- 1 2.2+ General Questions
- 1.1 What is "buttocks of death?" That sounds yucky.
- 1.2 Why didn't you clarify rule X on the playsheet?
- 1.3 You didn't clarify how rule X works, so how does it work?
- 1.4 Why did you make so many changes?
- 1.5 Why didn't you make more changes?
- 1.6 Why did you add new element types?
- 1.7 If you make 3Bd different from 4Bd and 3Sp different from 4Sp, why are 3Ax/4Ax and 3Wb/4Wb/5Wb all the same?
- 1.8 What changes did you consider but eventually reject?
- 1.9 Why did you rebase War Wagons but not other deep elements such as 6Kn?
- 1.10 What about army lists?
- 1.11 What about campaign rules and giant battle DBA?
- 2 Rules Questions
2.2+ General Questions
What is "buttocks of death?" That sounds yucky.
"Buttocks of death" is a commonly used term to describe a situation in DBA when an element's rear edge kills another element. The most common example is when an element recoils into an enemy element's rear, destroying both elements.
Why didn't you clarify rule X on the playsheet?
The 2.2+ project imposed several major limitations on the changes it would make: first, the army lists would not change; second, a line edits document would be provided to describe the changes. The publication of a terse line edit document meant that changes needed to be limited in scope. No effort was made to reword the existing rules, or to provide additional clarification in areas that have not changed. Those are good and important things to do, but they are outside the scope of the 2.2+ changes.
You didn't clarify how rule X works, so how does it work?
Anything that hasn't explicitly been changed in 2.2+ works the same way it has always worked in 2.2. For clarifications about the 2.2+ rules and the way they are played in practice, please refer to The Unofficial Guide to DBA 2.2+. The interpretations there are as official as it gets for 2.2+. Common practices such as the "two corners" interpretation for shooting and the "rolling carpet" method for determining ZoC continue to be used in 2.2+.
Why did you make so many changes?
We didn't! These are only minor changes.
Why didn't you make more changes?
We made some pretty major changes here, I don't see the problem...
Why did you add new element types?
Please see 2.2+ Design Notes: New Element Types
If you make 3Bd different from 4Bd and 3Sp different from 4Sp, why are 3Ax/4Ax and 3Wb/4Wb/5Wb all the same?
Please see 2.2+ Design Notes: New Element Types
What changes did you consider but eventually reject?
There were many proposed changes that were eventually rejected by the GM list and/or designers. An example of a change that almost made it into 2.2+ but failed to gain consensus was the idea of allowing the use of BUAs as impassible terrain with certain placement restrictions. Enough weird corner cases were found with this proposal that it was decided it was not worth including.
Why did you rebase War Wagons but not other deep elements such as 6Kn?
Changing WWg to use square bases allowed almost all the special rules for WWg to disappear instantly, so it was well worth fixing this in 2.2+. Specifically, the "first side hit is the front" rule, combined with the side being a double-wide front edge, made for really weird situations. Making the base square removes those problems, so the special rules designed to fix the problems can go away. Also, WWg used to be square until they were changed in DBA 2, so this is reverting back to the way most people agreed was better.
There weren't any special rules for 6Kn in 2.2, so there wasn't anything to fix by changing element basing. It's awkward when they turn to face, but that rarely causes any real problems. Front corner measurement for movement makes them far more maneuverable than they were in 2.2.
What about army lists?
A conscious decision was made to maintain the DBA 2.2 army lists for use with the first version of 2.2+. This was not because those lists are perfect and don't need to be updated, but because the scope of the 2.2+ project needed to be limited in order for it to be finished successfully. The 2.2+ changes use the stock DBA 2.2 army lists, with only very minor modifications as listed on the playsheet.
David Kuijt has announced on the Fanaticus forum that a project to create new army lists for 2.2+ is underway. There is no estimated release date for the new army lists at this point, and no more details are available.
What about campaign rules and giant battle DBA?
These elements of the DBA 2.2 rule book were not considered during the 2.2+ revision process. The 2.2+ design process focussed primarily on the tournament formats and rules used when playing DBA, because these are the areas that are in most need of broad consensus across the wider DBA player population. The designers and GM list participants all enjoy campaign and scenario format games, but it is commonly expected for campaigns and scenario games to use special rules and exceptions. It is still encouraged to continue using appropriate scenario-specific modifications wen it improves the game in a specific event or campaign.
Can distant shooting target an enemy element that is flanking a friendly element?
No. Flanking elements are in close combat, and distant shooting cannot target elements that are in close combat contact.
If a bow shoots out of an overlap position, does it still provide an overlap? Or must it choose between overlapping and shooting?
Bows that are an overlap position can both shoot at a valid target and provide an overlap in the same turn.
These are not optional: a bow must always shoot if it has a target, and any element that is in a valid overlap position must provide an overlap.