Help support TMP

"New draft of DBA 3.0 posted" Topic

23 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

2,106 hits since 30 Nov 2012
©1994-2016 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo gaiusrabirius Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2012 5:12 p.m. PST

A new draft of DBA 3.0 was posted to the yahoo group today.

I'll be reading this weekend.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian30 Nov 2012 5:38 p.m. PST

Got a link to the Yahoo! Group handy?

Personal logo gaiusrabirius Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2012 6:11 p.m. PST

A link to the DBA Yahoo! Group files section:


The file is a document entitled:

"DBA3.0 Nov 28th.pdf"

Personal logo elsyrsyn Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2012 7:58 p.m. PST

Thanks for the update.


Sloth1963 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2012 11:14 p.m. PST

Any serious changes?

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2012 5:24 a.m. PST

Any serious changes?

AFAICT, no. Mostly wording and clarity. For the most part they are easier to read than before. Since this is pretty close to the finished product, I don't think there will be anymore major game changes.

Rich Trevino Inactive Member01 Dec 2012 5:56 a.m. PST

A direct link:

PDF link

Personal logo taskforce58 Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2012 6:13 a.m. PST

Are people just using DBA 2.x army lists for the draft 3.0 rules?

Ammianus01 Dec 2012 6:13 a.m. PST

Can't wait to see the final army lists!

Personal logo Dale Hurtt Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2012 7:13 a.m. PST

Using the army lists for 2.2 is the safest thing to do, but there were some draft 3.0 lists out there for quite some time. For the most part, those lists have been removed so that they don't create confusion or an expectation that they are final.

Personal logo timurilank Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2012 12:39 p.m. PST

As the time span for the army lists is extended to 1515, you will note more armies have been added.

For the existing armies, the composition is somewhat relaxed in that more options are now avaliable following the DBM(M) offerings.


The Wargames Room01 Dec 2012 12:43 p.m. PST

When playtesting the latest version you can use the 2.2 lists.

There will be some changes to the 3.0 lists as they are greatly expanded and a vast improvement in detail. For many armies there will be few changes, while others there will of course be some changes. However, when you look to forming a new army these new lists will come in to their own with considerably more detail and army background than before.

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2012 2:01 p.m. PST

There is the concept of "SOLID" and "FAST" infantry types now. The 2.2 army lists have the old nomenclature of 3Bd and 4Bd which would represent Fast and Solid units respectively. So, while the 3.0 army lists will almost certainly be different, the 2.2 army lists will work without any guesswork or modification.

Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2012 6:42 p.m. PST

The game now has the element grading at its core, so you cannot test or play without designating elements as Fast or Solid. Just foot. There are movement differences and combat outcome differences. They fight with same factors.

Fast types that tie Solid types will now recoil.
Fast foot. Recoiled by "Solid" foot in close combat with it or shooting at it, otherwise no effect.

There are still serious rule issues. The author is worried about "edge control" so is trying to penalize elements for being too close to edge. Also, problems with combat outcomes and residual contacts (after combat from one bound to next). Does push back still exist in some cases?

People should take a look and comment or raise questions.

Is the author too caustic about figure size
"Larger alternatives (of base size) are to accommodate figures based for DBR or over-large figures by manufacturers unable to conform to established practise. "

Sloth1963 Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2012 6:52 p.m. PST

I finally got a chance to read through the new version. It looks like the few changes I could pick out were all for the better. Now, to play a few games by the book instead of (my faulty) memory :)

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP03 Dec 2012 1:19 p.m. PST

The game now has the element grading at its core, so you cannot test or play without designating elements as Fast or Solid.

Not completely true. You can call everything solid and ignore the distinction between solid and fast. So with that you can test everything that is not those rules. Essentially, solid breaks ties with fast units. That really is it at the core. For the downgrade in combat, fast units get to be…well…fast!

Personal logo elsyrsyn Supporting Member of TMP06 Dec 2012 12:41 p.m. PST

Is the author too caustic about figure size

The author is too caustic about a great many things, but don't let that turn you off on the rules.


HarryHotspurEsq Supporting Member of TMP08 Dec 2012 12:55 p.m. PST

Can anyone post a direct link to the pdf? The one above isn't working.


Personal logo Dale Hurtt Supporting Member of TMP10 Dec 2012 6:08 p.m. PST

You have to be a member of the Yahoo forum to get to any of the files.

HarryHotspurEsq Supporting Member of TMP11 Dec 2012 9:54 a.m. PST

Dale, I realised that, I had just hoped someone might have a copy of the pdf to save having to sign up for yet another membership.

Personal logo Dale Hurtt Supporting Member of TMP12 Dec 2012 7:58 a.m. PST

No, I believe Phil Barker specifically does not want this to proliferate onto a bunch of websites. There was a little incident with old drafts of the army lists recently, which is what leads me to believe this.

HarryHotspurEsq Supporting Member of TMP12 Dec 2012 9:52 a.m. PST

Ah, not to worry.


Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP12 Dec 2012 5:36 p.m. PST

If anyone is interested in DBA, then it seems reasonable to join the DBA Yahoo group. There is much discussion of the game there. Yes too high a noise to information ratio but not over 1:2. Also Phil has chosen this group as his public outlet for comments and answering questions.

Even as this version is being discussed, Phil is making changes. Some based on comments from the Yahoo group, some from his fertile mind.

I wonder, would any one select an army in which the General could not move, put once placed, remained stationary. For example a Japanese general on a chair under a tent, or The Prophet in his tent, or Brian Boru praying with monks, or Inca general on a high throne? Something of a Command Post unit?

Do players think that an element that is second rank and jointly flanked by enemy with front element that is in frontal combat should be destroyed if the front element is?

If not destroyed, should the remaining second rank element automatically conform to the flanking element that is in front edge to side edge contact with the remaining second (or third) element.
See below. Should X be destroyed, or turn to face flanking element?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.