PDA

View Full Version : Sue Barker and book 1 army lists


David Crenshaw
10-10-2010, 09:12 AM
Hi Ya'll,

Sue has been looking for feedback on her book 1 armies. She keeps mentioning her site and the link to her site, but I don't know how to find either. Does anyone know the address of her site?

Her is the text of her last message that she asked to be posted on fanaticus:

"Sorry about the missing link. I have now corrected this.

I'd like to collect comments on these lists and then move on the the next group. Comments on content, layout, references, allies and enemies.

When I have finished and produced a recommended set, we shall then have to get Phil to approve them.

At the moment he is finishing DBMM Army lists book four and moving more slowly nowadays.

I'm also feeling my age - I've forgotten my password for the Fanaticus list. Could someone please copy this to them?

Sue Laflin-Barker."

Chris Brantley
10-10-2010, 10:01 AM
Thanks Dave.

I've sent Sue a password reminder.

You can find the draft Book I lists on Sue's page at the WRG site.

Here is the direct link: http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/ArmyLists1A.pdf

And her page is at: http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/slb.html

You'll notice one innovation in the draft lists is including DBM style descriptive information for each army list. I like this, although I expect it will add considerable length to the rulebook.

David Kuijt
10-10-2010, 10:13 AM
You'll notice one innovation in the draft lists is including DBM style descriptive information for each army list. I like this, although I expect it will add considerable length to the rulebook.
I like it too, but I would bet money it does not find its way into the final rulebook in any form. It would triple the length of the rulebook, and reduce the sales of the DBMM army books by replicating that material. I think it is extremely unlikely that Phil would go for its inclusion.

David Crenshaw
10-10-2010, 01:08 PM
I wondered about that as well. The only reason I have the DBM army list books is for their description of specific element types in each army. Of course if WRG is defunct those will be going OOP and perhaps including that descriptive information in the new addition could work, though as David points out, the length of the book would make the cost prohibitive.

David C.

The Last Conformist
10-10-2010, 01:36 PM
WRG has risen from the dead*, and will supposedly republish some old stuff. It also already publishes DBMM v2.0 and will presumably publish any new DBA.


* Suggesting that WRG is Horde, and HOTT is actually closer to reality than DBA is.

Susan Laflin-Barker
10-11-2010, 11:27 AM
Thanks Dave for forwarding my message.

And thank you, Chris, for getting me back on this forum.

I agree the descriptions in the army lists will make DBA rather long for the A4 paperback format as used for DBMM. This is a problem we shall have to solve when the time comes. I think DBA needs some descriptive information, but this will never be as long as in DBMM because there is a lot of detail in DBMM which is just not relevant for DBA.

I want the DBA lists to be compatible with those for DBMM but also, where possible, to include options to allow armies for the previous DBA lists to continue in use. I suspect there are a few cases where changes will have to be made, but I want to keep them as few as possible.

I hope you agree with this ambition.

Sue Laflin-Barker.

Nik Gaukroger
10-12-2010, 02:35 AM
I want the DBA lists to be compatible with those for DBMM but also, where possible, to include options to allow armies for the previous DBA lists to continue in use.

Devil in the detail - what does "where possible" actually mean?

For example the 'Abbasid 'Abid have, in the DBMM list, now changed to a completely different troops type from the prior list version - would a new DBA list also have this or would it allow the old, unhistoircal, troop type to be used as an option?

Personally I would like to see only the historical option allowed in such cases (i.e. clear cut new view), others prefer to also allow a previous classification usually on the basis that they don't want to have to rebase/get new troops (often because this will muck up the look of their army).

The Last Conformist
10-12-2010, 03:00 AM
Devil in the detail - what does "where possible" actually mean?

For example the 'Abbasid 'Abid have, in the DBMM list, now changed to a completely different troops type from the prior list version - would a new DBA list also have this or would it allow the old, unhistoircal, troop type to be used as an option?

Personally I would like to see only the historical option allowed in such cases (i.e. clear cut new view), others prefer to also allow a previous classification usually on the basis that they don't want to have to rebase/get new troops (often because this will muck up the look of their army).
In cases like this, I'm with Nik.

David Kuijt
10-12-2010, 09:04 AM
Devil in the detail - what does "where possible" actually mean?

For example the 'Abbasid 'Abid have, in the DBMM list, now changed to a completely different troops type from the prior list version - would a new DBA list also have this or would it allow the old, unhistoircal, troop type to be used as an option?

Personally I would like to see only the historical option allowed in such cases (i.e. clear cut new view)

I'm with Nik and Andreas.

I don't want to rebase. I don't like to rebase. But I'm playing a historical game -- if the old version of Abbasid 'abid is wrong, the army list should reflect the current information, and I'll rebase where I must.

JLogan
10-12-2010, 02:36 PM
I agree the descriptions in the army lists will make DBA rather long for the A4 paperback format as used for DBMM.

Sue Laflin-Barker.

Sue; is changing DBA 3.0 to the new A4 format (ala DBMM) a given? As a DBA only player, I rather like the existing DBA size, especially when playing in 15mm DBA tourneys on 2x2 boards. A4 will be more unwieldy IMO. I am all for more (rather than bigger) pages though, and will gladly pay for it.

Thanks

John

teenage visigoth
01-06-2011, 03:42 PM
Thanks Dave.

I've sent Sue a password reminder.

You can find the draft Book I lists on Sue's page at the WRG site.

Here is the direct link: http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/ArmyLists1A.pdf

And her page is at: http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/slb.html

You'll notice one innovation in the draft lists is including DBM style descriptive information for each army list. I like this, although I expect it will add considerable length to the rulebook.

The above link does not work no more. Any updates?

Martyn
01-06-2011, 04:44 PM
The above link does not work no more. Any updates?

Sue seems to have removed the link from her web page. Presumably the responses to the draft list have dried up so she is working on the next draft, removing the old one to avoid interuption with new ideas.

Hopefully that means that we will get a new draft shortly (ever the optimist).

teenage visigoth
01-06-2011, 05:01 PM
Wow. Indeed, such speed.

Martin Smith
05-12-2011, 07:12 AM
The above link does not work no more. Any updates?

I'm also trying to pin down the lists for 'Book I'. Is there any current way to access them, or does anyone out there have the details of the Early Achaemenid Persian proposed lists?? Any help appreciated.
Martin

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-12-2011, 11:06 AM
I'll second this, as well as respectfully ask if anyone can please post the proposed Sumerian I/1 a,b,c,&d lists if they have them. :up

Martin Smith
05-12-2011, 11:52 AM
Had a reply from Sue. Apparently, the latter part of the Book I lists has yet to receive attention, so my Persian query can't yet be answered.
No idea what the verdict is/was on your Sumerians, however......
Martin

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-12-2011, 01:12 PM
Had a reply from Sue. Apparently, the latter part of the Book I lists has yet to receive attention, so my Persian query can't yet be answered.
No idea what the verdict is/was on your Sumerians, however......
Martin

Thank you for passing that on.

A rather involved search on the Yahoo! page produced an obscure post from someone stating that v3.0 Book I lists 1-16 were unchanged from the v2.2 Book I lists other than having an intro to each army listed, but it'd still be nice to see what the revisions were.

Kingo
06-25-2011, 05:48 PM
Had a reply from Sue. Apparently, the latter part of the Book I lists has yet to receive attention, so my Persian query can't yet be answered.
No idea what the verdict is/was on your Sumerians, however......
Martin

I reckon we may see this lot soon, I'm wanting to build an EAP any thoughts on 1/60 a,b,c ?

Kingo