El reglamento que surge como la "alternativa" al DBA 3.0 ha salido hoy en versión beta. Os dejo las reglas aquí:

http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/

Sin haberlo leído muy en profundidad (solo una ojeada rápida), me convence incluso menos que la 3.0.

Cita de: Igcaspe en 14 Feb 2012, 18:49
Sin haberlo leído muy en profundidad (solo una ojeada rápida), me convence incluso menos que la 3.0.

¿Por qué no? Tiene muchas cosas de las que se han comentado por aquí que "gustaban" o "se pedían", y por lo general la mayoría de las cosas tienen su aquel.

Me hacen la púa con los WWg, que serían de 40x40 y el tablero lo ponen de 75x75.

En conjunto, las más polémicas del DBA 3 no las han puesto, han añadido las que les han molado (el despliegue del terreno) y quitado las del DBA 2.2 las que no les molaban (las BUAs, los Quick Kill de las LH sobre las Spear y las Pike, y los ríos ya no son "variables").

Y creo que sería una adaptación mucho menos dolorosa para el jugador de DBA 2.2.

Los yanquis contraatacan! El juego por el trono de los wargames rapidos y sencillitos ha comenzado!

Si estos también cambia el tamaño de la mesa, mal vamos.

Si no he leído mal: Cambia el tamaño de la mesa, cambia el tamaño de los "100 pasos" (la mitad del ancho de base, es decir, 2 cm en vez de 2'54), cambian los WWg, los Ps pasan a mover por terreno dificil en grupo, matan a los desmontables (a no ser que aparezca el concepto "Infantería montada" para los Cv que desmontan).

Y eso solo en una ojeada por encima

haciendo una lectura en "diagonal" creo que es la v 3.0 con distinto collar.
Hay muuuchas cosas que son una copiada literal de la 3 (movimiento en grupo de Ps en terreno difícil, los arcos disparan aunque estén en overlap, los Elefantes son +5/+4, los blades cuando les disparan son +4...) y otras que mantienen su diferencia.
No me termina de convencer que también cambien la unidad de medida y la obligatoriedad del terreno de 75 cm.
En teoría, jugaban en 75 porque las LH mataban Sp y Pk al simple. Ahora dejan el terreno grande y quitan el Quick kill de la LH.
¿cambiar los pasos? ¿por qué?
En fin. que creo que no deja de ser una rabieta contra el Barker (que también tiene telita el tío) y encima le copian la mitad de las cosas...

Ahora estos tambien quieren ser los dueños del gato... pero su gato es mestizo.

Dejallo (en la 2.2) y no enmendallo.

keido. Decir que NO ES la 3.0, aunque adolece de algunos de los mismos errores. Si la 3.0 fuera xcomo esto estariamos rajando igual (y yo creo que con razón). Ahora no tengo tiempo, peor despues destripo/sajo-rajo a gusto.

Francamente, esperaba más de esta gente.

Haciendo amigos:

Hi there,

Well, I have read 2.2+. Other people in Spain have read it as well. IN the Spanish forum the most positive comment about 2.2+ I could read before reading it myself was "it is 3.0, just better written". I disagree with that statement, but I think it gets some merit. Read below:

In general I think it is a work of love. And it ended up worse than I expected, really. It did not correct some of the BLATANT mistakes of 2.2 while introduces A LOT of extra features that make no much sense. My conclusion is that as written it will not be played in Spain at all. 3.0 has already been discarded, so you are leaving 100+ players by the wayside here. Or a whole country if you prefer. One that had 15 DBA tournaments last year. I think this might be something to consider.

So, from a first reading:

1. USING THE PLAYSHEET
I would make it say "use the unofficial guide" as opposed to "use the DBA rules", since we already know there are points of contention between the 2. That is just a sidenote.

2. MEASUREMENTS
New measurement system. Unnecessary. Renders all play aids worthless. First thing people disliked around here.

3. TROOP TYPES
3 new element types. Err.... Why? Totally unnecessary added complication. I can get convinced on pavisiers but raiders and cataphracts are a no-no. You could even REDUCE the elements in 2.2 by dropping Litters (use camp) and Pike (use Sp with wider rear support) easily. The introductions of these troop types do not look necessary. All the extra troops could be solved just giving Ax a +3 vs mounted.

4. LITTER
A more elegant solution is to just let litter die as a troop type. Easier. This just adds complication for no real gain.

5. BOARD
New board size. Here people took the torches and burned the 2.2+ at the stake. A RECOMMENDED board size of 3'" is OK. An imposed board size of 30" is a "no way". This puts DBA 2.2+ in the "pile of rulebooks I will never playtest" for Spaniards. IOt will never get support with a compulsory 30" board. Coincidentially it is EXACTLY the same mistake that 2.2 did with the 24" boards. Stamping an option that was not liked by everyone as the only option. Allowing both would be better.

6. TERRAIN:
6.1 I have always voiced my opinion that arable should be allowed gentle hills as core terrain as well.
6.2 Rivers have not been dealt with AT ALL. A feature that is BANNED from 90% of the tournaments cannot be well designed in the first place, so I was quite surprised it was not dealt with.
6.3 No options for gentle hills in hilly. Curious.
6.3 All Littoral people know that Zama is just 30 metres from the coast. IMO Littoral armies should have the same options as arable and not exist as an option. Normandy landings were not that common. If you want that feature work on FLANKING for everybody, that was a much more common battle event.

7. TERRAIN PLACEMENT.
I like the idea. A lot. For me it is the best part of the whole document. I would say that it is too difficult for the attacker to modify the battlefield, specially with the last point, but hey. Beats hands down 3.0 by a large margin. Good job. Still, it does not solve either the "potato field" nor the "golf course" terrain placements. Changing a terrain feature and moving it a few inches could be better, so you can place a freakin pizza-sized terrain halfway towards the middle of the board if your opponent placed a post stamp in a corner (golf course) or you could replace one of those pizzas in the middle of the board for a postage stamp and sent it kicking to Nepal so it does not interfere much with the battle (potato field). Still, better than current rules, and better than 3.0. 

8. DISMOUNTING.
OK.

9. GROUP MOVES.
OK. A good feature of 3.0

10. BREAKING FROM COMBAT.
OK. No need to specify the last 2 bullet points, since it is exactly like that in 2.2.

11. MOVING TO CONTACT
11.1 Contact solo element generalizes the LH/Ps rule. OK. However, the base depth thingy still makes it REALLY easy to exploit the rule. I would remove it. If you are alone and cannot recoil, tough luck.
11.2 Flank rear contact. OK and OK in both paragraphs. A 3.0 rule that made sense.

12. TACTICAL MOVES
Unnecessary change as said. You increase board size and speed of everyone as well as shooting ranges. Result is that only flanking is affected, and not by much. I deeply dislike the games that try to be so general that are hard to understand. This is a clear example of this. Give measurements in inches or centimeters, but not in base sizes. That is just annoying.

13. CLOSE COMBAT
13.1 Scythed chariot. An unnecessary rule. SCh will still not be used in their historical role (they are still a Cv on asteroids, that dies of heart attack if beaten) since in DBA losing an element screws you so much that it is not worth it to throw the SCh so lightly at the start of the battle. Just adds word count that is nit worth the hassle.
13.2 With board sixe and new troop types you put your head in the trunk and gave the sword to the executioner. Here you give the mark for the sword to fall on your own neck.
The changes in Cm and Ellies make no sense at all (reduced factors vs mounted and increased vs infantry) since 2.2 was already cool in those areas. Light spear just confirms that is a secondary name for an auxilia and raiders are Bd by another name. If you want this level of granularity go play DBM. We do not want it in DBA.

Just giving a +3 vs mounted to Ax and Wb would solve everything. If you consider any troop changes here necessary. I am not convinced of that, but hey.

SHOOTING
The -1 for Bd is not something I consider necessary but OK if you want the hassle. I think shooting already works well in 2.2 so I would not have toiuched that section.

COMBAT
REAR SUPPORT
The change to Pk just sounds like a mounted element's wet dream with no much basis.

As written, no changes over 2.2 so I do not understand why it is here. Anyway, Sp should have support against most stuff, since otherwise the Greeks would have been plain morons. And I am sure they were quite smart. IN fact I would give Sp a +1 or +2 vs almost everything and remove Pk from the game, but hey, that is me.

You just generalize rear support to your new element types and give Pk (one of the worst elements in normal DBA already) a downturn. OK.

RESULTS TABLE
Looks quite incomplete. Cataphracts do nto kill horde, light spear and Bd kill Cv while normal Sp does not and LCm does not kill Ps while all the other mounted on steeds do.

I also think that (in case you want to keep them) Riders and liught spears should pursue, but hey.


Overall I think this is not a real improvement over 2.2. It has some good ideas but a lot of extra "just because" stuff was thrown in. The result is far from promising. Adds complication, does a lot of the same mistakes as 3.0 and the changes are not really justified. It even ignored a feature that is set in stone in the tournament circuit: "no rivers".

As a 0.1 version it might be OK, but it needs a lot of work to be acceptable. Review your essay and resubmit within the next 2 weeks

kind regards,
Xavi

Ya nos dirás qué te contestan

Me fastidia lo del tamaño de la mesa de juego,pero bueno.Eso si,lo único que quiero yo  es que dejen las tropas con el tamaño de bases actuales y con el numero de minis por base....que si no es un coñazo con los cambios

Por dios elmoth!! No le ha dejado nada, jajaja. A ver en que acaba esta "batalla".

De todas formas, seguro que es una rabieta de los americanos, un "-te doy 7. -quiero 12. -8. -11. -9. -10 y lo dejamos!. Vale"

De todas formas, por aqui andamos muy bien con la 2.2.

Report from the front:

Se han cagado en mi madre para empezar, y luego han continuado ya que he hecho un bombardeo bastante más heavy que este al final.

Es una version 3.0F (3.0 "fanaticus style"), que no os engañe el nombre. Una nueva versión del juego con cambios importantes en diversos puntos.

Trtas el batallón de mails que me he leido entre el domingo y hoy me han convencido de varias cosas que veia bastante chungas como las nuevas tropas que igual merece la prueba testear antes de mandarlas al peo, aunque hay otras (camellos, medidas de medir y del campo de batalla, no tocar el tema de rios, mantener los desembarcos en vez de marchas de flanco, que no le den a las Sp el +1 por apoyo posterior contra más cosas...) que me siguen pareciendo muy mejorables. Vamos a darle una oportunidad

A diferencia de la version 3.0 del amigo Phil (que probé en casa en una partida de test y no me gustó un pelo) creo que esta version puede ser jugable y mejorar aspectos del 2.2. Como siempre es imposible estar de acuerdo con TODOS los cambios, pero hay un numero aceptable de ellos que igual estan bien.

Así que por mi voy a testearlo un poco en serio, a ver que tal sobre la mesa de juego. A ver si los DBArcelona se prestan (wink wink nudge nudge)

Saludos,
Xavi

Xavi, lo que no entiendo es porqué se molestan (leyendo fanaticus parece que alguno se ha picado en serio) porque se critique una versión beta de un juego...

A ver si la semana que viene le echo un ojo más en profundidad y veo qué cambios gordos de verdad hay hechos.