Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Hobgoblin on March 24, 2025, 03:10:26 PM
-
I bought DBF (https://www.debellisfantasiae.com) a couple of weeks ago, having been alerted to it by DivisMal a while earlier. It's an update of the HOTT/DBA system to allow large fantasy battles with multiple commands.
Although I've yet to play a game, I've been very impressed by the rules. They combine most of the troop types from HOTT and DBA - so alongside the familiar Blades, Spears, Knights, Behemoths, etc., there are also Skirmishers, Pikes, Auxilia and Cavalry. And there are some new types too: Great Beasts (ogres, trolls and the like) and Infernal Machines (primitive tanks or armoured war wagons). Gods, Sneakers and Lurkers from HOTT aren't present, however.
On top of that, most troop types can be either Solid or Fast, which lends additional nuances to combat (Fast troops move faster than their Solid equivalents but recoil from Solid elements on a close-combat tie).
Magic has been expanded; alongside the traditional HOTT magical artillery attack, there are army-specific rituals too.
The most impressive thing, though, is the list of special rules. These are very nicely done and allow a wealth of flavourful tweaks to the standard troop classes without overcomplicating things (no additional dice rolls are required). For example, orcs might be given the Battle Frenzy special rule, which makes them more deadly but also more fragile in close combat. A common complaint about HOTT is that (e.g.) goblin Spears function identically to elven Spears. The special rules allow this to be addressed very elegantly. For example, your Elven spears might be Solid, Elite and have Heavy Armour whereas the goblin spears could be Fast and Poor with Battle Frenzy. Points costs use a different, more subtle scale than HOTT does, so these nuances can be costed appropriately.
The rules are also clearly written, with lots of diagrams - and, crucially, these are fully incorporated into the rules explanations. That makes DBF the most user-friendly of the DBX family.
The book includes a large number of army lists: some 'classic fantasy' and mythological lists as in HOTT, and some that are clearly designed for use with Warhammer or Kings of War figures. The assumption is that players will devise their own lists to reflect their armies and interests. This is necessarily more complex than in HOTT, as the game typically features multiple commands aside and is intended to use restrictive lists rather than the entirely open ones in HOTT (where any army can have any troop type). There's a campaign system too.
I don't think this is a replacement for HOTT; it's designed for longer, more involved games, so I can't see it being used for the same sort of tournaments or short-notice pick-up games as HOTT. On the other hand, it looks great for allowing an engrossing afternoon of gaming with much bigger armies and much greater depth. I also think there's plenty of scope for importing the special rules into HOTT - for example, by giving each player a budget of 6 or 12 DBF points for special rules on top of the standard 24AP.
All in all, it's a great-looking game. As someone who often stretches the HOTT rules to cover much bigger battles, I suspect I'm going to get a lot of use out of it.
-
I had not heard of it, but will be checking it out, thanks for mentioning it! It would be a way to get my 15mm fantasy figures into action :)
-
I had not heard of it, but will be checking it out, thanks for mentioning it! It would be a way to get my 15mm fantasy figures into action :)
It would be a very good match for your orc and barbarian armies, I think. One problem with HOTT (much as I love it!) is that a battle between common fantasy armies can be a bit Warband-heavy and thus samey. In DBF, by contrast, the book lists treat large orcs as Auxilia with Battle Frenzy (or Warband with Battle Frenzy for 'savage' types) whereas barbarian infantry could be Fast or Solid Blades or Warband + Lethal (for berserkers). So there's much more room for differentiation, and the armies will feel much more distinct.
-
If I was more into Fantasy, 95% Historical here, I would think seriously about getting these.
-
If I was more into Fantasy, 95% Historical here, I would think seriously about getting these.
There are some nice pseudo-historical army lists in there: both high medieval and ancient, with just very slight fantastical twists: in some cases, just the presence of heroes or "paladins" (e.g. Joan of Arc).
-
We played HOTT for quite some time and enjoyed the system. We played DBA even longer, but eventually tired of it. It is interesting to see new life being injected into the rules this way. I'm not sure I am going to go out and purchase them, though. I sold all of my HOTT and DBA armies (no small amount) awhile back.
I'm more into the 28mm individually based games, like Lion Rampant, Saga, and when the new edition comes out, Dragon Rampant.
Thanks for the review! Very descriptive and informative. I had to click on the link to see who wrote the rules, as good old Phil was way too sparse with his wording to ever being considered clearly written...! lol
Mike Demana
-
We played HOTT for quite some time and enjoyed the system. We played DBA even longer, but eventually tired of it. It is interesting to see new life being injected into the rules this way. I'm not sure I am going to go out and purchase them, though. I sold all of my HOTT and DBA armies (no small amount) awhile back.
I find that HOTT is the game I always come back to. The DBF release has inspired me to switch from 1/72 back to 28mm - largely because it offers a way to get a lot of the old miniatures I own on the table at the same time (I've been beadily eyeing various unassembled chariots and the like!).
One of the things I like most about HOTT and its ilk is the way you can field huge monsters or gods or dragons with a minimum of fuss; they're appropriately powerful on the table, but you don't have to roll buckets of dice for them or remember hosts of special provisions.
-
I don?t think I need another Fantasy rule set. I have too many already and the figures rarely get on the table, but?
A few questions as I?ve not played any DBx games over the years - which feels an oversight.
Basing - my 10mm fantasy is mainly on 40mm square bases, will these work fine, or does depth matter?
Combat results - how swingy are these - I read that doubling your opponent?s roll kills their stand - so if I roll a 6, do I have a 50% chance of killing the enemy stand? Are stands either dead or fine, there are no hit points?
Activation - is this a simple d6 per side which says how many units/groups of units you can activate, which again feels it could be very swingy?
-
I don?t think I need another Fantasy rule set. I have too many already and the figures rarely get on the table, but?
A few questions as I?ve not played any DBx games over the years - which feels an oversight.
Basing - my 10mm fantasy is mainly on 40mm square bases, will these work fine, or does depth matter?
Combat results - how swingy are these - I read that doubling your opponent?s roll kills their stand - so if I roll a 6, do I have a 50% chance of killing the enemy stand? Are stands either dead or fine, there are no hit points?
Activation - is this a simple d6 per side which says how many units/groups of units you can activate, which again feels it could be very swingy?
I used to play a bit of DBA back in the day - probably a very outmoded ruleset but the basic principles should still hold firm. As long as both sides use the same base size conventions then you should be ok but the system does have its own base sizes and there are good reasons for them - iirc the bases are usually around twice as long as they are wide meaning a flank envelopment will hit 2 units in the side, removing any bonuses from supporting. Which brings us quite neatly onto the combat - the units in combat roll off against each other - each side rolls a dice and adds modifiers (some weapon types versus others can add or subtract from the roll, as does being supported by bases to the rear or sides) - the loser usually recoils a base width if they can (the downside of being supported) or destroyed if the winning roll plus modifiers is more than double the losers dice roll plus modifiers. Some weapon types modify that rule and there is a lot more variation in the rules than I can outline here - getting the right combination of attacking weapon bases plus supports to maximise your dice rolls can be key and quite challenging to achieve. There are no hit points - a base may be forced to recoil away from an attacker or destroyed outright; there is no gradual erosion of a units performance.
It's an abstract system but still retains an awful lot of nuance and subtlety in the game - designing a good army is important but learning how to use it to its full advantage and, of course, good dice rolling can all be major factors, as with any rules system.
-
I don?t think I need another Fantasy rule set. I have too many already and the figures rarely get on the table, but?
A few questions as I?ve not played any DBx games over the years - which feels an oversight.
Basing - my 10mm fantasy is mainly on 40mm square bases, will these work fine, or does depth matter?
Combat results - how swingy are these - I read that doubling your opponent?s roll kills their stand - so if I roll a 6, do I have a 50% chance of killing the enemy stand? Are stands either dead or fine, there are no hit points?
Activation - is this a simple d6 per side which says how many units/groups of units you can activate, which again feels it could be very swingy?
Ah - now if you haven't played any DBx games, you can get loads of HOTT games in very quickly. It's probably the quickest mass-battle game to get on the table - a standard 24AP game means that you pick 12ish elements (most infantry and cavalry cost 2, Hordes cost 1, Behemoths, Heroes, Magicians, Dragons and Gods cost 4 and Aerial Heroes cost 6, and there are few funny ones that cost 3 - Clerics, for example; and you can't have more than 12AP of ones that cost more than 2) and get to it. You can create an army in a minute. A typical game takes about 45 minutes once you know the rules, so you can easily play a campaign in an evening.
To build on what Rick said above, basing depth doesn't really matter as long as the frontages are the same. All the DBx rules explicitly allow for some variation in depth according to figure size. So you could perfectly well have an army of different elements entirely based on 40 x 40 squares - that's how I'm basing my 15mm stuff, as I plan to use it principally for Fantastic Battles but for HOTT if I enter another 15mm tournament. There are both advantages and disadvantages to having deeper bases, so it all evens out.
The new game, DBF, is even more explicitly liberal on base sizes than previous iterations.
A key principle of the DBx stable is the "quick kill", which gives the game a lot of its flavour. In general, you need to double an opponent's score (base factor + dice roll) for a kill. But in a sort of extended rock/paper/scissors manner, certain units can kill others by simply beating their score (and the same is true when the defeated element has an enemy element attacking its flank or rear directly). The root of this mechanic is Blades vs Warband, which started with Roman legionaries (Blades) versus Gauls or Germans (Warband). Blades add 5 to the roll vs foot units; Warband adds 3. So Blades are more likely to double Warband, BUT Warband "quick-kills" Blades by simply beating them. By contrast, if Blades beat but do not double Warband, they push Warband back (and in HOTT, don't pursue, thus maintaining the integrity of their line - Warband elements DO pursue if they win a fight, so they break up their line quite easily).
As Rick says, there are various other factors that modify the rolls. If you've played Song of Blades and Heroes or its relations, you'll be familiar with that: overlapping or flanking elements reduce the enemy's score by 1 (making them easier to double as well as easier to beat); and terrain can modify combat outcomes too.
Also, each element type has different scores against foot and mounted troop types. So Blades are +5 vs foot but only + 3 vs mounted. In the new rules, Great Beasts are +3/+3 and (like Warband) quick-kill heavy infantry like Blades. But because they are classed as mounted, Blades are only +3 against them, which makes Great Beasts even more dangerous than Warband; all else being equal, Great Beasts fight on even terms with Blades and only need to beat them to kill them.
There are lots of variations on this with different combinations of opponents: for example, some types cause others to flee large distances rather than recoil when they beat them; Skirmishers are good against Behemoths and Great Beasts; Knights can sweep away many infantry types; Magicians and Heroes have special interactions in HOTT; Sneakers are good against generals; and so on.
So, if you roll a 6, it very much depends on which element you're rolling for, who it's fighting and what the circumstances are. There are no hit points, as Rick says, but elements can be "out of command" or "demoralised" in certain circumstances: respectively, harder to activate and capable of very little if activated. So there's a lot of depth.
-
I'll likely stick with HotT, and porting in the DBA big battle rules. They've always worked fine.
-
I'd love to take a look at them, but the lack of a pdf option rules it out: 27gbp postage to Vanuatu is a touch steep!
-
Thanks Rick and Hobgoblin - that gives me lots of info.
I do recall the negatives in SoBH being very effective as making it easier to double the opponents score.
I feel I need to do a little table to understand the Blade vs Warband example - I am assuming that results apply to both sides - so Blades vs Warband, where the Blades roll a 1 (which goes to 6) would be beaten (and killed) by Warband rolling 4+?
-
I feel I need to do a little table to understand the Blade vs Warband example - I am assuming that results apply to both sides - so Blades vs Warband, where the Blades roll a 1 (which goes to 6) would be beaten (and killed) by Warband rolling 4+?
Yes, exactly: and Blades rolling a 2 (7) would be beaten and killed by Warband rolling a 5 or 6 (8 or 9). Add in lines of Blades and Warband of uneven length, and you have a very interesting situation (especially - in HOTT at least - Warband pursue defeated foes and Blades don't). And of course there are opportunities to overlap or flank as the combat progresses.
Of all the fantasy mass-battle games I've played, I'd say HOTT is the one where battle lines are most important - which gives it a sense of realism that a lot of more complex games lack.
And there are always interesting tactical decisions to be made with the limited and uncertain budget of action points in each turn: you can generally move a group of elements for one point (as long as they're suitably aligned), so there are always risks associated with disrupting formations to flank (and aim for quick kills). And so on.
-
I'll likely stick with HotT, and porting in the DBA big battle rules. They've always worked fine.
Yeah, HOTT is a stone-cold classic: I think the proof is in the fact that rules have hardly changed at all in 34 years (Shooters and Warband swapped movement after the first edition, and there was one other tiny tweak, but that's about it) and the game is still very widely played. Very few wargames have the same sort of staying power, and those that do are classics too (e.g. Diplomacy).
There is a lot of good stuff in DBF, though. We've had some great games of D3H2, the unofficial predecessor to DBF, which combines DBA 3 with HOTT 2. The addition of Skirmishers/Psiloi is a valuable one, and the introduction of Great Beasts in DBF solves the 'ogres vs giant' problem in HOTT - sometimes more of an aesthetic problem rather than anything else, when one person's giant is six times the size of the other's! There was a 'Brutes' house rule for HOTT floating around on the internet (+4/+4, 3AP), but the Great Beasts set-up is more elegant. And I think the special rules are just great (and easily ported into classic HOTT).
I also like the modelling possibilities that DBF offers. Skirmishers (two to a base) are a nice quick unit to paint up, and I realise that I already have some Infernal Machines (kitbashed for Kings of War) that could be swiftly rebased on a more suitably 60mm frontage ...
-
Just the thought alone of playing DBA and its various derivations is enough to give me the shits.
-
Just the thought alone of playing DBA and its various derivations is enough to give me the shits.
What is it that you don't like about the system? I understand the common complaints about the rules writing (more with DBA than with HOTT, which has much more humour in the writing), but I've always found the system to be extraordinarily smooth in play.
I remember, as a teenager, getting hold of the rules when they first came out (though I presumed they were an old set). My friends and I were blown away by how fast and slick the gameplay was in comparison with Warhammer, etc., - and with how much more like a classic fictional or historical battle the game felt.
-
It's just a bit too abstract and a bit too much like playing chess. Utterly soulless.
And yes, there's the dreadful Barkerese that is just impossible to escape from and just playing any of the DBX games I feel like I'm endorsing it and that leaves me feeling dirty and sordid. And not in a good way.
-
It's just a bit too abstract and a bit too much like playing chess. Utterly soulless.
Ha! Bizarrely, I've always found HOTT one of the more soulful fantasy wargames - in large part, I think, because it's (a) rooted in a decent attempt at historical simulation and (b) based on myth, legend and the better sort of fantasy fiction (rather than being derivative of derivatives like so many games). So it seems a bit more 'authentic' and 'rootsy' than (say) Warhammer or Kings of War or whatever. Army lists based on the Battle of the Five Armies, Moorcock's multiverse and the Elder Edda reinforce that feeling.
I think the open modelling and painting possibilities that HOTT offers give it a certain sort of soulfulness too: it's much more of a creative blank canvas than most games. There are some great Gloranthahn examples here (http://ruleonemagazine.com/Iss2/Ru_HOTT_Elements.php) and here (https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Glorantha)(the blog of Simon Miller - Big Red Bat on this forum). Jar-Eel the Razoress and Simon Miller's Crimson Bat are cases in point:
(http://ruleonemagazine.com/Iss2/Art/Jareel.jpg)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI0wIyEY7a8ayfmANYl5wujKb6vdv3ngJHhMKtoYwyCHZnjsxKNnsgEDOUg52cEx36jAPGI1xwL4ty-pm0PoPNN09DwKvRPnSDiKNhqLIorLTEWqFH3Lo06JJ3J9euQJ6RKaWs0j9fPM4I/s640/20160612_153057_001.jpg)
I can think of few other games that really get that sort of creativity going - perhaps Kings of War's diorama bases.
And yes, there's the dreadful Barkerese that is just impossible to escape from and just playing any of the DBX games I feel like I'm endorsing it and that leaves me feeling dirty and sordid. And not in a good way.
lol
I don't think I've ever been fully exposed to it, as the HOTT rules aren't in full Barkerese, by all accounts. I do own DBA 3.0 but have mainly used it to play D3H2 and already knew how the rules worked from HOTT. I'd say that the HOTT army lists are quite nicely written and often funny; there's a tongue-in-cheek aspect to HOTT that is part of the fun (the 'soul', if you like!).
It's worth saying that DBF isn't in Barkerese at all; it's clearly written and well explained.
-
The DBF website you linked to suggests 36 elements as a standard game ? are you planning to play it at that size Hobgoblin, or at a more HOTTish 12 elements or so?
-
The DBF website you linked to suggests 36 elements as a standard game ? are you planning to play it at that size Hobgoblin, or at a more HOTTish 12 elements or so?
I'm planning to go big! I always enjoy HOTT games with 36AP armies (and a single PIP die), and I've often staged games with two or three 24AP commands a side (so around 36 elements on each side).
My current painting project involves digging out hundreds of miniatures and basing them from 28mm HOTT/DBF (I reckon that's the best way to get most of them on the table at the same time). The HOTT armies I have painted at the moment are mainly 1/72, but I'm aiming to replace those with 28mm (more character and more visual impact). Some of the monsters work in both scales, though, and I have a lot left over from earlier 28mm projects.
-
Oh - and one thing I'd add for fred: in the recent iterations of DBx, movement is based on base widths (this is an optional rule in HOTT but is a great idea and has become standard since). So you could play HOTT or DBF either with 40mm squares or with doubled-up frontages for 80mm (perhaps with a strip of masking tape underneath to hold the elements together). If you've got a lot of 10mm stuff, that would give a spectacular game.
-
Thanks - I had wondered about doubling up 40mm square bases after seeing some of the diagrams. We tend to have big armies.
I?m not at all sure about the single opposed dice roll for combat resolution.
-
Thanks - I had wondered about doubling up 40mm square bases after seeing some of the diagrams. We tend to have big armies.
I?m not at all sure about the single opposed dice roll for combat resolution.
It's a single dice roll per element (barring the flanking and overlapping ones, which modify the main attacks) - and almost every combat will involve quite a few elements (again, the line of battle is very important in the DBx system). So a typical combat might involve something like six or eight die rolls (three or four from each side).
Is it the mathematics of the die rolls that you're dubious about? I think the fact that the rolls are opposed tends to stop it being too swingy. The extreme results come when one side rolls low and the other rolls high, which dampens the volatility of outcomes, and you typically get quite a lot of 'shoving matches' - especially between lines of heavy infantry (Blades, Pikes and Spears) - which feels right to me. The 'shock troops' (Warband and Knights, for example) can disrupt this, though, which again feels right.
If you have big armies, doubling up the bases sounds a good plan - especially if you're using a big table. The one disadvantage of using squares throughout is that certain elements benefit from rear support (Warband and Spears in HOTT), and this can look a little odd with squares. But it's more an aesthetic thing than anything else. A 10mm game with 80mm frontages would look spectacular!
-
To each their own. But, for me, I really enjoy DBA and HOTT.
They are two of my main rulesets. I use them for everything from
the Trojan War to 1980s Cold War. HOTT is great with Ragnarok and other
mythical periods.
-
I cannot find the rules on Military Matters
-
I cannot find the rules on Military Matters
I think they are only selling them via Lulu.
-
I'd have got it if sold it digitally.
-
I gather from the Fanaticus forum that there's been some hold-up with On Military Matters.
The no-PDF thing seems to be a WRG standard (an anti-piracy measure, perhaps?): I think HOTT was briefly in PDF at some point, but the current edition hasn't ever been, as far as I know.
To each their own. But, for me, I really enjoy DBA and HOTT.
They are two of my main rulesets. I use them for everything from
the Trojan War to 1980s Cold War. HOTT is great with Ragnarok and other
mythical periods.
Precisely how I feel! Mythical battles showcase something that HOTT does really well and perhaps better than any other ruleset: allow hugely fantastical elements to be involved in a tabletop game without any hassle or fiddliness. If you want a god or a vast airship or a flying whale (or Simon's Crimson Bat), you can just get on with it. Most other fantasy games require a welter of special rules and templates and complexity to do something like that.
One project I've reignited in this regard is a plan to create a Moorcockian flying ship; I'd bought a cheap plastic kit ages ago as the basis for it, but didn't find the time to covert and paint it: I'm going to put that right shortly.
-
The no-PDF thing seems to be a WRG standard (an anti-piracy measure, perhaps?): I think HOTT was briefly in PDF at some point, but the current edition hasn't ever been, as far as I know.
Yes, that's a Barker thing.
-
What about you, Cat? You're the resident DBA enthusiast (at least that I know... lol ). Are you intrigued by it? Personally, I'm on the opposite tack now, having sold my DBA and HOTT armies...at least one of which, to you! lol
Just curious if Hobgoblin's great, descriptive post has you intrigued...because -- you know -- curiosity killed the... :D
Mike Demana
-
I'm marked safe here, Mike!
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'll be sticking with HotT. Our group ahas also stuck with 2.2+ rather than switching to 3.0, which upped the complexity level too much for our tastes. The new DBF will be in line with 3.0.
Your old Vikings are still viking along just fine.
=^,^=
-
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'll be sticking with HotT. Our group ahas also stuck with 2.2+ rather than switching to 3.0, which upped the complexity level too much for our tastes. The new DBF will be in line with 3.0.
Did the fast and solid stuff come in with DBA 3.0?
I really like that sort of thing, but emphatically not for every game - which is why I still plan to play HOTT a great deal. I do think that HOTT is close to being the perfect mass-battle fantasy rules, and I'd pick it over DBF for a time-constrained game.
For big games with no tight time restrictions, though, I like the extra details and nuances you get with D3H2/DBF - perhaps particularly because I have so much fantasy infantry (orcs, hobgoblins, barbarians, beastmen, lizardmen, etc., etc.) that falls into the "warband" camp in HOTT and can be parsed into different categories (Auxilia fast and solid, Warband fast and solid, fast Blades, even Skirmishers - plus all the special rules) under the more complex rulesets.
-
Did the fast and solid stuff come in with DBA 3.0?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Thanks - I can see why all that is too fiddly for certain games.
-
DBA is not for all people and neither will DBF be. Also as the rules change then it looses and adds different people. I would have preferred a PDF version but have 'pushed the boat out' and ordered the rules to see what they are about.
I suspect it is still much simpler than many of the other fantasy big battle games out there which have been released.
I must admit I am quite impressed that DBA has stood the test of time much better than most games that started in the 90's. Yes it has changed with different versions but at heart is the same game. There are not that many rules sets which have the amount of player activity still after all this time.
-
We played HOTT for quite some time and enjoyed the system. We played DBA even longer, but eventually tired of it. It is interesting to see new life being injected into the rules this way. I'm not sure I am going to go out and purchase them, though. I sold all of my HOTT and DBA armies (no small amount) awhile back.
Wow, I totally didn't expect that! I haven't played DBA since 2012, but I still have all of those old 15mm armies in a box in my closet... I know exactly where it is... and they haven't been updated for the latest rules. Maybe I will sell them after all!
Thanks
n
-
Wow, I totally didn't expect that! I haven't played DBA since 2012, but I still have all of those old 15mm armies in a box in my closet... I know exactly where it is... and they haven't been updated for the latest rules. Maybe I will sell them after all!
They'll still be 100% valid for HOTT (and DBF)!
In recent months, I decided to base all my metal RPG/skirmish miniatures on 20mm squares where possible with an eye to making them usable in HOTT when required (60mm frontages, so three or six figures to a base). As I use MDF with vertical edges, the miniatures fit together seamlessly, and a small blob of blue-tack on each holds them in place. With DBF, I realise I can vary this a bit by using 'filler' bases (perhaps with a discarded shield or a bush or a casualty on each). That way, I can create elements of three or four figures (so Warband, Shooters/Bow and Auxilia) as well as Blades/Spears and Hordes.
I've been trying out some formations with the lovely old Tom Meier Ral Partha orcs: two forward and one back on a 40mm (with three 'fillers') would work nicely for Fast Warband or Fast Auxilia. For Solid Auxilia, I've been looking at three forward and a whip-wielding discipline master behind (so two 'fillers' in the rear rank). Meanwhile, using six on a 40mm-deep base gives me a very dense and lively-looking Horde.
-
Wrt the no pdf thing, WRG should get into the 21sr century.
First of all, it is inevitable that this will be digitalized and spread about like ALL of WRG’s rules are.
Secondly, they can’t be making a huge profit margin off of lulu. 10 bucks, at most.
Third, most of us who are going to buy the rules would just GIVE them the ten bucks, anyhow.
Because the rules are only available in print form through Lulul, I will probably only be able to get them when they are digitized and uploaded and, at that point, I won’t be impulse-buying from WRG.
But if the rules were available as a PDF NOW, I’d buy them in a shot.
If anyone from WRG is reading this, let me kindly suggest — as someone who worked in the gaming industry on the bidniz side of things for over a decade — that they seriously think of launching a PDF version of these rules around about Christmas time.
That way, they will have gotten their sales from the physical copies, there will already be digital copies roaming the internet, and it will give us folks who cannot buy bia Lulu a means of getting some money into WRG’s hands.
“Only physical copies” doesn’t work to quash piracy in a world where free apps can transform any cellphome into a very fast and relatively high quality book scanner. With all due respect, Phil is living in 2005.
-
Wrt the no pdf thing, WRG should get into the 21sr century.
<snip>
But if the rules were available as a PDF NOW, I’d buy them in a shot.
I'm bumped into this as well. I played HoTT back in the day, would've loved to pick this up and try it, but no PDF meant nope from me. So frustrating.
-
Me 3 on the lack of PDF option putting me off purchasing. I've only got a passing interest in the rules, but would be happy to spend £10 on a PDF to see how they work.