Hi, a friend of mine has been looking at hordes of the things and this lead him onto DBA, hes asked me whats current, and where he can find the rules.
Ive seen some stuff on ebay, army lists and the like, but am not sure what is compatible with what. I would assume the army lists would fit with any thing, from what ive seen of HOTT.
If anyone can clarify this for me id appreciate it.
2.2 is the current version of DBA which includes army lists.
Copies are hard to come by but there is a contact e-mail for someone who apparently has some available here
http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG/wrgindex.html
You can download an earlier version of DBA there too as well as the most recent HOTT which is not currently produced.
ive found a auction with books 1-4 or the army lists, they look liek ther for 1.something, would the fit with DBMM? do you know
Seems there's a version 3.0 of DBA on the horizon, new army lists as well (minor alterations I believe). See Fanaticus site for what's known.
http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/index.php
The way I do it is to use the DBA lists and then refer to the appropriate DBM list for the fine detail, then modify as I see fit. DBA lists are in the rule book and cover year dot to 1500. In DBM, separate books of lists cover different eras, e.g 3000BC - 500AD for Book I, etc. The book numbers and army lists numbers are identical in each. So II/23 in DBA is the same list as Book II list 23 in DBM.
DBA is a cut down version of the original DBM - beware there is a new DBMM set on the go as well.
Unless you intend to be a competition player or play in a club that gives a toss about strict adherence to rules, then who cares.
The yahoo group for DBA has the last published version avaliable, with lists. Have to join yje group with a Yahoo ID.
If desparate I'll sell you my copies of DBM and Lists, but they older editions.
Likewise, since DBMM is totally incoprehensible, yours if you REALLY want it.
IanS
Quote from: SV52 on 13 May 2011, 04:00:10 PM
DBA is a cut down version of the original DBM - beware there is a new DBMM set on the go as well.
NO NO NO - it's completle the reverse, DBM is an expanded version of DBA.
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 13 May 2011, 04:03:31 PM
NO NO NO - it's completle the reverse, DBM is an expanded version of DBA.
IanS
Quite right, DBA in 1989, DBM 1993. Another illusion shattered #-o
Quote from: count_zero99uk on 13 May 2011, 01:10:18 PM
Hi, a friend of mine has been looking at hordes of the things and this lead him onto DBA, hes asked me whats current, and where he can find the rules.
Ive seen some stuff on ebay, army lists and the like, but am not sure what is compatible with what. I would assume the army lists would fit with any thing, from what ive seen of HOTT.
If anyone can clarify this for me id appreciate it.
Here's the potted history of DBA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bellis_Antiquitatis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bellis_Antiquitatis)
DBA and HOTT are basically the same rules, but with different troops types being integral to the rules they aren't 'compatible'. However, given their ease of use, tweaking and converting between the two would be fairly easy. Each army is tiny (12 'elements') and played on a 2x2' board. A typical game lasts 30-40 mins.
DBM is a different matter. It takes the DBA core mechanics and greatly expands the gameplay (and it is very much a
game), adding in advanced rules on terrain set up, deployment (both integral and if done right, game winning!), qualifiers like troop quality, and much larger armies (typically 80-120 elements). Its designed to play on 6x4' tables and makes for a good tournament ruleset - if fiddling and micromanagment are your thing.
DBM is not compatable with DBA/HOTT.
As a set of rules its like Marmite - you'll love it or hate it.
Then there's DBR which takes DBM and converts it over for use in the Rennaissance period. It fails.
Moving on, the authors Phil Barker and Richard Bodley Scott seemed to have got themselves into a bit of an arguement over what was to come next after DBM3.5...
Phil Barker produced DBMM which is, well, unplayable really. It takes the DBM engine and tweaks it to death...
Richard Bodley Scott departed to team up with Osprey and Slitherine to produce the Field of Glory rules.
None of the DBx (as DBA, DBM, DBR, HOTT, and DBMM are known) are compatible with each other but if you play one, you'll pretty much be able to pick the others up very quickly since the basic mechanics are very similar.
"Phil Barker produced DBMM which is, well, unplayable really." It's a silly discussion really since you play what works for you but I play, and really like DBMM. A fair number of people do.
One important consideration is that DBA, DBM, DBMM and HOTT all share the same basing conventions. As does Field of Glory. So while armies aren't exactly compatible between the various games sets the miniatures based up for 1 game can be used in all the others.
Basicaly the books are out of print then, yet electronic ones are on the yahoo group.
Thanks for the info ill tell me mate to look into it.
Yes for DBA, and HOTT, no for DBM, DBMM.
IanS
Did some shopping
DBA, DBM, 4 army lists, DBR, 3 army lists, 2 scenario books, and DBF :)
Looks fun.
Now to find figures, had a quick look and couldnt see biblical on pendraken, am i wrong?
Ta.
Phil Barker and Richard Bodley Scott have gone their separate ways after DBM.
Version 2 of DBMM (Phil Barker) has been published. There are four sets of army lists. Version 1 and the first three sets are published by Caliver Books. Version 2 and the four set of lists are published by WRG. The (unofficial) web site is http://dbmm.org.uk. This includes a forum.
FOG (Richard Bodley Scott, et al) is published by Osprey and Slitherine Software. Version 2 is in Beta Test. FOG Renaissance is available and the army lists are being published. FOG Napoleonic is on the way. The official web site is http://www.fieldofglory.com/. This includes a forum.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 13 May 2011, 04:01:09 PM
.. DBMM is totally inco[m]prehensible ...
I disagree: the rules are written as a reference document rather that a tutorial. The Flames of War rulebook is much worse.
For anyone worried about the dire warnings of DBA's complexity and impenetrability, have a look at this:
http://www.wadbag.com/DBAGuide/
It's DBMM thats complex, due to the 'orrible writing stytle.
IanS
As a new comer to wargaming, ive found that even the most well written set of rules have many problems in them.
I belive this is down to limited playtesting and proofreading of the rules sets.
So i will read through the rules, play the game, mark up any issues and then we (my group) decide the best way forward.
Take care.
Quote from: count_zero99uk on 04 June 2011, 02:43:58 PM
As a new comer to wargaming, ive found that even the most well written set of rules have many problems in them.
I belive this is down to limited playtesting and proofreading of the rules sets.
Bear in mind that every set of rules is a work in progress. As time goes by and the versions increase many of the inconsistencies get corrected - but at the expense of more complication. Also, the people who write and play-test them don't include all the conventions and "unwritten rules" that help the game along, simply because the rulebook would wind up like a telephone directory. They also assume, incorrectly, that all wargamers use the same conventions.
So, you are on the right track when you say that your group will play the rules and decide the best way forward. A bit of common sense really does go a long way.
Best of luck. ;)
Then there's DBR which takes DBM and converts it over for use in the Rennaissance period. It fails.
Rather a sweeping claim. DBR has very serious shortcomings, and of course it pontificates in the classic "In the event of discrepancies, historical reality is at fault" style so dear to WRG, and there are a few mathematical and grammatical atrocities...but after serious editing, it's the most playable pike and shot system I've met. And not just for renaissance; also for 30YW, ECW, French Wars of Religion, Sengoku Japan, Ming Chine, Moghul India....
Quote from: FierceKitty on 05 June 2011, 01:08:58 AM
Then there's DBR which takes DBM and converts it over for use in the Rennaissance period. It fails.
Rather a sweeping claim. DBR has very serious shortcomings, and of course it pontificates in the classic "In the event of discrepancies, historical reality is at fault" style so dear to WRG, and there are a few mathematical and grammatical atrocities...but after serious editing, it's the most playable pike and shot system I've met. And not just for renaissance; also for 30YW, ECW, French Wars of Religion, Sengoku Japan, Ming Chine, Moghul India....
Hehe...
But you proved my concise point in your reply!
'DBR has very serious shortcomings...mathematical and grammatical atrocities...[that requires]...serious editing...[to be playable].
I.e. it fails.
:D Hehe...
We've long wanted to game the Renassaince Period, but haven't done so for lack of rules we felt worked. DBR perhaps came the closest, but it still didn't do the job, for all the reasons you point out.
Strangely enough, after abandoning FOG a few years ago (following about 20 trial games), we've recently returned to the RBS fold and are going to use FOGR for a 30 Years War tournament. I'll let you know how is goes, but while we're painting up the forces, we've gone back into FOG for our ancients armies, to 'get our FOG eye in' as it were.
QuoteFor anyone worried about the dire warnings of DBA's complexity and impenetrability, have a look at this:
That's jolly nice, the language is much easier than "barkeresque", I really enjoyed DBA1.0 and ran a realy nice ancients campaign for about 3 years using it for battles. But while Phil Barker is a great gamer and has done a huge amount for the hoby I find his writing style difficult to say the least.
It was a great campaign! (Says the Nubian General)
Well ive the books just need the armys. And at the moment im saving for a new computer, so it may be a while before i get any movement on this project.
With DBA I'm taking Phil Steele's advice on basing, 20mm deep bases for pike 40mm. wide in a single rank with plenty of scenics built in.
With 10mm figures (I bought the late Romans at the Triples. best 10mm I've seen) a DBA Army cost very little.
Using DBMM 100 (120 Army Points) is about the same size as a DBA Army, take a look at the DBMM yahoo group. There are Army Lists there for 120, 240 and 400 Army Point armies.
DBMM 2 works much better than the earlier version 1, but you need to see a game played or sit down with card bases if you don't have the figures and run through the procedures a few times.
Mike
I've always thought that DBA was a half-way house between chess and wargaming. Admittedly there are no chequers, and you get to choose the capabilities of your "pieces" - to a certain extent, but you get a standard ten elements on a fairly narrow board and a specific move-distance for a given type. Fine for filling in the odd spare hour, but you won't learn much about ancient warfare from it.
QuoteBear in mind that every set of rules is a work in progress. As time goes by and the versions increase many of the inconsistencies get corrected - but at the expense of more complication. Also, the people who write and play-test them don't include all the conventions and "unwritten rules" that help the game along, simply because the rulebook would wind up like a telephone directory.
Well said, and totally correct.