"The Final Version of DBA" Topic

Do you think DBA 3.0 will be the last, definitive edition of this ruleset?

What was the last edition of 40K?

Nope

Based on past WRG history….

Somebody is already whining about how the Late Early Sumerians are handicapped.

Has an errata sheet been put out yet?

There are rules designed for a small group of gamers who like each other and the period. Those last forever, which is why I can still find a Charge! game, or TSATF.

Most rules last 5-10 years between major rebuilds, depending on frequency of play. The three critical points are (1) someone found the loophole, (2) everyone knows where the loophole is, and (3)someone wants to make everyone buy the rules again. Those rules come with Roman numerals and subtitles--Warhammer, WH40K, FOW, EMPIRE, JR, CD, NB and on and on--including, of course, WRG Ancients and DBWhatever. I don't think any of them has ever reached a "definitive" version, though every now and then one of them goes out of print. (JRIII is closest to an exception, depending on how you feel about the big battle version.)

If you're not playing in a tournament, pick a version you like and stop, because the rules never will.

My guess is that this is the final version. There perhaps is a chance in 3 or 4 years for a version 3.1. It would however mainly consist of a few clarifications (two of which Phil himself has mentioned), a correction of the text of a few of the diagrams, and a small errata for the army lists.

As far as changes to the rules themselves… I am aware of only one small adjustment even being contemplated.

Joe Collins

I doubt it.

I think equating the WRG "profit machine" with the exploitation machine that is GW is ridiculous. Barker and his followers tinker with rules to death, but no one is doing all of it for the money and glory.

Winston…

No errata…but there is a nice "Frequently Asked Questions". It is only 3 pages long, but does offer corrections on the diagram text typos and helps explain the more beastly parts of elephant recoil.

Joe Collins

Find the FAQ here…
link

I withdraw any implied comparison with GW motivation. I've met and like Phil Barker--a good researcher and an original thinker.

But I'm standing fast on the life expectancy of his rules. I've lost count of how many DBA versions I've got in the house. I think it's at least one every five years or so, and if there have been six so far, I'm not brave enough to bet against a seventh.

Based on Phil's age and health, I'd guess this is the final version. But I won't bet a paycheck on it.

There have been three editions published of the DBA since 1992. Version one and two each had a revised edition. Edition 2 did have an unpublished Errata sheet that is sometimes called 2.1. So with the version three we have five published additions. Robert I'm surprised that you cannot count that high :-)

How many more times will the editor ask silly questions about DBA?

In any event Phil said that this is his last version. I will take him at his word. This game plays really well, has plenty of armies to keep players busy, has only a couple of issues that need to be resolved, should last forever without a new edition. I don't think I would ever play a newer version as this one is plenty good.

Well, I was an analyst. And the rules, the castings and I have seldom been under the same roof. But five published and one unpublished--but circulated and used--is pretty close to six.

I tend to treat revisions the way I do interrogations. (One revision of a story is understandable, but the second revision makes you wonder whether the guy will ever tell the truth and how you could tell.) You might revise rules once because something wasn't clear or someone found a loophole. Multiple revisions usually mean changed concepts, new ideas or research turning up new facts. All of which is or can be legitimate--but none of it has a logical end point, and the rules-smith is self-evidently of the tinkerer variety. Once I've seen three different editions of rules for sale, I tend to think of them as computer operating systems: you're not really buying them, but renting them until the next one comes along.

Yes, of course I do it. Sometimes. I just don't expect it to end.

YogiBearMinis,

The question was not motive (irrelevant) but "… last definitive…" Edition.

Hell no, after Barker dies (God forbid it is soon,) someone will want to "improve" (favor some army) the rules.

Nature of the beast…

Several observations;

Most rules have fewer revisions because they are gone and forgotten after a single printing.

Phil has made it very clear that 3.0 is the final version of DBA.

Many comments on this thread appear to have no reasoning behind them.

Some of you are probably conflating DBA with DBM and WRG.

The last version for me was 2.2. Refuse to buy & revise my armies to 3.0

Most armies are the same as 2.0. And the ones that have changed are supposed to be more accurate. And no one is forcing you to change anything.

Don't see where Paul mentions being forced to change anywhere in his post, unless someone can correct me?

"Refuse to buy & revise my armies…" can be read to imply that buying and adopting DBA3.0 requires a revision in armies.

i see Paul clearly states ' " revise my armies to 3.0" ' , I think the word 'my' in there says it clearly without need to imply anything.
Then again he is considered a heretic by some and needs to be persecuted as he plays 2.2 .

Paul:

You don't have to update your armies unless you play in tournaments… Then again… in every tourney I have run since the 3.0 rules were published I have allowed 2.0 armies… So, that really isn't true either. Many armies haven't changed in any case.

The point is to not let such keep you from enjoying 3.0. It is a much improved game both for standard sized games and historical battles.

You may want to check this book out… it is historical scenarios for DBA 3.0. They play very well.

link

Joe Collins

The reason DBX games have additional versions is due to intense large scale play and new and better historical research.

Many games are little played and so do not get much playtest feedback. DBX games get lots of feedback over hundreds of games and so even the smallest problem is discovered and discussed.

In addition new research constantly appears that changes are knowledge of armies, weapons and tactics.

Because the author wants the game to play well and reflect history, he is willing to do occasional revisions. Some have been very minor – almost limited to typos but other versions (general the ".0s") have reflected information gained from many many games and the author's incorperating the latest historical research. Given the hours spent researching and developing a new version, it does not amount to much financial gain for all the sweat.

Because of Phil Barker's age we will probably not see another ".0" edition. Though we might see a 3.1 to correct typos. Mr. Barker generally puts out an errata sheet with the ".1" fixes so you don't need to re-buy the rules.

Attacking authors who attempt to improve their rules based on player feedback and historical research (not to mention their hard working volunteer playtesters) provides a rather stark disincentive for improvement.

New versions of games that are actually played are quite common – Bolt Action is already putting out a new version for instance.

TomT

THanks for the input but I'll stick with 2.2, I really don't want to buy another revision, even if it is the last one.
Paul

Fair enough.

What's interesting about the DBA community is that with each version released there are many who stick with previous versions. Thus you have many 2.2 adherents while others have moved on to 3.0. Some swear by DBA while others happily use HOTT for historical and fantasy gaming. And yet others play Tom's D3H2.

This is very different from systems such as WHFB, 40K, WarmaHordes, Infinity, FoW, etc. in which the vast, vast majority of the communities move on with each new edition.

In the DBA 3.0 community there are even sub-groups such as Tom's mod for fantasy gaming (which I really enjoyed in terms of customization…but its flyers allow for some virtually unbeatable tactics not found in 3.0).

I think that speaks well of the quality of earlier versions of DBA (people feel they work well enough to stick with them) and of Mr. Barker's willingness to continuously improve the game through rigorous community engagement while allowing folks like Tom and others to advance the core system.

The only downside (and it is just one) is that the community becomes Balkanized. We're already a niche hobby and within the DBA community you now have at the very least 2.2 (15mm and 28mm), 3.0 (15mm and 28mm), and HOTT/D3H2 (15mm and 28mm). That's at least 6x different sub-groups.

Flexibility is good as it allows players to use their existing collections (we're all for that!!) OTOH, other systems dedicated to one version in one scale find it easier to rally around a common experience.

I love the variety in 15mm/28mm scale options but it would be nice to see the emergence of a single edition to galvanize the community (with fantasy as an explicit and official sub-component of that one edition instead of existing as multiple official and unofficial mods).

I think 3.0 and Tom's D3H2 (or whatever the acronym is) is probably the closest thing to that. What's needed is for one leader to make that happen. Even Sue's efforts have confused the situation with yet another "is that an official and complete game" edition.

It's easy for the market to find out which edition of, say, Flames of War is official and widely played. With Sue's book, the official 3.0 book, old 2.2 editions, HOTT 2.0/2.1, and Tom's D3H2 floating around the casual noob has no idea what to purchase!

For the record, I don't think it's fair to compare Mr. Barker with the likes of GW in terms of multiple version releases. Mr. Barker has been very restrained in releases! And GW does their thing for very different reasons. Mr. Barker's reasons a clearly honorable and community focused.

The difference lies more with the community and not Mr. Barker. Gamers who rally around the latest 40K or Flames of War edition are more united. DBA gamers are becoming more fractious, splitting their allegiances among multiple versions and/or simply building their own versions! And Ms. Laflin's recent publication only muddied the waters further.

NOT PICTURED: D3H2 3.0 MOD

What's needed is one book to rule them all…or one king for DBA's Iron Throne! :-)

Very rarely have I seen Barker himself being attacked, the only thing I can really say against him personally is his writing 'style' shall we say, it's not everyones cup of tea.
And that's not an attack but more of a critique of his style, which lets face it is a little truthful, as we've all seen, had or heard of those discussions about certain rules and where the comma was placed which may or may not change the meaning of something.
Now GW is totally out to mug people in my opinion, those plastic figures which can cost a lot, saw one Lord of the rings evil creature thing, was a sort of armoured rhino, for nigh on $200 USD, damn good looking but not 200 worth.

"I love the variety in 15mm/28mm scale options but it would be nice to see the emergence of a single edition to galvanize the community (with fantasy as an explicit and official sub-component of that one edition instead of existing as multiple official and unofficial mods).

I think 3.0 and Tom's D3H2 (or whatever the acronym is) is probably the closest thing to that. What's needed is for one leader to make that happen. Even Sue's efforts have confused the situation with yet another "is that an official and complete game" edition."

You can buy DBA 3.0 from on Military Matters and then contact me for the combined historical/fantasy version – D3H2.

No other purchase needed (so far D3H2 is just a free bonus for buying DBA 3.0).

Sue's book does have a full example battle if your struggling with the rules.

Great Battles with DBA 3.0 has lots of historical scenrios if you like ready made battles.

Both are nice supplements but not required to join the DBX world.

DBA 3.0 combined with D3H2 will give you 3000 years of historical armies/battles and unlimited numbers of fantasy worlds. Historical and fantasy players can easily cross over between systems which helps to get critical mass for small clubs or groups of players.

TomT

Attacking authors who attempt to improve their rules based on player feedback and historical research (not to mention their hard working volunteer playtesters) provides a rather stark disincentive for improvement.

Keep in mind that Barker's done a bit of attacking, hasn't he?

I'd forgotten about those instances.

I've argued with Phil in public and private for many many years. I was one of the leading critics of WRG7th and published many critical articles about it.

While we have debated vigorously he never attacked me (or anyone else that I know of) but did defend his position re history/game mechanics and critic mine (often in a pithy way).

Its OK to poke Phil but not to complain when you get a response.

TomT

Tomato tarmarto, it all depends how you look at it, pithy or sarcastic, with internet you can not hear tone to decide which it he is 'implying'.

Is HOTT still available? Isn't D3H2 taking people always from the official form that the authors created?

Where can you buy them?

In the states On Military Matters is the distributor. In England, BlackHat Miniatures.

Both Amazon.uk and Essex Miniatures carry them as well.

Joe Collins

Dennis from on military modeling has written to say that he will have copies of the rules and Sue's book at the Fall In convention.

I bought DBA 3 from OMM when it first came out. Would I be able to get D3H2 now, and if so, where?

Last major revision from Phil. As Bob points out, there have only been 3 versions since 1992. There were only 3 versions of DBM. There were only 2 versions of HoTT. Someone else might try to make something derivative of Phil's work but I suspect this is the last major version from Phil directly. There may be a 3.1 but that is a minor revision with minor tweaks.