Help support TMP


"v2.2+ Line Edits--Final Version" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the DBx Message Board


511 hits since 10 Sep 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

El Jocko10 Sep 2012 2:25 p.m. PST

We are pleased to announce that the final version of the v2.2+ Line Edits and Playsheet are now available.

PDFs of the Line Edits and Playsheet can be downloaded from:

wadbag.com/V2.2+/index.html

(There have been intermittant problems with the website today due to server problems at the hosting company. If you're unable to reach the website, please try again in a little while. Hopefully the problem will be corrected soon.)

v2.2+ has has gone through extensive testing and refinement since its Beta release in February. We believe that it's now a very enjoyable evolution of DBA; one that successfully smooths out some of the wrinkles of DBA 2.2 and better captures the flavor of certain historical periods.

Thanks to everyone who worked on v2.2+ and provided suggestions and commentary on the yahoo list, fanaticus.org, TMP, and the GM List.

Happy gaming!

WADBAG
__________________
Chris Brantley
David Kuijt
Terence McPartland
David Schlanger
Jack Sheriff

Personal logo Brigadier General Supporting Member of TMP10 Sep 2012 3:27 p.m. PST

Very cool. Thanks.

Maddaz111 Sponsoring Member of TMP10 Sep 2012 5:10 p.m. PST

Are there army lists?

Are there explanations of what you are representing with some of the troop classes that are new these previously fell into understood troop types, and whilst some complained that these poorly simulated the extreme cases the game still worked.

I am not sure why or how you are publishing this as a version of DBA, but I would hope that you have the full permission of the rights holder to use the original title.

I am glad that I have seen them, as they appear to have been created by a cabal, and I am now more firm in my opinion that if I finally decide I do not like DBA 3.0 I will continue to play unmodified DBA 2.2 (-).

I have to say from what I have seen of DBA 3.0 It appears to be a cracking game simulating (within the design constraints established by the DBA system) Ancient warfare.

Cannot wait to get my hands on a copy of 3.0!

Personal logo Dale Hurtt Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member10 Sep 2012 5:27 p.m. PST

Are there army lists?

but I would hope that you have the full permission of the rights holder to use the original title.

as they appear to have been created by a cabal

LOL

You have to admit, it is kind of hard to take your responses seriously, given the history of 2.2+ and 3.0.

Now where is that code for "troll"?

Skeptic10 Sep 2012 5:58 p.m. PST

troll ?

Twilight Samurai10 Sep 2012 9:50 p.m. PST

I thought they called themselves Dwarves?
Anyway, it's always better to have someone else bang your own drum for you.

picture

Ammianus11 Sep 2012 5:22 a.m. PST

Sounds like a SciFi movie: "The WADBAG Cabal."
You should sell tshirts!

[great job!]

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP11 Sep 2012 9:54 a.m. PST

They seem to really, Really, REALLY hate BUAs.

El Jocko11 Sep 2012 11:11 a.m. PST

Sounds like a SciFi movie: "The WADBAG Cabal."

I hear that I'm going to be played by Matt Damon.

They seem to really, Really, REALLY hate BUAs.

BUA delenda est!

Actually, I have a couple of nice BUAs that I'd like to be able to use. But we were unable to achieve consensus on what would make a good BUA rule, so we left them out altogether.

Our true motto was:

Primum non nocere!

- Jack

Maddaz111 Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Sep 2012 5:03 p.m. PST

I am sorry – I thought my comments were clear and understandable

Where are the army lists that use the new troop types that are mentioned in the rules?

Have you obtained permission to call the game DBA 2.2+, as that would appear to suggest it is an official continuation of a current rules set. I also think that it may have an impact on sales of DBA 3.0

I think from what I have seen that these new rules do appear to have been created by a group (an extensive group) of north american gamers. Perhaps calling such a group a cabal might be stretching the point, but I have always thought that Phil Barker has allowed many people to get involved with his rule development with the stated aim to make the rules fit history, and a lot of the army lists do seem to simulate our limited knowledge of troop types available.

If I had one complaint against DBA – in all its forms, it is that there are always 12 elements of troops, and I think that some armies should have the extra element to make up for what on paper are troops with less effects than others, but I have happily spent hours playing the game from the very early years until recently!

miniMo Supporting Member of TMP11 Sep 2012 5:35 p.m. PST

The army lists are the ones in 2.2. There is no modification to the lists themselves. The new troop types are new interpretations of the existing basing schemes.

All existing 3Sp stands are Light Spear, all 3Bd stands are Raiders, etc.

You must have the 2.2 rules in order to use the amendments. Nothing in the amendments is a violation of copyright. Simply labeling the amendment sheet DBA 2.2+ is fair use.

Whether or not these amendments impact sales of 3.0 will be impossible to judge. Phil has never tracked sales of earlier versions anyway, and so there is no benchmark against which to even begin to compare. For myself and others I know playing 2.2+, I'm definitely planning on buying 3.0 to see what the final product is like and am looking forward to seeing the new army lists and especially with the forthcoming annotations to those lists.

Maddaz111 Sponsoring Member of TMP12 Sep 2012 3:03 a.m. PST

ahh – sorry – did not get that stands with fewer figures were the new types – (doh)

I take back that criticism (and why did I miss that myself)

I will give my 2.2 lists a look over to see if the troop types make more sense now.

(I remember I have one other criticism of DBA, the exclusion of a hoplite class of offensive spear)

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.