Has anyone else picked up De Bellis Fantasiae (DBF)?

[mikedemana]

What about you, Cat? You're the resident DBA enthusiast (at least that I know...  ). 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! 

Just curious if Hobgoblin's great, descriptive post has you intrigued...because -- you know -- curiosity killed the... 

Mike Demana

[Cat]

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.
=^,^=

[Hobgoblin]

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.

[Cat]

Did the fast and solid stuff come in with DBA 3.0?

Yes.

[Hobgoblin]

Yes.

Thanks - I can see why all that is too fiddly for certain games.

[mellis1644]

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.

[Neldoreth]

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

[Hobgoblin]

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.

[Macunaima]

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.

[Burgundavia]

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.

[fred]

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.