Help support TMP

"DBR review" Topic

20 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.

Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Renaissance Product Reviews Message Board

Back to the Blogs of War Message Board

Back to the English Civil War Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Featured Showcase Article

Stan Johansen Miniatures' Painting Service

A happy customer writes to tell us about a painting service...

Featured Profile Article

Visiting Reaper - 2000!

The Editor takes a virtual tour of Reaper's new offices.

Current Poll

Featured Book Review

982 hits since 12 Feb 2023
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

KeepYourPowderDry12 Feb 2023 10:48 p.m. PST

A blast from the past certainly. Time for DBR to come under the KeepYourPowderDry spotlight link


robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2023 3:29 a.m. PST

I think if DBR as Barker losing his nerve after the truly original DBA. Since it lacked a mixed pike and shot unit, anyone attempting the ECW was back to large tables and general fussiness. Putting "DB" in the title has proven much easier than living up to the standard of DBA.

GurKhan13 Feb 2023 4:22 a.m. PST

You can't really describe DBR as if it grew out of DBA, because that ignores the intervening (and hugely successful) DBM, to which DBR owes so much.

DisasterWargamer Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2023 4:32 a.m. PST

Always preferred the first iteration that came out in the Arcquebus

Personal logo Stosstruppen Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2023 5:32 a.m. PST

The worst set of renaissance rules that have been written….

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2023 6:49 a.m. PST

Point, GurKhan. But I was also deeply unimpressed by DBM. Both sets felt to me as though Phil had retreated from the boldness of DBA back to something blander and more conventional, sticking the DB prefix on for marketing purposes. The actual attempt to apply DBA principles--I think it was called "Condensed DBR"--seemed more like a contemptuous gesture. I've spent more money on rules and gotten less out of them, but not often.

That said, Stosstruppen, I wouldn't say that about any of them. Too many sets out there, and I have no desire to become familiar enough with all the bad ones to decide which is worst.

Dukewilliam13 Feb 2023 7:54 a.m. PST

These rules grew on me. I wasn't too keen on them but as I had a friend who liked them, we played them often. I really began to enjoy them and they, in fact, became my preferred set of rules for large battles. I know the big beef is pike and shot not being allowed in the same unit but that is not a problem for me. Move them together and they become a single unit. It never had any impact on the game itself.

lkmjbc313 Feb 2023 8:53 a.m. PST

My favorite set of Renaissance rules. I think it the best that has been written. I have played a ton of them.

Funny, the periods I play don't have combined Pike and Shot Units…

Not an issue with me.

Joe Collins

Grattan54 Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2023 10:16 a.m. PST

I like the DRR free rules better than this set. I agree I have always found it odd you can't have a unit of mixed pike and shot.

DisasterWargamer Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2023 11:21 a.m. PST

I was in error above – it was the set than came out in Dec of 1991 in the Reiter and updated a couple of times after that – before DBR was published

Royston Papworth13 Feb 2023 11:29 a.m. PST

It's funny different people's opinions of the same family of rules.

I found DBA a bit meh, DBM was good (and much better than DBMM) while DBR was superb.

evilgong13 Feb 2023 2:35 p.m. PST

I liked them. You got a game where a lot happened and the interactions looked plausible.

I agree with an earlier poster that it might have been better to some how model (some/most) pike and shot as a single entity.

The DBx suite of rules: DBa / Hott / DBm are, in my view, the best rules ever written.

KeepYourPowderDry14 Feb 2023 1:30 a.m. PST

Clearly they are a love them/loathe them set of rules.

Dexter Ward14 Feb 2023 2:10 a.m. PST

They are a good set of rules, although I always felt they worked better in ‘condensed' mode. Felt like a big battle. Played loads of ECW and also Mughal v Mahratta games with these rules. They work very well

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP14 Feb 2023 7:30 a.m. PST

Yeah. If we agreed on the criteria for judging rules, we'd probably have less trouble with the whole good/bad thing.

takeda33314 Feb 2023 1:03 p.m. PST

Thanks for the review, always helpful.

von Schwartz ver 222 Feb 2023 5:37 p.m. PST

Has no one ever even heard of the old renaissance rule set put out by TTG back in the 80s, Tercio? My friend and I played a few games with this set, it was fun and easy, not too fussy but with adequate detail, plus they included a nice set of army lists in the back of the rule book. We did ECW and also a weird combo of my late 1600 Polish vs his Scots Covenanters. I know kinky, right? Regrettably they are now out of print, despite my repeated attempts to find a copy I have had no success. If anyone out there knows where I might obtain a copy, even a photo copy would suffice, I would greatly appreciate it.

KeepYourPowderDry22 Feb 2023 10:53 p.m. PST

Good luck with your quest!

von Schwartz ver 223 Feb 2023 6:08 p.m. PST

Hmm, you don't sound very confident, do I sense a wee bit of whimsy in that comment? (smile)

KeepYourPowderDry23 Feb 2023 11:41 p.m. PST

I thought you might struggle because there is a more modern set of rules called Tercio too. However a very quick Google shows that Noble Knight has two copies of the old Tercio rules in stock.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.