"DBR 1.1 vs 2.0" Topic

Are there any significant differences between DBR 1.1 vs 2.0 for me if I'm only a casual player? I don't care about anything but the actual combat rules. Also, I don't play with rules lawyers and so don't care about changes to close loopholes that competition players exploit.

I guess that I'm really only interested to know if the games feel substantially different – are there certain match-ups that are more historically accurate, etc.?

How different are the Army lists?

You're a bit behind the times. DBA v3 is due to be published later this year.

DBR Major!

DBR 2.0 is the latest and greatest. The rules are easy enough to where even I could get through them. I'd bet they are not too different. I've never read or played 1.1 but in my experience the basic game of any of Phil's DBx rules play about the same. The combat results are tweaked for that which is being modeled. 2.0 undoubtedly will have some refinements and clarifications. If it is anything like DBM 1.0 to 2.0, I'd bet they would be pretty hard to spot.

John

Major the curse of the TLA, DBR not DBA….got to love how we disguise our language from non wargamers :)

Anyway on DBR given you don't care about the combat rules then I dont think you need to worry about significant changes. The deployment rules changed, but then play historical games and ignore deployment rules. The combat system became more complicated/realistic take your pick.

If this does turn out to be a DBA question then I like v3, there nailed my colours to the mast, now I am ducking for cover

So, roughly, how different is combat? Is it a case of there being a few changes with wide-ranging implications? Are there a couple changes to the movement, pip costs, grading factors and combat interactions that could be easily incorporated to make my games more historically accurate simulations?

If memory serves me correctly…

Grading factors are simplified…
Infantry combat is faster…
Pip expenditure for groups is fixed… Elements are now encouraged to stay in groups (formations). Version 1 actually perversely encouraged the opposite.

Go ahead and get the new rules… The changes are minor, but improve the game.

DBR Major!

Oops! I should have gone to Specsavers …

New DBR, eh? Hmmm.

Well, fairly new… 10 years old perhaps?

Joe Collins

Hmm, mine's 1995. Guess I should look for the 2nd edition, eh?

No new army lists. Lots of little differences, the major one being how groups can break up in combat. Many players preferred 1.1 and didn't like a lot of the changes. Isn't that what always happens with those games the earlier ones are generally better just needed a little tone up and Phil reworks it. He involves people in the development of a revision, and then after he takes it under his own control he makes changes and doesn't vet them and they caused problems.. I'm expecting this to happen currently.

By the way there's preliminary work being done on DBR 3.0 as we speak. Well maybe not anything being done right now but a lot of people are working on it. I wonder if it will have a lot of DBBM and mechanisms, which Phil is enamored with. Probably base width moves, who knows what else?

If you like 1.1, then just stick with it as long as you're not playing in tournaments certainly worked well. 2.0 is sort of out of favor anyway in the US, it is popular down under.

Hmm. OMM doesn't have a copy, so perhaps I'll stick with 1st edition. In truth, the last pike and shot games I ran was sing Neil Thomas' rules anyway.

You might also take a look at Tony Aguilar's adaptation of DBA – link

Doug

Thanks guys! I guess I'll stick with what I have. From my poking around it seems that there is a consensus that blades are overpriced as well as a couple of other, small things.

You could also just grab a copy of DBA3.0 off the Yahoo group. Its about 90% finished and any minor tweeks now will be mostly to quash rules lawyers.

Its a great version that will appeal to historical and causal gamers at least as much as tournament players.

TomT