Barker's imprimatur?
And the fanaticus.board.net link doesn't work for me.
I always thought HoTT was Fantasy DBA, so can't see the need to 'replace' it. Never could get past the Barkerese of the rules, which is a shame as they seem to offer so much :( .
I just thought that the news might be of interest to some gamers so cut and pasted the article, but the link in the original post does not work either :(
A few minutes of searching located the correct one: https://fanaticus.boards.net/forum (https://fanaticus.boards.net/forum)
Thanks Pierre - it is very helpful
It seems that some players have a need to alter or adjust just about every set of rules they play with, regardless of the impact it has on other established players.
I see that it is primarily a request for a play-testing group - so it will be interesting to see what comes out of it all.
Cheers
Mark
HOTT v2.0 is >twenty years old (2.1 is just a very minor rule update, some new army lists and a bit of a re-org). Blitzkrieg Commander has gone through 4 versions in the same time frame.
Thanks to Pierre for bringing this to our attention.
I'm not against upgrades of rules (despite sounding like I am).
It just seems odd to bring out a Fantasy DBA set of rules that is so close to HoTT in its basic concept. This might however reflect a distinct difference of opinion between those advocating change to HoTT and those resistant to it.
I'm aware that there has been a long-standing schism between the DBA 'revisionists' who want to evolve DBA to accommodate more troop types and the 'purists' who say that it is over complicating things unnecessarily. But I wasnt aware that this had seeped over into HoTT (or maybe it hasn't and these are the same sub-group of disaffected DBA players).
I think that there was previously a Fantasy variant/supplement of the larger scale WRG (DBM) rules - for fighting much larger battles, and that makes sense. But what is being proposed currently almost looks like a blatant 'attack' on HoTT.
I'm certainly not where to deny anybody else's choices.
I spent an hour looking at that DB* forum.
I left thinking "Once we had a viable six page ruleset. Where did it all go wrong".
Now I'm a minimalist at heart.
I prefer Elvis at Sun studios heading a three piece band to his Vegas residency with a big band.
And I take a similar view of rules
I do wonder whether all "simple" ancients rules are destined to undergo the doom of a thousand well intentioned amendments.
I enjoyed Basic Impetus, but now Impetus is a 5 volume behemoth.
I enjoyed original DBA for a while, but was horrified by the cunning geometric tricks, and suggestions for extra trop types on the forum.
I never played To The Strongest, but admired the vision of straightforward troop classifications and combat resolutio as fast as a game of snap.
Then the amendments began: Extra deep, super deep and ultra deep phalanx. Massed lights, combined lights.....
I enjoy the elegance of a light system.
The "Community" always seems dominated by the "Let's make this more complex" brigade.
No condemnation implied here.
More an observation of the direction crowds will move a project.
And the challenges this poses to rules author's original vision.
QuoteThe "Community" always seems dominated by the "Let's make this more complex" brigade.
No condemnation implied here.
More an observation of the direction crowds will move a project.
And the challenges this poses to rules author's original vision.
I think to a fair degree this is the nature of internet discussions - if you think something should be added to a ruleset you will be happy to post about this and expound on it as an idea.
If you think that the rules are fine as they are, you may not even bother finding the forums for discussion, and there is only so many times you can be bothered to post 'its fine as it is'
With wargames rules (and some board games) there seems to always be something else that could be added, that will make the rules 'better' - typically to further model a specific situation. What is very hard is to objectively asses that idea, to determine if it really is adding something that the game needs, or is it simply adding complexity.
QuoteI think to a fair degree this is the nature of internet discussions - if you think something should be added to a ruleset you will be happy to post about this and expound on it as an idea.
If you think that the rules are fine as they are, you may not even bother finding the forums for discussion, and there is only so many times you can be bothered to post 'its fine as it is'
With wargames rules (and some board games) there seems to always be something else that could be added, that will make the rules 'better' - typically to further model a specific situation. What is very hard is to objectively asses that idea, to determine if it really is adding something that the game needs, or is it simply adding complexity.
Very true.
It's also very easy to bolt on a new mechanic, increasing the entropy of the rules.
It's much more difficult, and energy intensive, to streamline rules into a more elegant form.
Wargames; obeying the second law of thermodynamics.
A lot of it comes down the the breadth of the period covered. The tendancy to want to make ancient rules cover such a huge period of time and variety of cultures because "sure they all just line up and bash away at each other" means you lose a lot of nuances when doing a one size fits all rule set, then you end up having to amend and tweak to suit all the specific quirks of a particular time period or army.
It probably becomes more of an issue in "competitive" style rule sets where every army and game has to fit a mold, rather than ones that are more "scenario" driven that naturally incline towards a bit more configuration to suit the game rather than changing core rules.
I suspect it might be something to do with Mr Barker enjoying designing wargame rules irrespective of the need for change or improvement
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 09 August 2023, 01:41:02 PMI suspect it might be something to do with Mr Barker enjoying designing wargame rules irrespective of the need for change or improvement
I've done a bit of 'off-line' research and apparently the Barkers (Sue & Phil) have had nothing to do with this latest development. It is not even clear if they have been consulted or responded to approaches to bring this 'monstrosity' into being. It was Sue who originally wrote HoTT and Phil did the original fantasy upgrade module to the WRG/DBM rules (so I believe).
Who or what WRG actually is these days appears very unclear. It almost appears to be a 'fan-based' operation. Phil is of course into his 90's now and I'm not sure how active he (or Sue) is with regards to WRG or rules writing any more? I last saw him in the audience at a Society of Ancients Annual Conference I presented at, and whilst he asked some very erudite questions, he was clearly exhausted by the whole experience.
We had similar things attempted with Armati - but Arty Conliffe remained aloof from all approaches to amend or change his core set of original rules (even when a commercial offer was made for him to sell it). His argument was (supposedly) that if people didn't like the rules as they were originally written, they could play another set. In fact he even wrote another set - 'Impetous' - for those that liked additional complexity and detail :D
This was why I asked
Quote from: Gwydion on 07 August 2023, 12:52:51 PMIs this really a 'WRG' launch - where's Phil Barker's imprimatur?
It feels like a bit of opportunistic phrase to say 'WRG is excited to announce...' if it is nothing to do with them. If it is - my apologies but it sounds a bit cheeky to me.
Quote from: Gwydion on 09 August 2023, 11:26:11 PMThis was why I askedIt feels like a bit of opportunistic phrase to say 'WRG is excited to announce...' if it is nothing to do with them. If it is - my apologies but it sounds a bit cheeky to me.
It is a bit like announcing a Led Zeppelin tour without Page or Plant
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 10 August 2023, 12:13:48 AMIt is a bit like announcing a Led Zeppelin tour without Page or Plant
Well I shall continue to play my beloved HoTT set of rules and long may the thriving UK HoTT 'scene' continue as it is :) :) :)
QuoteA lot of it comes down the the breadth of the period covered. The tendancy to want to make ancient rules cover such a huge period of time and variety of cultures because "sure they all just line up and bash away at each other" means you lose a lot of nuances when doing a one size fits all rule set, then you end up having to amend and tweak to suit all the specific quirks of a particular time period or army.
It probably becomes more of an issue in "competitive" style rule sets where every army and game has to fit a mold, rather than ones that are more "scenario" driven that naturally incline towards a bit more configuration to suit the game rather than changing core rules.
I'm not sure it is down to the "3000BC-1500AD 90% of recorded history" effect.
Rulesets from later periods suffer the same entropy problems as amendments are layered on.
Classic examples can be found within the Napoleonic setting.
A very narrow timeframe with a minimal technology gap between the main forces.
I'm inclined to cite the competition scene, and the resulting lobbying from the most competitive players.
QuoteI'm inclined to cite the competition scene, and the resulting lobbying from the most competitive players.
I'm inclined to agree with you Steve - but probably for different reasons.
Competition gamers (in my experience) will stress-test a set of rules to its extremes.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are looking deliberately to break or bend the rules - often it is around a need for absolute clarity in a specific situation. Ambiguity is the nightmare of a competition umpire. Sets of rules that glibly state: "if the rules are unclear or ambiguous, mutually come to an agreement about how to proceed" are totally naïve - competition gamers will just laugh long & loud and chuck the rules over their shoulders in disgust. Plus in a competition of over 100 players, getting any sort of agreement on an ambiguous point will be like herding cats :D
Sure, you're going to get a very few rogue players who are trying to get a rule amended to favor their way of playing or their favored army, but the bulk of competition players will quite happily play more flexible or forgiving sets of rules in a club or social wargames setting. A player that only plays competitions is (IMHO) extremely rare.
Some players just have a 'genetic' need to 'tinker' with a rules set - any or all rules sets - and its just in their make-up. The problem tends to be however that the bulk of players are not that fanatical about the hobby or their rules sets. But it is not uncommon for those with a passion or a 'bent' towards needing to 'tinker' to be the ones that get hold of a set of rules and (very often) subsequently destroy it in an attempt to create the ultimate holy-grail of rules. Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval is a classic example - it started off as a perfectly good set of rules published by Osprey in an expensive format, however most players had given up on the system well before the final v3 amended copy came on sale. It is still being played on the competition circuit, but the numbers of players are dwindling. Errata and Amendments will almost always be necessary in a rules set, no matter how well play-tested or edited & proof-read (lord knows, I know this ;D ) but most of the FoGA&M amendments were around changing the way the game was structurally played. Flames of War v4 has gone off in a similar direction - with a large majority of those playing v3 just throwing in the towel when v4 was announced. Of course it can be a deliberate & if managed successfully, highly profitable strategy and a way of getting existing players to buy more new stock (GW is the case-study bar-none in that respect) but most sets of rules don't have the following to withstand multiple changes and amendments. GW appears to rely upon a very loyal core of existing players and a massive churn from newer younger players that get drawn into the latest codex etc.
From everything I am reading around this latest 'WRG' Fantasy set it appears to be the 'new-wave' DBA players wanting to extend the franchise. But IMHO HoTT rules in this particular space and woe betide anybody attempting to tinker with HoTT >:(
Interesting summary there Mr Big Insect.
I don't rub shoulders with competition players.
Many years ago when I did, they seemed a breed apart, wired quite differently in their appreciation of fun.
This used to bother me, but now I'm content for the hobby to run with many styles of game.
The mention of Field of Glory and Flames of war reminded me of our own Blitzkrieg Commander and its "Difficult third version" problems.
It all makes me wonder when Little Wars will get a second edition.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 10 August 2023, 11:56:29 PMIt all makes me wonder when Little Wars will get a second edition.
Be careful what you wish for ;D ;D ;D ;D
QuoteBe careful what you wish for ;D ;D ;D ;D
Fans have been lobbying H.G.Wells for a Tripod codex for over a century now.
QuoteIs this really a 'WRG' launch - where's Phil Barker's imprimatur?
And the fanaticus.board.net link doesn't work for me.
https://fanaticus.boards.net/ (https://fanaticus.boards.net/)
This one?
Quote from: pierre the shy on 07 August 2023, 06:41:49 PMI just thought that the news might be of interest to some gamers so cut and pasted the article, but the link in the original post does not work either :(
A few minutes of searching located the correct one: https://fanaticus.boards.net/forum (https://fanaticus.boards.net/forum)
Yep - ^^^^ that one.
But thanks. :)
QuoteI spent an hour looking at that DB* forum.
I left thinking "Once we had a viable six page ruleset. Where did it all go wrong".
I have the DBA 2.2 rulebook - it is 20 pages long (plus the army lists).
I also have the WADBAG "Unofficial Guide to DBA", a 60 page document that explains how the rules actually work.
So I'm not sure that things weren't wrong to begin with.