PDA

View Full Version : Book II lists


Martyn
01-29-2011, 03:12 PM
Sue has posted on yahoo that the approved lists for Book II are on her website.

http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/LISTS%202.pdf

Tony Aguilar
01-29-2011, 03:32 PM
I see that many suggestions were taken, however the II/28ab Armenians are still erroneously listed as enemies of the II/10 Camillan Romans.

ferrency
01-29-2011, 04:04 PM
This seems to be missing armies II/61-II/84.
Is it final, or just the final versions of the first 60 armies in the book?

Alan

john meunier
01-29-2011, 04:59 PM
Thanks for sharing. Interesting to read.

The changes to my beloved Later Carthos are interesting.

I found this bit of text about Camillan Romans quaint:

Each legion usually deployed with levies skirmishing in front with javelins (classed as Psiloi), followed by hastati with pila, sword and scutum (classed as Blades), then by principes with long spear, sword & scutum (classed as Spears) and finally by a reserve of veteran triarii armed like the principes. It is difficult to represent this three-line deployment in the standard 12-element DBA game, but it becomes relevant in the Big-battle or Giant DBA games.

It is possible in BBDBA, but foolish.

Tony Aguilar
01-29-2011, 05:16 PM
Thanks for sharing. Interesting to read.

The changes to my beloved Later Carthos are interesting.



Unfortunately, they are still considered a Littoral terrain type. :???

timurilank
01-29-2011, 05:38 PM
What I have read, I do like. Marian Romans with an aditional option, Classical Indians having the obligatory Horde and Gauls with Cinc as Cv.

Martyn
01-29-2011, 06:31 PM
The changes to my beloved Later Carthos are interesting.

I like the introduction of the option for upgrading Hannibals warband to Ax, but severely restricts the options on Ps. The fixed 2x Cv is also good meaning againt the Polybs they will always have a greater cavalry force unlike before if they selected the Ellies.

Looks good and shows that Sue has done what she promised and has been listening to what people have been saying.:up Thank you Sue.

john meunier
01-29-2011, 07:12 PM
I like the introduction of the option for upgrading Hannibals warband to Ax, but severely restricts the options on Ps. The fixed 2x Cv is also good meaning againt the Polybs they will always have a greater cavalry force unlike before if they selected the Ellies.

Yes, the reduction in Ps is a big change, but I do like the increased Ax for historical reasons.

Rich Gause
01-29-2011, 10:06 PM
I would like to see a blade option to substitute for the spear.

Paul A. Hannah
01-30-2011, 07:23 PM
What I have read, I do like...Classical Indians' having the obligatory Horde...I see Sue's proposed new lists also dispense with the 2xLCh option for the Classical Indians. Also spotted some changes to the II/1 Republican Indian army: An optional, second, Heavy Chariot is among a few changes to that list.

John Loy
01-30-2011, 08:16 PM
Well, that kills those armies. But I never did very well with either of them anyway.

John

Martin Lefebvre
01-30-2011, 09:18 PM
It also looks like Patrician Romans are about to change drastically.

The Western variant list looses it's two Ax and the option between 4Wb and 4Ax (this becomes Warband only), furthermore it losses it's LH and gains 3 Cv, and an option between 4x(Ps or Bw)

From: 1x3Cv or 3Kn (Gen), 1x3Cv or 2LH, 1x4Bd, 2x4Ax, 2x3Kn, 4x4Wb or 4Ax, 1x2Ps
To: 1xKn (Gen), 3xCv, 4xWb, 4x(Ps or Bw)

Personally, I prefer the old list. I loved the warband and Ax combo. I don't know but to me the old list may have a bit more bight than the new one...

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 02:07 AM
I see Sue's proposed new lists also dispense with the 2xLCh option for the Classical Indians
Which is wrong - lighter chariots are better attested for the Indians than the heavy ones (only known for Poros' army).

It also looks like Patrician Romans are about to change drastically.

The Western variant list looses it's two Ax and the option between 4Wb and 4Ax (this becomes Warband only)
Which is distinctly unexpected, as the DBMM list cut down on Wb numbers, having most barbarian federates as Ax or Bd.

jcpotn
01-31-2011, 04:02 AM
It also looks like Patrician Romans are about to change drastically.

The Western variant list looses it's two Ax and the option between 4Wb and 4Ax (this becomes Warband only), furthermore it losses it's LH and gains 3 Cv, and an option between 4x(Ps or Bw)

From: 1x3Cv or 3Kn (Gen), 1x3Cv or 2LH, 1x4Bd, 2x4Ax, 2x3Kn, 4x4Wb or 4Ax, 1x2Ps
To: 1xKn (Gen), 3xCv, 4xWb, 4x(Ps or Bw)

Personally, I prefer the old list. I loved the warband and Ax combo. I don't know but to me the old list may have a bit more bight than the new one...

Can someone post the new Patrician lists, East and West? Thanks in advance.

Jeff

snowcat
01-31-2011, 04:38 AM
I see the Qin are still getting their extra HCh option, more than any other State. This was commented on recently, but has remained as a new change.

Why?

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 05:04 AM
From: 1x3Cv or 3Kn (Gen), 1x3Cv or 2LH, 1x4Bd, 2x4Ax, 2x3Kn, 4x4Wb or 4Ax, 1x2Ps
To: 1xKn (Gen), 3xCv, 4xWb, 4x(Ps or Bw)
Er ... actually that isn't the new Patsy list, it's the Visigothic one. Sue, apparently confused by the numbering change in DBMM, switched the labels around in the draft. The Patsy lists, essentially unchanged in the first draft, is not yet up on the website in updated version. So forget my comment above.

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 05:16 AM
I see the Qin are still getting their extra HCh option, more than any other State. This was commented on recently, but has remained as a new change.

Why?

How you brought this issue to Sue's attention via email? If not, she's likely to be blissfully unaware of the discrepancy.

snowcat
01-31-2011, 05:50 AM
No, I posted it here and on the Yahoo Group.

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 06:05 AM
No, I posted it here and on the Yahoo Group.

She reads the Yahoo group (which in my mind at least counts as email), so she should then have seen it.

(Operative word being "should" - she somehow missed an entire thread about the Pyrrhic draft list, so I guess your mail may simply have been missed too. I'm not sure if the lists now on the WRG site are supposed to be final (modulo typos, one then hopes), but perhaps it's worth raising the issue again.)

Martyn
01-31-2011, 06:23 AM
Had a chance to look through in a bit more detail. A few comments and thoughts on those that caught my eye.

I like the introduction of alternative Generals in a number of the lists. Some of the Greeks get the option of Cv, Gallic get Cv added, Later Carthos get Sp or Cv option. No corresponding option for Polybs Roman though?

Camillan Roman II/10 get a boost with more options plus the inclusion of 2x Ax

Later Carthos II/32 could do with date splits, original list is ok for 1st Punic, revised list works for 2nd Punic, but neither is good for the interwar period (The Mercenaries War) or for post Zama. Both need to be more dependant on the local Libyan or Punic troops with the lack of mercenaries and Ellies.

Ancient Spanish Celtiberian II/39b get the option of 6x Wb or 6x Bd, that will make a difference to the balance of power in the Iberian Peninsular.

I知 not sure if I like the loss of the prefix number for the figures on a base. Is it me or does it loose a lot of the flavour? I know the arguments for and against, but it does not feel right (maybe I知 just being reactionary).

Thanks to Sue for posting the latest thinking it brightened up my day on Saturday when I spotted the post. It shows that some of the comments are having an affect.

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 07:02 AM
I知 not sure if I like the loss of the prefix number for the figures on a base. Is it me or does it loose a lot of the flavour? I know the arguments for and against, but it does not feel right (maybe I知 just being reactionary).
I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, it'll reduce confusion (I've often said "2LH" and been intepreted as "two LH", and vice versa), on the other I liked the way it gave some extra info on how the rules and list writers looked at the troops. It was also helpful for subtype houserules such as the recently much-discussed Light Spear.

For both eating and having the cake I'd suggest DBM(M)-like designations like BdF, SpF, WbF for current 3Bd/3Sp/3Wb. Perhaps WbD (for "deep") for current 5Wb. But this doesn't seem to be the sort of way Sue and Phil want to go.

(I'm wholly in favour, incidentally, of removing the 3/4Bw and 3/4Ax distinctions. Don't feel strongly about 4Kn, tho KnX suggests itself if they were to be retained as typographically distinguished.)

Rong
01-31-2011, 09:24 AM
Looks like the Qin and Han lists were edited as well. Qin extra HCH, and Han loses 3 spear, now 2 bd + 3 bw + 1ax or ps, instead of 3 sp + 3 Bw +1 ps. :sick

Rong
01-31-2011, 09:52 AM
After looking more closely at the lists, it does not list the number of figures per stand. Just the figure depiction, (sp,bd,wb,bw). What ever happened to 3 sp/wb/bd? Are there differences in movement? :???

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 10:03 AM
After looking more closely at the lists, it does not list the number of figures per stand. Just the figure depiction, (sp,bd,wb,bw). What ever happened to 3 sp/wb/bd?

It appears that distinctions like 3/4Bd are going to become optional. There's been lengthy discussions about this, among other places in this thread (http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=9986).

Are there differences in movement? :???


Not sure what you mean?

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 10:04 AM
I知 not sure if I like the loss of the prefix number for the figures on a base. Is it me or does it loose a lot of the flavour? I know the arguments for and against, but it does not feel right (maybe I知 just being reactionary).


I agree.

Like Andreas, I'm happy enough taking out the distinction between 3Bw and 4Bw, or 3Ax and 4Ax, but the single 3Bd of the MIR is added color; same for many other army lists which have them.

And I really have the feeling that 3Sp ought to be differentiated as well.

Richard Lee
01-31-2011, 10:09 AM
What ever happened to 3 sp/wb/bd? Are there differences in movement? :???

In the rules as written, no, 3 spear and 3 blade move as far and have the same combat factors as spear and blade bases with 4 figures on. (Note that because the base depths are slightly different, they recoil further.) However, some people are experimenting with house rules treating 3blade and 3spear slightly differently, though.

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 12:46 PM
Wasn't the move to eliminate listing a specific number of figures per base a direct reaction to DBA players saying they didn't want to be forced to build troops to match DBM(M) armies they didn't own? and that we didn't see why troop types that were not otherwise differentiated in play had to be different depths?

It would be most ironic if the Barkers actually responded to concerns voiced by DBA players only to then be criticised for doing so. :rolleyes It might justify some of Phil's reluctance to take input from us...

Paul A. Hannah
01-31-2011, 12:48 PM
...the single 3Bd of the MIR is added color; same for many other army lists which have them.

Talk about added color... The Aztecs' hat-trick of all three Warband types (4Wb, 5Wb & 3Wb), with their inherent, subtle, tactical differences, will be lost if DBA 3.0 waters them all down to homogenous "Wb". (Sigh.)

ferrency
01-31-2011, 01:02 PM
Wasn't the move to eliminate listing a specific number of figures per base a direct reaction to DBA players saying they didn't want to be forced to build troops to match DBM(M) armies they didn't own? and that we didn't see why troop types that were not otherwise differentiated in play had to be different depths?

I think it was first brought up by Sue, whose very first list updates included the lack of numbers. DBA players just agreed with it for the most part, at the time.

The main point is to increase flexibility when there is no rule difference. Whether there should be a rule difference or not is a different matter that seems unlikely to be addressed by DBA 3.0.

Alan

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 01:39 PM
The main point is to increase flexibility when there is no rule difference. Whether there should be a rule difference or not is a different matter that seems unlikely to be addressed by DBA 3.0.

Many people seem to have assumed that having different base depths *in DBA* was a clever way of intentionally introducing a subtle distinction between different types of the same element. Since no other rules were introduced to distinguish the elements, I have always assumed the opposite--that the only intention was to accommodate DBM players and that no distinction was intended in DBA. The move to do away with differentiating different types of the same element in DBA seems to confirm that.

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 01:41 PM
It would be most ironic if the Barkers actually responded to concerns voiced by DBA players only to then be criticised for doing so. :rolleyes

It would be ironic, if the original idea had come from DBA players; it was a response Sue floated as a partial answer to the usual dread fear of rebasing. Personally, I don't like the idea, and I don't think it answers the dread fear of rebasing -- because most of that is caused by the army list changes, not by whether Aux is 4Ax or 3Ax.

ferrency
01-31-2011, 01:43 PM
Many people seem to have assumed that having different base depths *in DBA* was a clever way of intentionally introducing a subtle distinction between different types of the same element. Since no other rules were introduced to distinguish the elements, I have always assumed the opposite--that the only intention was to accommodate DBM players and that no distinction was intended in DBA. The move to do away with differentiating different types of the same element in DBA seems to confirm that.

I think I agree.

The base depth differences did happen to provide a subtle distinction between troop types, but I don't believe that's why they existed; they came from DBM, and the difference in DBA was coincidental.

Alan

David Schlanger
01-31-2011, 03:12 PM
Talk about added color... The Aztecs' hat-trick of all three Warband types (4Wb, 5Wb & 3Wb), with their inherent, subtle, tactical differences, will be lost if DBA 3.0 waters them all down to homogenous "Wb". (Sigh.)

Let me sigh along with you...

I can't help but feel like it is a way to dumb down a ruleset in order to cater to the eight year old constituency.

DS

john meunier
01-31-2011, 03:44 PM
I think I agree.

The base depth differences did happen to provide a subtle distinction between troop types, but I don't believe that's why they existed; they came from DBM, and the difference in DBA was coincidental.

Alan

Actually, I think they came from WRG 7. DBM - IIRC - came out after DBA.

Many of the differences in the numbers of figures and element depths come from the old WRG rules and were carried forward into DBA and then DBM.

Redwilde
01-31-2011, 03:53 PM
The base depth differences did happen to provide a subtle distinction between troop types, but I don't believe that's why they existed; they came from DBM, and the difference in DBA was coincidental.


Almost. The depths were a legacy from decades of WRG Ancients rules and came into DBA in 1.0, well before DBM.

I've always thought that DBA would have been improved by standard 20x40 base for all infantry, and 40 x 40 for all mounted. Actually given scale creep and chariots, 25 x 50 and 50 x 50 would be better still. Gamewise, that would make the mechanics of turning to face and recoiling more elegant. But with the veteran players legacy armies, rebasing was never a good practical option.

Although it is feasible and practical now to introduce a new standard for 30mm figures.

I very much like the idea of optional figure counts if there is no distinction between an Ax and an Ax in play. It's just freaking annoying to build morphing armies when some Gallic warband are randomly 4WB on 15mm bases, grr.

Any tactical nuances of having differing base depths is purely coincidental and never was a deliberate chosen feature of the rules. Those nuances exist, but are meaningless in the context of the game. So I have no love for them.

But now, if there's house rules making worthwhile rules distinctions between 3/4Sp and 3/4Bd, then they might be useful after all...

neldoreth
01-31-2011, 04:12 PM
I really like the format of these lists. The extra info is pretty nice to have, and I will buy this book even if there is no other reason to buy it! If everyone sticks with DBA 2.2, the army lists in 3.0 will be well worth having just for the extra info!

n.

Victor
01-31-2011, 05:02 PM
Lets not forget the ugly side of specifying figures per element - who wants to be lumbered with 6Kn, etc. On balance, I think it is far better leaving figure numbers unspecified.

Players who want different base depths, numbers etc can still do so. If they are keen enough, they can buy the DBMM army list books, and base figures according to those lists.

Rich Gause
01-31-2011, 05:15 PM
I think having the figs unspecified for basing purposes is fine as long as any archaic basing styles are grandfathered in to 3.0 is fine.

David Schlanger
01-31-2011, 05:37 PM
Lets not forget the ugly side of specifying figures per element - who wants to be lumbered with 6Kn, etc. On balance, I think it is far better leaving figure numbers unspecified.

Players who want different base depths, numbers etc can still do so. If they are keen enough, they can buy the DBMM army list books, and base figures according to those lists.

I will lumber along lovingly with my 6Kn as long as I possibly can, they look damn fine on the battlefield.

By removing the specification of the number of figures per element we are just losing information about the distinctions between different flavors of the same broad class of troop in the army lists.

DS

ferrency
01-31-2011, 05:48 PM
By removing the specification of the number of figures per element we are just losing information about the distinctions between different flavors of the same broad class of troop in the army lists.

I don't necessarily agree. You aren't losing this info, because it was never available in DBA army lists. In order to have information on what the different elements represent, you have always needed to go to the DBM(M) army lists, or at least needed to know the DBM(M) conventions for what different figure counts represented more generally.

A better solution would be: independent of how the elements are represented with specific figure counts, provide information in the DBA army list describing what those elements represent historically. There's no inherent reason to tie the figure count to the choice of figures, or to tie figure count with base depth.

Edit: Again, if the DBA rules differentiated between these types, it would be much more compelling to require them to be different.

Alan

prich
01-31-2011, 06:01 PM
I will lumber along lovingly with my 6Kn as long as I possibly can, they look damn fine on the battlefield.

But they move and fight as the rest of 3Kn, and they are more cumbersome for moving and recoiling.
For me, double based elements are something awkward in the smoothness of DBA
If doubled based elements would add something extra to the game (combat bonus, extra movement, whatever), I will keep them, but IMHO there is no gain in using them.

Maybe a new rule allowing that in certain armies, Bw, Cv and Kn can support the same type of troops would help to see historical troops formations (former 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn)

David Schlanger
01-31-2011, 06:02 PM
I don't necessarily agree. You aren't losing this info, because it was never available in DBA army lists. In order to have information on what the different elements represent, you have always needed to go to the DBM(M) army lists, or at least needed to know the DBM(M) conventions for what different figure counts represented more generally.
Alan

Regardless of this distinction, you are still losing information from the DBA list.


A better solution would be: independent of how the elements are represented with specific figure counts, provide information in the DBA army list describing what those elements represent historically. There's no inherent reason to tie the figure count to the choice of figures, or to tie figure count with base depth.

Saying that there needs to be a solution implies that there is currently a problem, and I just don't see it. I liked the fact that in DBA 2.2, in theory every player who fielded a specific army would look the same from a # of figures and size of base standpoint. Or at least there was a guideline to follow to keep things similar. Now I am afraid we will see people trying to field 1Bd and space dwarves for Classical Indians... no wait, I think we have already seen the dwarves.


Edit: Again, if the DBA rules differentiated between these types, it would be much more compelling to require them to be different.
Alan

With this, I agree completely. Keep the number of figure distinctions (or at least many of them), and include an in game reason for requiring them.

DS

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 06:15 PM
But they move and fight as the rest of 3Kn, and they are more cumbersome for moving and recoiling.
For me, double based elements are something awkward in the smoothness of DBA
If doubled based elements would add something extra to the game (combat bonus, extra movement, whatever), I will keep them, but IMHO there is no gain in using them.

There's a gain in aesthetics. And aesthetics is, in the final analysis, why I play a minis game and not something with cardboard.

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 06:20 PM
Again, if the DBA rules differentiated between these types, it would be much more compelling to require them to be different.

I agree. If I have to have 8Bw or 6Kn, I want something in the rules that makes them different (not just their base depth). Otherwise why have different bases? Elementiae non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

DK's post on Viking house rules makes a decent case for introducing some variation into the troops types in DBA. But if the rules aren't going to go that route (and eventually become something in between DBA and DBMM), let's not have all sorts of different bases for the same element type.

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 06:26 PM
I liked the fact that in DBA 2.2, in theory every player who fielded a specific army would look the same from a # of figures and size of base standpoint.

But at the same time, different armies had the same troop type, which fought the same way (move distance, terrain effect, multimove options, combat factors, combat results, outcome moves) except they might come on wildly different-sized bases. The aesthetics of having the same army played by one player with 3Bw and another with 4Bw bothers you (except, of course, for the whacky options where things like that are list options); to me, even having 3Bw and 4Bw (and 6Bw and 8Bw and probably bloody 16Bw at some point) without them being any different in game terms is what offends my wargaming aesthetic. :)

ferrency
01-31-2011, 06:26 PM
Regardless of this distinction, you are still losing information from the DBA list.

Is your concern with telling the difference between the defined DBA element types? For example, it seems that in DBA 3.0, all of blade, spear, and aux could be modelled with 3 figures on a 20mm base, making them hard to distinguish during play.

Or, are you talking about the difference between the 3Bd and 4Bd in a Viking army, where they do not behave differently in DBA 2.2 despite their representation; but do behave differently if you play with house rules and/or the perfect "DBA 2.3"?

I'm more concerned about the first issue, when playing against armies you aren't familiar with. I would expect the future "least common denominator" to be DBA army packs that provide 3 figures for every kind of unit because it's cheaper. In some armies with some manufacturers, this could make the elements identical.

Alan

David Schlanger
01-31-2011, 06:32 PM
But they move and fight as the rest of 3Kn, and they are more cumbersome for moving and recoiling.
For me, double based elements are something awkward in the smoothness of DBA
If doubled based elements would add something extra to the game (combat bonus, extra movement, whatever), I will keep them, but IMHO there is no gain in using them.

Maybe a new rule allowing that in certain armies, Bw, Cv and Kn can support the same type of troops would help to see historical troops formations (former 8Bw, 6Cv and 6Kn)


All that matters is that they are different... there are PLENTY of 3Kn armies out there if you want the same effectiveness, same movement characteristics, and same recoiling. So what if there 6Kn is more cumbersome? It is something different.. if there is a special rule giving them some benefit for the extra deep formations, fine. If not, they are just different, perhaps slightly less effective... but so what.
And they look damn fine.

DS

David Schlanger
01-31-2011, 06:38 PM
But at the same time, different armies had the same troop type, which fought the same way (move distance, terrain effect, multimove options, combat factors, combat results, outcome moves) except they might come on wildly different-sized bases. The aesthetics of having the same army played by one player with 3Bw and another with 4Bw bothers you (except, of course, for the whacky options where things like that are list options); to me, even having 3Bw and 4Bw (and 6Bw and 8Bw and probably bloody 16Bw at some point) without them being any different in game terms is what offends my wargaming aesthetic. :)

The weakest argument is the distinction for the 3Bw vs. 4Bw. But as we know, the 8Bw was significantly different. There is a real difference between 3WB and 4Wb.

In most cases, where the DBA 2.2 army lists show differences in base sizes and number of figures per base there is an historical reason - movement, terrain effect, combat effectiveness, density of formation, etc. And I don't believe we should just lose that, especially since it is already ALL in there. It is more work to pull out all of those numbers than keep them in.

And if we are lucky enough to get some additional rules to pull those distinctions in the game with different movement or combat effectiveness, whatever... then great! If it all gets removed, it will never happen.

DS

Martin Smith
01-31-2011, 06:39 PM
So what if there 6Kn is more cumbersome? It is something different.. if there is a special rule giving them some benefit for the extra deep formations, fine. If not, they are just different, perhaps slightly less effective... but so what.

DS

I agree - the 6Kn is a good way of making a historically cumbersome type (such as medieval German Kn wedges) difficult to manoeuver in DBA, assuming we keep the requirement to measure movement by furthest moving (?) rear corner.
Martin

john meunier
01-31-2011, 06:45 PM
But they move and fight as the rest of 3Kn, and they are more cumbersome for moving and recoiling.
For me, double based elements are something awkward in the smoothness of DBA
If doubled based elements would add something extra to the game (combat bonus, extra movement, whatever), I will keep them, but IMHO there is no gain in using them.


Playing 6Kn is different from 3Kn. The deeper bases restricts them in ways that 3Kn are not restricted.

So, while it may not give a person an advantage to play 6Kn, it still is a difference.

The deep knight wedges that are represented on some lists by 6Kn were supposedly more clumsy than other knights of the period. The 6Kn does represents that.

ferrency
01-31-2011, 06:48 PM
And if we are lucky enough to get some additional rules to pull those distinctions in the game with different movement or combat effectiveness, whatever... then great! If it all gets removed, it will never happen.

This is a very compelling argument for keeping the figure count distinctions in some cases.

Regarding double bases, I don't feel strongly about them because I don't use them. There are many armies that aren't as inconvenient that I haven't worked my way through yet. I might be more interested in some armies sooner if they didn't have 6Kn's, but in the long run it may be more fulfilling to have a different option once I've exhausted all the "same" options.

Alan

David Schlanger
01-31-2011, 06:52 PM
Is your concern with telling the difference between the defined DBA element types? For example, it seems that in DBA 3.0, all of blade, spear, and aux could be modelled with 3 figures on a 20mm base, making them hard to distinguish during play.

Yes, this is a concern. Some paint jobs are really bad (no offense intended to anyone) and I can see it being very confusing sometime down the road trying to determine what is what when I sit down with some opponents. New players coming in to DBA 3.0 may only want to put 1 or 2 figures on a base... is there any minimum outlined in the new rules? The only reason why experienced players might not even think of that as acceptable is because of experience with previous versions of the rules and an understanding of how DBA is related to other DBx games. New players will not have that to draw upon necessarily.


Or, are you talking about the difference between the 3Bd and 4Bd in a Viking army, where they do not behave differently in DBA 2.2 despite their representation; but do behave differently if you play with house rules and/or the perfect "DBA 2.3"?

It would be great to have this too! I can tell you that if it gets removed it will be that much harder to ever move in this direction rule-wise. And very hard to make house rules work for tight themes and things like that. If everyone has armies with different numbers of figs per base for the exact same kind of troop, how would one ever apply a special theme rule that calls out this kind of thing?


I'm more concerned about the first issue, when playing against armies you aren't familiar with. I would expect the future "least common denominator" to be DBA army packs that provide 3 figures for every kind of unit because it's cheaper. In some armies with some manufacturers, this could make the elements identical.


I am concerned with it all. I am concerned that we are having big changes made to DBA 2.2 which is already very close to being a perfect game. Those changes are being made without enough input from DBA players. Those changes are being made by people that haven't grown DBA or given as much to DBA as MANY people on this forum over the last decade, and I find it infinitely frustrating.

The issues regarding stripping out the number of figures from the army lists started from a discussion that centered around the concerns over rebasing. And I just don't think rebasing fears are a good enough reason to remove the unique charm from so many of these lists. And that is what seems to be happening.

DS

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 06:53 PM
The weakest argument is the distinction for the 3Bw vs. 4Bw. But as we know, the 8Bw was significantly different. There is a real difference between 3WB and 4Wb.

But there's not in the game, and never has been.

In most cases, where the DBA 2.2 army lists show differences in base sizes and number of figures per base there is an historical reason - movement, terrain effect, combat effectiveness, density of formation, etc. And I don't believe we should just lose that,

But we're not losing it, because it's not there!

especially since it is already ALL in there.

But it ISN'T!

It is more work to pull out all of those numbers than keep them in.

No, it's more work to invent rules to reflect the differences between those types than to simply eliminate the irrational (in terms of the *rules*) basing.

And if we are lucky enough to get some additional rules to pull those distinctions in the game with different movement or combat effectiveness, whatever... then great! If it all gets removed, it will never happen.

I see *no* sign that the authors plan to pull those rules in. They beleive that if people want that level of detail, they'll play DBM(M).

I'm not opposed to adding those rules in myself. But if that's *not* going to happen, I *would* like to see those variant base depths go away or at least not be mandatory. Despite the opinions DK's expressed, what I've had most trouble with over the different editions (what I still haven't caught up with with all my armies) is not adding new elements but rebasing those damn existing elements that someone's decided have to change from 3 to 4 or from 4 to 8 or from 3 to 6. I loathe it all with a deep loathing and I want it to GO AWAY! If it has nothing to do with how the elements play, it's POINTLESS.

IMHO. :D

David Schlanger
01-31-2011, 06:58 PM
I agree - the 6Kn is a good way of making a historically cumbersome type (such as medieval German Kn wedges) difficult to manoeuver in DBA, assuming we keep the requirement to measure movement by furthest moving (?) rear corner.
Martin

Even if we move BACK to furthest front corner (which we should)... they are still more cumbersome as they take up more physical space on the board.

DS

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 07:04 PM
Even if we move BACK to furthest front corner (which we should)... they are still more cumbersome as they take up more physical space on the board.

DS

But... DS... aren't you advocating for a change that would remove some of the essential nature of the element by measuring from only the front corners? There's a historical reason for the depth of those double-based stands, and if we only measure from the front corners, won't we we'll be losing some of the crucial historical record? :silly

ferrency
01-31-2011, 07:05 PM
New players coming in to DBA 3.0 may only want to put 1 or 2 figures on a base... is there any minimum outlined in the new rules?

I don't know if anyone has seen the final version of the basing chart, but the most recently available version looked basically like the HotT chart: "3-4 figures, 15-20mm" and that sort of thing. There was also the specification that "anything valid in DBMM is valid in DBA" because so many people will care about that sort of thing (especially if they're playing DBA as a gateway to DBMM).

The only reason why experienced players might not even think of that as acceptable is because of experience with previous versions of the rules and an understanding of how DBA is related to other DBx games. New players will not have that to draw upon necessarily.

I wouldn't worry about 1-2 figures per element.

You seem concerned that new players may bring new expectations to the game, and may change the community culture. I would say that if DBA 3.0 brings enough new players to change the community culture significantly, it will have succeeded beyond the community's wildest dreams.

I am concerned with it all. I am concerned that we are having big changes made to DBA 2.2 which is already very close to being a perfect game. Those changes are being made without enough input from DBA players.

The figures per base debate seemed to be one of the areas that was discussed the most between Sue and the Fanaticus population. In this case, the discussion didn't work the way you wanted it to. It obviously doesn't mean you're wrong, it may only mean your opinions were in the minority, and/or that your superior experience was being drowned out by the cries of the unwashed masses.

Alan

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 07:38 PM
There's a gain in aesthetics. And aesthetics is, in the final analysis, why I play a minis game and not something with cardboard.

Right on, Andreas. Testify!

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 07:42 PM
But... DS... aren't you advocating for a change that would remove some of the essential nature of the element by measuring from only the front corners? There's a historical reason for the depth of those double-based stands, and if we only measure from the front corners, won't we we'll be losing some of the crucial historical record? :silly

Jan, you would do your previous arguments a better service if you didn't dilute them with this sort of thing.

ferrency
01-31-2011, 07:48 PM
The figures per base debate seemed to be one of the areas that was discussed the most between Sue and the Fanaticus population. In this case, the discussion didn't work the way you wanted it to.

I may have stumbled onto an argument in support of Phil's current rule development model. I may have to shift my concerns about the lack of communication into concerns about finding the best author for the rules.

Alan

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 07:48 PM
The figures per base debate seemed to be one of the areas that was discussed the most between Sue and the Fanaticus population. In this case, the discussion didn't work the way you wanted it to. It obviously doesn't mean you're wrong, it may only mean your opinions were in the minority, and/or that your superior experience was being drowned out by the cries of the unwashed masses.


Actually, I'm not sure that discussion had any conclusion worth noting. Several people posted multiple times in revulsion or fear of rebasing -- a normal, even common fear. Sue's suggestion was also commonly misunderstood as being a solution to rebasing, when it is nothing of the kind. Most rebasing does not happen when Auxilia is reclassified from 3Ax to 4Ax, or from 3Bw to 4Bw, to which Jan's earlier note "loathe it all with a deep loathing" is a typical response. Most rebasing happens when an existing army list is modified -- when the DBA 1.1 Early Armenians with 4x 4Kn and 2x 2LH became the DBA 2.0 Early Armenians with 2x 4Kn and 4x 2LH. Or when the existing Later Carthage list is split (as several people have quite reasonably suggested it should be) into three or four sublists to better represent the history of Later Carthage. And Sue's "data removal" proposal will have absolutely no impact on that type of rebasing.

ferrency
01-31-2011, 08:12 PM
Actually, I'm not sure that discussion had any conclusion worth noting.

I think there are the practical conclusions and the theoretical ones.

From a theoretical standpoint, the arguments you and DS present are compelling, and I'm coming to agree with you, including everything you state here:

... Most rebasing does not happen when Auxilia is reclassified from 3Ax to 4Ax, or from 3Bw to 4Bw... [it] happens when an existing army list is modified... And Sue's "data removal" proposal will have absolutely no impact on that type of rebasing.

However, the practical conclusion of the discussion cited above is: the rules were changed in a way that does not match your arguments. This practical conclusion is certainly worth noting.

Again, I consider this whole episode to be an argument against designing rules by consensus.

Edit: However, to be fair, the very first army list Sue brought to the group was missing the element count numbers, before any opinions were solicited about the quality of the revision. The rule change may have been a foregone conclusion.

Alan

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 08:22 PM
However, the practical conclusion of the discussion cited above is: the rules changed in a way that does not match your arguments. This practical conclusion is certainly worth noting.

Again, I consider this whole episode to be an argument against designing rules by consensus.



Worth noting, yes. But I would point out two things.

First, Sue herself has mentioned that she has not gotten approval for her idea from Phil yet. That makes it difficult for me to get up in arms about this issue -- if this idea is not from Phil, and we (the debaters) do not even know if it will be adopted, then the whole discussion will have been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Second, there was no consensus. This is a bulletin board (or email list, if we include the yahoo group, where this idea was also discussed). Volume and vehemence are often mistaken for consensus on this sort of forum. Just as silence is often mistaken for consent. Something like 3-5 people posting multiple times loudly is not the same thing as everyone agreeing. This is not to dismiss their arguments, or the strong emotional basis for their feelings -- it is just an observation that it is nearly impossible to reach anything that can be objectively considered a consensus on a forum such as this. The DBA playing community took several years of actual play and trial and pain to finally come to the conclusion that the BUA rules were broken -- and it still comes up every few months with someone posting "BUA ain't so bad...". Expecting a bare two months of discussion (especially where we cannot even gauge the feelings of the primary author on the issue) to come to a consensus is unrealistic. Hell, many participants on this forum don't visit more than a handful of times a month -- they may have missed the debate entirely, or just didn't have the time to participate energetically.

ferrency
01-31-2011, 08:53 PM
First, Sue herself has mentioned that she has not gotten approval for her idea from Phil yet.

While true, the army list revisions for most of book 2 and portions of book 1 and 3 were without figure counts. From a simple editing standpoint, it's much harder to put these back than to remove them, so I suppose I was assuming that Sue's revisions were approved.


Second, there was no consensus. This is a bulletin board (or email list, if we include the yahoo group, where this idea was also discussed). Volume and vehemence are often mistaken for consensus on this sort of forum. Just as silence is often mistaken for consent.

Again, I cite the difference between theory and practice. If the forum is all the authors have to work with, if they limit the revisions to an artificially short time frame, and/or if they come to the party with built-in biases against certain contributors, then the practical result they reach will not reflect the theoretical reality we strive for.

All of this is basically saying: I agree with you; I only think you may underestimate the power of a mob to break the things you enjoy, even if that mob doesn't reach quorum.

Alan

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 09:18 PM
While true, the army list revisions for most of book 2 and portions of book 1 and 3 were without figure counts. From a simple editing standpoint, it's much harder to put these back than to remove them, so I suppose I was assuming that Sue's revisions were approved.


Maybe -- hard to tell, especially with the infrequent interaction with Sue.

Personally, I lay no bets either way. If Phil hasn't seen the idea, it isn't easy to predict what he'll think of it.


Again, I cite the difference between theory and practice. If the forum is all the authors have to work with, if they limit the revisions to an artificially short time frame, and/or if they come to the party with built-in biases against certain contributors, then the practical result they reach will not reflect the theoretical reality we strive for.

All of this is basically saying: I agree with you; I only think you may underestimate the power of a mob to break the things you enjoy, even if that mob doesn't reach quorum.


Since Phil has the final say, and is even less impressed with social pressure than I (and more oblivious to it, not even frequenting this forum), the mob ultimately has no power over him.

Which is not particularly reassuring to me -- Phil has also shown great ability to resist input from any other source. Perhaps he should be best envisioned as an amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity葉he boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.
(Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness, p308)

Victor
01-31-2011, 09:18 PM
I think that the proposed new basing system is a win-win for all, those who want the double sized bases, or 3 Bd instead of 4 and on a deeper base can still use them if they wish. Those who don't want to base this way don't have to.

So I'm not sure what all this consternation is about.

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 09:20 PM
So I'm not sure what all this consternation is about.

Turning everything into the same? Boring.

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 09:20 PM
Jan, you would do your previous arguments a better service if you didn't dilute them with this sort of thing.

I'm not allowed to make a joke? My, we are all getting po-faced. Lighten up! :V

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 09:24 PM
I'm not allowed to make a joke? My, we are all getting po-faced. Lighten up! :V

Friendly advice, Jan. You don't need permission to post something, and whether or not it makes you look like a snide booger-head or a witty luminary isn't under anyone's control but your own.

winterbadger
01-31-2011, 09:32 PM
You don't need permission to post something, and whether or not it makes you look like a snide booger-head or a witty luminary isn't under anyone's control but your own.

As you so effectively demonstrate. :up

david kuijt
01-31-2011, 09:51 PM
As you so effectively demonstrate. :up

Even if only your understanding is advanced thereby, I shall still feel I have achieved something in this life.

Andreas Johansson
02-01-2011, 02:18 AM
Tangentially, I am frustrated by Sue's modus operandi for updating the lists. She solicits suggestions, which sometimes get adopted, but when they don't, you don't know why it's been rejected, and she doesn't answer requests for guidelines for how list work is supposed to be done. Believe it or not, Phil's approach to the DBMM lists was a good deal more transparent.

Martyn
02-01-2011, 02:12 PM
First, Sue herself has mentioned that she has not gotten approval for her idea from Phil yet. That makes it difficult for me to get up in arms about this issue -- if this idea is not from Phil, and we (the debaters) do not even know if it will be adopted, then the whole discussion will have been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Just for information this is what Sue said back in August.

Latest version is now on my website.

I repeat IT DOES NOT REQUIRE RE-BASING.

If most of you are happy, I will leave it at that, at least until Phil has time to look at it.

Sue.


and hopefully this is a picture of the base sizes table that she had on her web page, this has now been removed so how relevant it is I don't know.

http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/picture.php?albumid=2&pictureid=73

jcpotn
02-01-2011, 02:19 PM
Can someone post the new Patrician lists, East and West? Thanks in advance.

Jeff

Have the lists been updated yet? :???

Jeff

JLogan
02-01-2011, 07:06 PM
The weakest argument is the distinction for the 3Bw vs. 4Bw. But as we know, the 8Bw was significantly different. There is a real difference between 3WB and 4Wb.




But there's not in the game, and never has been.
:D

But surely there is? 3Wb recoil/pursue different base depths to 4Wb. This can make a difference, especially when they come to pursue Bw that they have just recoiled.

winterbadger
02-01-2011, 07:16 PM
But surely there is? 3Wb recoil/pursue different base depths to 4Wb. This can make a difference, especially when they come to pursue Bw that they have just recoiled.

There is no difference in their movement rates, their combat factors, their combat outcomes (beaten vs. doubled), or the effect of terrain on them...functionally there is only 5mm of distance recoiled or pursued, which is significant in only a very few situations. The difference in base size is largely an afterthought, an evolutionary dead-end in DBA--it's the residuum of basing for other rules sets where the base depth is only one, perhaps the least one, of the differences between element variants. I doubt that if the WRG gaming community didn't already have hundreds and thousands of armies based up that there would even be any variant base depths in DBA.

Bardolph
02-01-2011, 09:59 PM
functionally there is only 5mm of distance recoiled or pursued, which is significant in only a very few situations

Yeah, only when they fight 3Bd, 3Sp, 3Aux, 4Aux, 3Bw, 4Bw, 3Wb, or 2Ps. :D

winterbadger
02-02-2011, 02:20 AM
Yeah, only when they fight 3Bd, 3Sp, 3Aux, 4Aux, 3Bw, 4Bw, 3Wb, or 2Ps. :D

Nope. .....

David Schlanger
02-02-2011, 09:49 AM
Yeah, only when they fight 3Bd, 3Sp, 3Aux, 4Aux, 3Bw, 4Bw, 3Wb, or 2Ps. :D

Yep ......

Rich Gause
02-02-2011, 12:22 PM
Yeah, only when they fight 3Bd, 3Sp, 3Aux, 4Aux, 3Bw, 4Bw, 3Wb, or 2Ps. :D

Makes no difference when fighting 3Bd, or 3Sp as they never recoil from frontal contact with Wb... Anyway the new basing rules above say all Wb is going to be on 20mm bases.

winterbadger
02-02-2011, 12:27 PM
Makes no difference when fighting 3Bd, or 3Sp as they never recoil from frontal contact with Wb...

Thank you for clarifying the point I was only incoherently able to voice when I stumbled in very late this morning...

David Schlanger
02-02-2011, 02:16 PM
Makes no difference when fighting 3Bd, or 3Sp as they never recoil from frontal contact with Wb... Anyway the new basing rules above say all Wb is going to be on 20mm bases.

What about 8Bw, 5Wb and 6Kn...

Let's hope the new basing rules are not Phil approved. Losing all reference to DBA Subtypes is a move in the wrong direction.

DS

winterbadger
02-02-2011, 02:32 PM
What about 8Bw, 5Wb and 6Kn...

Let's hope the new basing rules are not Phil approved. Losing all reference to DBA Subtypes is a move in the wrong direction.

DS

On the one hand, given the effort I've put into replacing my Fatimid and T'ang Bw with 8Bw, and all the other changes to accommodate odd-sized basing schemes, I'd be annoyed to have it all go away again.

But I still find it annoying to have all these odd sized base variants that have no game effect other than to make the elements more difficult to move. Especially when, at DBA's scale, I really doubt whether things like the 6 Kn stand represent anything like their real footprint.

It's very difficult to decide whether I'd be more cheesed off at their going away or at their being maintained without any special rules for them. Making them completely optional, as they seem to be tending, seems like the least bad option.

Incidentally, the comment about how to deal with 28mm+ figures ("keep the same base width while...using fewer figures or deeper bases") and the traditional proviso that "Base size is not critical provided that all bases have the same frontage and both armies use the same conventions" suggests that the authors don't think base depths are all that significant.

Rich Gause
02-02-2011, 02:34 PM
What about 8Bw, 5Wb and 6Kn...

Let's hope the new basing rules are not Phil approved. Losing all reference to DBA Subtypes is a move in the wrong direction.

DS

I don't mind the recommended basing being taken directly from DBMM so that people can play both games with the same figures. With the differences still existing there I find it difficult to believe that DBA 3.0 basing would be incompatible with DBMM. I would mind if basing changes were required of already based DBA armies soley for the purposes of making them conform to DBMM changes a blurb about legal basing for previous versions being allowed even if no longer recommended should be sufficient.

david kuijt
02-02-2011, 02:48 PM
With the differences still existing there I find it difficult to believe that DBA 3.0 basing would be incompatible with DBMM.

What's ironic about this whole thing is that the "ignore figure count" idea will, in the long run, tend to make it impossible for DBA players to switch over to sister systems like DBMM. It would be easy for DBMM players to shift to DBA (since figure count would be ignored), but the shift the other direction would be possible only so long as inertia continues to support existing figure counts. Three years down the road some DBA player who wants to use his Romans in DBMM will find that it is impossible without major rebasing, as he won't have based them correctly for the same army in the sister system.

Not that I'm ever likely to play DBMM -- but it seems like short-sightedness if they want to retain any linkage between the two systems.

ferrency
02-02-2011, 02:54 PM
Making them completely optional, as they seem to be tending, seems like the least bad option.

The reason I've come to mostly agree with DS on this issue is that removing (or making optional) the different figure counts also removes the potential of making the elements different in the rules in the future.

Yes, if you install an elevator, some people will still use the stairs; but most people will use the elevator. Similarly: if you make 8Bw optional, some people might still build these elements, but most will just use 3Bw on a shallow base. This means that any future rule changes that might differentiate 8Bw and 3Bw will be much more difficult to adopt.

If we need an argument that may be more compelling to Phil: removing the figure counts from DBA means DBA players will be less able to turn their armies into DBMM armies, because the element types won't match.

Alan

winterbadger
02-02-2011, 02:56 PM
The reason I've come to mostly agree with DS on this issue is that removing (or making optional) the different figure counts also removes the potential of making the elements different in the rules in the future.

I would find that more compelling if I thought there were *any* chance that would ever happen. But if it doesn't happen now, when Phil seems to be so fixated on DBMM, I can't imagine it happening at some point in the future.

David Schlanger
02-02-2011, 03:08 PM
I would find that more compelling if I thought there were *any* chance that would ever happen. But if it doesn't happen now, when Phil seems to be so fixated on DBMM, I can't imagine it happening at some point in the future.

But that's not entirely what is at stake here. Put aside DBA as a whole, and think of a focused theme event for MIR and enemies. The Middle Imperial Roman list currently allows for an element of 3Bd which historically represents something quite different from the other 4Bd elements. Five years from now, if a GM wants to run a theme with a special rule for these elements, then it has become much harder to add specific flavor to a focused event if we have lost a DBA reference to the fact that this "different" element even exists. It becomes even more difficult when we have new DBA players over that time period just building "generic" Blade elements for their Middle Imperial Roman list to the point where the GM can't count on more than a small number of the players he might draw having the appropriate figures represented in their army to support the extra historical flavor. This is just one example of course...

DS

Rich Gause
02-02-2011, 03:20 PM
But that's not entirely what is at stake here. Put aside DBA as a whole, and think of a focused theme event for MIR and enemies. The Middle Imperial Roman list currently allows for an element of 3Bd which historically represents something quite different from the other 4Bd elements. Five years from now, if a GM wants to run a theme with a special rule for these elements, then it has become much harder to add specific flavor to a focused event if we have lost a DBA reference to the fact that this "different" element even exists. It becomes even more difficult when we have new DBA players over that time period just building "generic" Blade elements for their Middle Imperial Roman list to the point where the GM can't count on more than a small number of the players he might draw having the appropriate figures represented in their army to support the extra historical flavor. This is just one example of course...

DS

That makes sense and I agree with you that the DBA army lists should include the figure designations as recommendations and should closely follow the DBMM lists, but that somebody using an archaic basing or a base of the correct type but wrong figures should be made explicitly legal.

david kuijt
02-02-2011, 03:49 PM
[...] but that somebody using an archaic basing or a base of the correct type but wrong figures should be made explicitly legal.

I agree with the sentiment, but not that it should be written into the rules.

Every GM should allow some flexibility on this issue, doubly so the first year or two after army list changes. And frankly, to the best of my understanding, every GM I know would do so, regardless of the rules.

But should "correct types but wrong figures" be in the rules as allowable? Why? I would say that even now, a decade after the v2.0 army list changes occurred, I still see a couple of times a convention where someone has forgotten an element and has to sub in another element -- sometimes from another army, sometimes half-way to Space Dwarves. Is it ever a problem? No.

So even though I agree with your sentiment, Rich, and even though I would always be flexible as a GM, doubly so after the army lists change, I think this falls into the realm of "don't legislate against problems that don't need fixing." The solutions we have now are adequate to handle the issue of people unhappily playing with armies they haven't rebased. It doesn't require law.

Rich Gause
02-02-2011, 04:26 PM
I agree with the sentiment, but not that it should be written into the rules.

Every GM should allow some flexibility on this issue, doubly so the first year or two after army list changes. And frankly, to the best of my understanding, every GM I know would do so, regardless of the rules.

But should "correct types but wrong figures" be in the rules as allowable? Why? I would say that even now, a decade after the v2.0 army list changes occurred, I still see a couple of times a convention where someone has forgotten an element and has to sub in another element -- sometimes from another army, sometimes half-way to Space Dwarves. Is it ever a problem? No.

So even though I agree with your sentiment, Rich, and even though I would always be flexible as a GM, doubly so after the army lists change, I think this falls into the realm of "don't legislate against problems that don't need fixing." The solutions we have now are adequate to handle the issue of people unhappily playing with armies they haven't rebased. It doesn't require law.

I understand your POV and agree that it works up until the point somebody decides not to be reasonable. Almost every time somebody writes a law, rule,or procedure that is not explicit or accurrate enough with the idea that common sense will be used in its implementation or enforcement it eventually gets ruined by somebody being unreasonable, standing on the letter of the written document and refusing to be swayed by common sense or even civility. Now I know that wouldn't be a problem at an HMGS East or South event at least with the current groups at both venues, BUT, I know there is some group of people somewhere that will someday try to play a DBA event that has a loud demanding rules lawyer type that will try to not allow people to play with misbased elements because they are not legal. He may even be the person running the event or there may not be somebody cabable of dealing with his nonsense in the group and as a result the growth of the DBA community may suffer some. Careful rules writing with the idea that they will be played without reasonableness or common sense(when in actuality they mostly will be played with them) minimizes the difficulties caused when either quality is lacking.

neldoreth
02-02-2011, 04:40 PM
In all honesty, I think having a single base size and figure count for each different unit type is the best way to go for clarity and ease of use.

It would be annoying yes, especially since I've made several different sized warbands, etc. and learned the subtle differences to using them, etc. But it makes more sense. Why build in possible future adaptations or possible cross-over ability from one game to another when there is no need? And indeed there is little likelihood that there will be future distinctiions between base-depths, and also it's unlikely that anyone plays both DBA and DBMM :)

That's my 2cents.
n.

david kuijt
02-02-2011, 04:45 PM
I understand your POV and agree that it works up until the point somebody decides not to be reasonable.


[...]


Now I know that wouldn't be a problem at an HMGS East or South event at least with the current groups at both venues, BUT, I know there is some group of people somewhere that will someday try to play a DBA event that has a loud demanding rules lawyer type that will try to not allow people to play with misbased elements because they are not legal.


But this isn't something you can fix with rules.

You say that inserting that rule might save us on some future occasion from a loud demanding rules lawyer being an ass and saying someone cannot play with misbased elements. Might happen.

And if we DO put that rule in? The same loud demanding rules lawyer might equally insist that he be allowed to play with any army list he likes, because it says so in the rules.

You cannot save yourself from rules lawyers by writing more law, and more special cases.

david kuijt
02-02-2011, 04:54 PM
In all honesty, I think having a single base size and figure count for each different unit type is the best way to go for clarity and ease of use.

It would be annoying yes, especially since I've made several different sized warbands, etc. and learned the subtle differences to using them, etc. But it makes more sense. Why build in possible future adaptations or possible cross-over ability from one game to another when there is no need?

So for you, there is no need for cross-game compatibility, and you have no interest in subtlety of figure type distinctions (like the fast blade of the Middle Imperial Roman list).

Personally, I couldn't care less about cross-game compatibility, because I don't play DBMM. But I know it is a priority for Phil, or always has been in the past.

I don't agree with your attitude regarding discarding all differentiation of figure types, however. I like the visual element of the game, and the history of armies. If that isn't your thing, no problem -- but the change you advocate hurts people like me more than it gives a benefit to people like you.

Rich Gause
02-02-2011, 04:58 PM
In all honesty, I think having a single base size and figure count for each different unit type is the best way to go for clarity and ease of use.

It would be annoying yes, especially since I've made several different sized warbands, etc. and learned the subtle differences to using them, etc. But it makes more sense. Why build in possible future adaptations or possible cross-over ability from one game to another when there is no need? And indeed there is little likelihood that there will be future distinctiions between base-depths, and also it's unlikely that anyone plays both DBA and DBMM :)

That's my 2cents.
n.

I don't think your observation that nobody plays both DBA and DBMM is very accurate. Indeed the only people playtesting DBA 3.0 so far were selected especially for that characterisitic. I don't like the idea that all bow for example have the same number of figures on a base but I do like the idea that there is nothing wrong with using a 3, 4, 6,or 8 bow for any bow listed in the army lists. When I did my big Arab morph army for example I just ignored the 6 Bow and decided to use 8 bow instead, same size base, 2 more figures no big deal.

ferrency
02-02-2011, 05:08 PM
The problem with a permissive rule explicitly allowing any figure count is that painters and army pack manufacturers will tend to use the least figures possible, because they're all cheap, lazy bastards. Damn humans.

This is not a concern when the problem is solved with restrictive rules and permissive GMs instead.

Alan

Rich Gause
02-02-2011, 05:34 PM
The problem with a permissive rule explicitly allowing any figure count is that painters and army pack manufacturers will tend to use the least figures possible, because they're all cheap, lazy bastards. Damn humans.

This is not a concern when the problem is solved with restrictive rules and permissive GMs instead.

Alan

The Army pack manufaturers is a good point, I don't see how they can only do 1 set of options now and not inform you that you can only build that with an army pack.

Andreas Johansson
02-03-2011, 02:04 AM
The problem with a permissive rule explicitly allowing any figure count is that painters and army pack manufacturers will tend to use the least figures possible, because they're all cheap, lazy bastards. Damn humans.
I must be an alien - about half my 7Hd stands have eight figures on them. :silly

peachy
02-03-2011, 02:58 AM
I note the lack of mandatory artillery in these lists, which pleases me (especially with regards to the early Imps, my next project - for HoTT, granted.) In my opinion, if Art wasn't mandatory in the DBM list, there was no reason for it to be mandatory for the corresponding DBA army.

ferrency
02-03-2011, 10:13 AM
I must be an alien - about half my 7Hd stands have eight figures on them. :silly

As I said: some people take the stairs, but most people take the elevator. :up

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 10:50 AM
I don't agree with your attitude regarding discarding all differentiation of figure types, however. I like the visual element of the game, and the history of armies. If that isn't your thing, no problem -- but the change you advocate hurts people like me more than it gives a benefit to people like you.

I can't speak for how much it hurts you, but it would certainly make learning the game much easier for people, and quickly identifying unit types would also be much easier, faster, and more deterministic. That being said, I am all for grandfathering in all of the old basing schemes.

I like the visual element of the game and the history of the armies as well... But how does the base depth and figure count actually represent that? I remember DK when you yourself pointed out that there is no correlation between the number of troops an element represents and the number of figures on that element.

So are these little distinctions really a representation of historical armies? Or are they really just there so that DBMM players can play the odd DBA game once in a while if they feel the desire since they all represent different unit types in that game? Meanwhile, DBA players have to simply implement them as described even though they will never understand why because they don't play DBMM?

Of course, even though I've just written a small short story above, I'm not really all that committed either way. I just think it would be a lot easier and make a lot more sense :)

n.

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 10:53 AM
I don't think your observation that nobody plays both DBA and DBMM is very accurate. Indeed the only people playtesting DBA 3.0 so far were selected especially for that characterisitic.

I would point out that, based on what I've read on this site, none of those playtesters are really involved in or committed to the DBA community or to the game itself. Hasn't that been one of the major gripes from this community so far?

Also, keeping the compatibility is really just doing a favour to the DBMM crowd, so that they can have a DBA game once in a while and not be put out. It certainly isn't for the committed DBA crowd, who have to put up with the little differences for no discernible reason...

I could be way off base here though, correct me if I'm wrong!

n.

Martyn
02-03-2011, 11:00 AM
I would point out that, based on what I've read on this site, none of those playtesters are really involved in or committed to the DBA community or to the game itself. Hasn't that been one of the major gripes from this community so far?

I don't think Andreas or Doug would agree. :eek

They seem very committed to DBA.

Foge
02-03-2011, 11:40 AM
I could be way off base here though, correct me if I'm wrong!


I think you might be wrong. :)

FWIW, the Pittsburgh group all plays both DBA and DBM. Heck, some of the crazy among us even play FoG! Being able to interchangeably use the figures is pretty awesome.

When I paint an army, I usually start with a DBA army and then add figures to first make it DBM size. If I had to base the figures differently, I doubt if I would even paint the DBA army, since I already have more figures than time. :eek

All this is anecdotal, but remember, the sample taken on Fanaticus is pretty heavily biased towards DBA. :)

Later,
Kevin

Andreas Johansson
02-03-2011, 11:56 AM
I would point out that, based on what I've read on this site, none of those playtesters are really involved in or committed to the DBA community or to the game itself. Hasn't that been one of the major gripes from this community so far?
You are, in your own words, way off base. Both Doug and I are regular posters on this very forum and actively engaged in organizing DBA tournaments and the like. To say we're not "really involved" is absurd.

Also, keeping the compatibility is really just doing a favour to the DBMM crowd, so that they can have a DBA game once in a while and not be put out. It certainly isn't for the committed DBA crowd, who have to put up with the little differences for no discernible reason...
Most committed DBA players, I submit, already have multiple armies based to the old standards that would have to be rebased to conform to a simplified scheme. The primary beneficiaries of simplification would be new players.

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 12:02 PM
You are, in your own words, way off base.

Andreas! I never said I was way off base ;) Okay, present company being an exception.

n.

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 12:05 PM
Most committed DBA players, I submit, already have multiple armies based to the old standards that would have to be rebased to conform to a simplified scheme. The primary beneficiaries of simplification would be new players.

Partly true! I am all for grandfathering in all old basing.

Or for that matter, opening up basing. Make the depths 'suggested' and not hard and fast at all. That way you DBMMers can have your DBMM bases and people like myself can keep things simple and DBA oriented! Or, I would make a 80mm deep column of screaming celtic warbands! On second thought, I take that back ;)

n.

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 12:16 PM
I like the visual element of the game and the history of the armies as well... But how does the base depth and figure count actually represent that? I remember DK when you yourself pointed out that there is no correlation between the number of troops an element represents and the number of figures on that element.

You're missing the point, I think. Making all Warband into 3Wb destroys the distinction between the Otomi mercenaries and the regular Aztec army. Making all Blade into 3Bd (or 4Bd, whatever) destroys the distinction between the Lanciarii and the Legio in the Middle Imperial Roman army. Making all Spear into 4Sp destroys the distinction between the Brigans and the rank and file Spear in the Feudal English and Medieval French armies. And so on, and so on, and so on, for half a hundred armies in the army lists.

When Sue first suggested this idea, a couple of months ago, I wasn't sure about it. Now I'm pretty sure I don't like it. We play a visual game -- the Generic Standard is a bad thing.


So are these little distinctions really a representation of historical armies? Or are they really just there so that DBMM players can play the odd DBA game once in a while if they feel the desire since they all represent different unit types in that game?

This isn't Warhammer. The game developers didn't invent "Lanciarii" or "Otomi" or "Brigans" or whatever. You might want to debate with the authors whether the Lanciari should be distinct from the Legio, or not -- but be clear with yourself when you do so, whether you are trying to stamp all history into a generic mold for your own purpose, or whether you truly have read the primary sources and are engaged in a historical debate about how the Lanciari were used in the battle of Milvian Bridge, and whether contemporaries treated the Lanciarii as different from the Legio.

ferrency
02-03-2011, 12:41 PM
Making all Warband into 3Wb destroys the distinction between the Otomi mercenaries and the regular Aztec army. Making all Blade into 3Bd (or 4Bd, whatever) destroys the distinction between the Lanciarii and the Legio in the Middle Imperial Roman army. Making all Spear into 4Sp destroys the distinction between the Brigans and the rank and file Spear in the Feudal English and Medieval French armies. And so on, and so on, and so on, for half a hundred armies in the army lists.

In general, are these troops historically identical looking other than their formation? I suppose in some cases they are and in some cases the different troops should be modelled with different figures.

But as long as there's at least one case when the historical troops carry the same equipment but are organized differently, then it would seem figure count and base depth would be the best way to distinguish them visually in DBA.

Regarding Neldoreth's suggestion to make the basing rules more flexible: I used to believe this was a good idea, and now I don't.

You suggested it's important for people to be able to tell the difference between element types based on the size of the base and number of figures, but that is not compatible with flexible basing requirements. With flexible basing requirements, 3 figures on a 20mm base might be spear, blade, aux, or warband, and you couldn't always tell the difference based on the weapons they're holding.

Alan

Redwilde
02-03-2011, 01:03 PM
When Sue first suggested this idea, a couple of months ago, I wasn't sure about it. Now I'm pretty sure I don't like it. We play a visual game -- the Generic Standard is a bad thing.

That's a persuasive argument, at least for keeping the figure count in the lists. Folks on a budget have treated that as optional anyway, with no detriment to playing at conventions.

Base sizes I still think should be optional since they were never a deliberate design element in DBA anyway. Allow either base depth when there's a choice, and just give a fixed recoil distance of 20mm for foot and 40mm for mounted.

And I'm still not sure that bringing in the 8Bw and 6Kn from DBM was a good idea. Though they certainly look cool. The 8Bw at least are fine mechanically so they're not an issue, but the 60mm depth on the 6Kn is just annoying for turning to face!

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 01:07 PM
You're missing the point, I think. Making all Warband into 3Wb destroys the distinction between the Otomi mercenaries and the regular Aztec army. Making all Blade into 3Bd (or 4Bd, whatever) destroys the distinction between the Lanciarii and the Legio in the Middle Imperial Roman army. Making all Spear into 4Sp destroys the distinction between the Brigans and the rank and file Spear in the Feudal English and Medieval French armies. And so on, and so on, and so on, for half a hundred armies in the army lists.

All good points. But here is the question that's important for me:

Do the differences in game play between element subtypes make sense? Or are they just an accident of the basing scheme inherited from WRG 7th? Should 8Bw really recoil farther than 3Bw? Should 6Kn pursue farther than 3Kn?

I like the way the different element subtypes look. But I don't think that the affect of base depth on the game mechanics is rational. And that's a problem for me.

- Jack

winterbadger
02-03-2011, 01:11 PM
Do the differences in game play between element subtypes make sense? Or are they just an accident of the basing scheme inherited from WRG 7th? Should 8Bw really recoil farther than 3Bw? Should 6Kn pursue farther than 3Kn?

I like the way the different element subtypes look. But I don't think that the affect of base depth on the game mechanics is rational. And that's a problem for me.

:2up Doubleplusgood.

If there is a real intent to make the elements different, let's have that in the rules. And let it be more than just how deep the base is.

If that's too much detail for the simple, grand tactical game that DBA is supposed to be (and I can see valid arguments either way), then let's not have multiple different sizes of base for the same element.

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 01:11 PM
In general, are these troops historically identical looking other than their formation? I suppose in some cases they are and in some cases the different troops should be modelled with different figures.


In most cases I can think of, the troops are completely distinct. The Otomi mercenaries are distinct from regular Aztec Wb. The Lanciarii are distinct from regular Legio. Brigans are distinct from regular Spear. English Hobilars are distinct from regular Spear. Different equipment, different colors/paintjob/uniforms/feather suits, different shield patterns (or in the case of the Hobilars and Brigans, no shields at all compared to presence of a shield).

I'm sure there are other examples; those just happen to be the ones I can think of easily while separated from my army lists.

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 01:29 PM
I like the way the different element subtypes look. But I don't think that the affect of base depth on the game mechanics is rational. And that's a problem for me.


That's a separate issue, though.

The original reason Sue gave for this "Go Generic" thing was to prevent rebasing. And increase compatibility with DBMM (which is, as pointed out elsewhere, only one-way compatibility under her proposal).

Standardizing all bases to make them rational is exactly the opposite. It would destroy compatibility (which some would find unpalatable, and some wouldn't care at all), and it would require massive rebasing of existing armies. Which anyone who already owns those armies would find very (VERY) offensive -- Andy Hooper from the Seattle area wrote a treatise on that issue some time in November that encapsulates the response to that idea.

Personally, I could wish that the basing had been rational from the start. But with that said, we happen to live in a world where it isn't, and I don't see the additional benefit of rationalizing base depths to be worth the agony of extreme and comprehensive rebasing of nearly every army I own.

Further, some of the different bases do work in a way that makes sense. 3Sp and 3Bd recoiling farther than 4Sp and 4Bd isn't wrong at all. Your examples (8Bw and 6Kn) are the poster children for "this makes no sense" in your argument, but there are lots of other cases (even more common cases) where the different base depths don't create offensive rules-mechanic oddities.

There are element types with depths where I cannot but wish they were standardized. I've got armies with 6Kn and 6Cv; as much as I love them, as beautiful as they are, I've rarely played a game with them without brain damage caused by the frustrations of maneuvering those behemoths, none of which feels much like a simulation of their maneuvering ability in real battles.

But arguments against 6Kn and 6Cv don't prove the need for standardizing 3Bd and 3Sp. The game is more complex than that.

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 03:09 PM
Standardizing all bases to make them rational is exactly the opposite. It would destroy compatibility (which some would find unpalatable, and some wouldn't care at all), and it would require massive rebasing of existing armies. Which anyone who already owns those armies would find very (VERY) offensive -- Andy Hooper from the Seattle area wrote a treatise on that issue some time in November that encapsulates the response to that idea.

My suggested solution would actually solve the problem without any rebasing.

IIWKOTW, I would:


Make 6Cv and 6Kn optional. 3Cv and 3Kn could be freely substituted.
Keep all the other element types and subtypes as they currently stand.
Break the connection between base depth and recoil/pursuit distance. Recoil/pursuit distance should be constant, such as one base width for all element types.


This rationalizes the recoil process and makes base depth even less important than it is currently. Existing armies don't need to be rebased unless necessary to reflect a change in the army composition (such as Knights becoming Light Horse).

- Jack

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 03:14 PM
IIWKOTW, I would:


Make 6Cv and 6Kn optional. 3Cv and 3Kn could be freely substituted.
Keep all the other element types and subtypes as they currently stand.
Break the connection between base depth and recoil/pursuit distance. Recoil/pursuit distance should be constant, such as one base width for all element types.



Based on that platform, Jack, I would support your candidacy for KOTW. Well, except I wanna be KOTW myself. Other than that, though.

Maybe 1/2 BW for recoil/pursuit, though. 1 BW seems awfully big; I'd have to playtest it.

Tony Aguilar
02-03-2011, 03:19 PM
What about 8Bw any suggestions for them, Jack?
I know there had been some discussion in the past for an "8Pv" element instead.

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 03:42 PM
Maybe 1/2 BW for recoil/pursuit, though. 1 BW seems awfully big; I'd have to playtest it.

Playtesting would be good. One base width has the following features:


Recoiling elements stay in the ZOC of the victorious element.
Either element can easily move back into contact.
Easily measured with a ZOC Marker.


What about 8Bw any suggestions for them, Jack?
I know there had been some discussion in the past for an "8Pv" element instead.

Actually, I'd make a couple more changes--but I didn't want to include them in that list for fear of muddying the waters.

Additional changes to elements:


Make 8Bw a new element type as discussed on the previous thread. Pending playtesting of course.
War Wagons would be changed to a 40mm deep base.
Litters would be eliminated as an element subtype. Litters look cool, but they belong in the camp, not as an element.


- Jack

Redwilde
02-03-2011, 03:49 PM
Make 6Cv and 6Kn optional. 3Cv and 3Kn could be freely substituted.
Keep all the other element types and subtypes as they currently stand.
Break the connection between base depth and recoil/pursuit distance. Recoil/pursuit distance should be constant, such as one base width for all element types.

- Jack

Make WWG 40mm too and you get my vote for KOW.

Tony Aguilar
02-03-2011, 03:52 PM
Based on that platform, Jack, I would support your candidacy for KOTW. Well, except I wanna be KOTW myself. Other than that, though.

Both of you are a little too tall to be megalomaniacs. That distinction is usually reserved for those shorter than 5'-7".

Tony Aguilar
02-03-2011, 03:53 PM
Make WWG 40mm too and you get my vote for KOW.

He did, in his perfect world, in the above post.

winterbadger
02-03-2011, 03:56 PM
I think all of those sound like good ideas!

Now, who has the mind-control potion to give to Phil? :silly

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 04:26 PM
Both of you are a little too tall to be megalomaniacs. That distinction is usually reserved for those shorter than 5'-7".

How tall are you, Tony? 5'7.5"? Hehehehe

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 04:36 PM
You're missing the point, I think. Making all Warband into 3Wb destroys the distinction between the Otomi mercenaries and the regular Aztec army. Making all Blade into 3Bd (or 4Bd, whatever) destroys the distinction between the Lanciarii and the Legio in the Middle Imperial Roman army. Making all Spear into 4Sp destroys the distinction between the Brigans and the rank and file Spear in the Feudal English and Medieval French armies. And so on, and so on, and so on, for half a hundred armies in the army lists.

I don't get it DK. You are fine with all of those different units being represented by the same stats and rules. And fine with those different unit's base depth subtleties in use having no real correlation between their real differences... But you draw the line at arbitrary representation? I mean, wouldn't the figures themselves being different be enough for you? Why did you choose historical accuracy/representation being associated with base depths when you've sacrificed so much historical accuracy otherwise? Is it just because it's what you're used to?


When Sue first suggested this idea, a couple of months ago, I wasn't sure about it. Now I'm pretty sure I don't like it. We play a visual game -- the Generic Standard is a bad thing.


You say this, but you're fine with using twelve elements to represent every army? You're fine with having only two handfuls of different unit types to represent every possible troop type ever used in ancient times? As it stands now, the current standard IS GENERIC, it's just a different kind of generic.


This isn't Warhammer. The game developers didn't invent "Lanciarii" or "Otomi" or "Brigans" or whatever. You might want to debate with the authors whether the Lanciari should be distinct from the Legio, or not -- but be clear with yourself when you do so, whether you are trying to stamp all history into a generic mold for your own purpose, or whether you truly have read the primary sources and are engaged in a historical debate about how the Lanciari were used in the battle of Milvian Bridge, and whether contemporaries treated the Lanciarii as different from the Legio.

Okay, fine. But how does this relate at all to having 3 figures on a 20mm deep base compared to having 4 figures on a 15mm deep base? It seems to me that the distinction is arbitrary and generic... I understand that you like the current arbitrary distinction, and that's cool. But I don't see how your historical discussion relates at all to the current basing schema? Especially since they behave in pretty much the exact same way...

As an example... my 5Wb now can control more area of the board against mounted units because they can keep a toe in rough thanks to their base depth. My celt warband can't though. How is that at all related to historical reality and differentiating between monks and celtic warriors? I understand your concern, I just don't really see how it relates to the current arbitrary and generic basing scheme?

Thanks
n.

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 04:40 PM
Regarding Neldoreth's suggestion to make the basing rules more flexible: I used to believe this was a good idea, and now I don't.

You suggested it's important for people to be able to tell the difference between element types based on the size of the base and number of figures, but that is not compatible with flexible basing requirements. With flexible basing requirements, 3 figures on a 20mm base might be spear, blade, aux, or warband, and you couldn't always tell the difference based on the weapons they're holding.


I agree with you here Alan.

n.

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 04:44 PM
Personally, I could wish that the basing had been rational from the start. But with that said, we happen to live in a world where it isn't, and I don't see the additional benefit of rationalizing base depths to be worth the agony of extreme and comprehensive rebasing of nearly every army I own.


Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better DK...

n.

PS. I should have read this before I made my previous post :) Sorry!

Tony Aguilar
02-03-2011, 04:45 PM
How tall are you, Tony? 5'7.5"? Hehehehe

5'-10" - but that's a good guess, DK. :)

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 04:59 PM
I don't get it DK. You are fine with all of those different units being represented by the same stats and rules. And fine with those different unit's base depth subtleties in use having no real correlation between their real differences...

Have you seen the house rules I've put up for the 3Bd and 3Sp? Surely that would let you know that the above two statements are not fair representations of my feelings on the matter.

You are trying to make this whole thing black and white. It ain't.

But you draw the line at arbitrary representation?

I'm no longer sure what you think I'm drawing the line at here.

I mean, wouldn't the figures themselves being different be enough for you?

Oh, you assume that the figures would be differentiated in the army list? Not bloody likely. The current army list for the MIR says something like "4x 4Bd, 1x 3Bd, ..." The 3Bd represent Lanciarii, who fought differently, were brigaded separately, yadda yadda yadda. In the Generic-Yes MIR army the list would say simply "5x Bd". That is what we call in database theory a "lossy transformation."


You say this, but you're fine with using twelve elements to represent every army? You're fine with having only two handfuls of different unit types to represent every possible troop type ever used in ancient times? As it stands now, the current standard IS GENERIC, it's just a different kind of generic.


So your whole argument boils down to this: It Ain't Perfect, so why have any standards at all? I can't represent every single combatant with a figure, so why paint at all? I can't make the NHL, so why play recreational hockey? I'm unwilling to obey the speed limits consistently, so why object to people who drive drunk?

Rich Gause
02-03-2011, 05:03 PM
I like leaving base depths alone, except making anything deeper than 40, 40 and only measuring from front corners. That would make deeper bases more playable. If you could only fit 5 KN or Cav on the 40 deep base instead of 6 so be it.

David Schlanger
02-03-2011, 05:05 PM
Litters would be eliminated as an element subtype. Litters look cool, but they belong in the camp, not as an element.

Hey... I like a lot of the other stuff, but leave LITs alone. :)

DS

Tony Aguilar
02-03-2011, 05:15 PM
Hey... I like a lot of the other stuff, but leave LITs alone. :)

DS

Litters - they make you WISH you had Horde instead.

Andreas Johansson
02-03-2011, 05:16 PM
While I have some sympathy for the notion that Lit shouldn't be an element type (a potentate in a portable chair, even if accompanied by a respectable number of flunkies, doesn't take up anything resembling an element's footprint, particularly not a super-duper deep element's), but I don't see how they belongs in the camp. Andean generals were carried practically in the battleline, AFAIU.

IIWKOTW*, they'd be the appropriate troop type for their guards (Ax in the Incan case, presumably), on a 40mm deep base.


* At 6'2", I guess I'm disqualified. :(

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 05:31 PM
I like leaving base depths alone, except making anything deeper than 40, 40 and only measuring from front corners. That would make deeper bases more playable. If you could only fit 5 KN or Cav on the 40 deep base instead of 6 so be it.

While not a change to element basing, measuring from the front corners only would further reduce the importance of base depth. So that goes on the list too!

While I have some sympathy for the notion that Lit shouldn't be an element type (a potentate in a portable chair, even if accompanied by a respectable number of flunkies, doesn't take up anything resembling an element's footprint, particularly not a super-duper deep element's), but I don't see how they belongs in the camp. Andean generals were carried practically in the battleline, AFAIU.

IIWKOTW*, they'd be the appropriate troop type for their guards (Ax in the Incan case, presumably), on a 40mm deep base.


That would work for me. If base depth doesn't impact play, then a 40mm deep Ax for the general in a litter would be fine. You get the eye candy, an appropriate element type, and no weird affects from a deep base.

- Jack

neldoreth
02-03-2011, 07:55 PM
So your whole argument boils down to this: It Ain't Perfect, so why have any standards at all? I can't represent every single combatant with a figure, so why paint at all? I can't make the NHL, so why play recreational hockey? I'm unwilling to obey the speed limits consistently, so why object to people who drive drunk?

Your incorrect here DK. I almost feel like oyu are trying to make my arguments into black and white statements :) I am talking about consistency, not perfection. If you are designing a simple, fast play rule set, why bother marring that simple, fast-play rule set with little fiddly and unnecessary details? Consistency, not perfection.

But I see what's happening here I think: I say, since a blade is a blade is a blade in the rules, why give them different basing? You are saying a blade isn't a blade (in the case of the Lanciarii vs. Legionary), so we should differentiate them. And you even went on to create different rules for them.

I should have stated my assumptions first: A blade is a blade is a blade in 3.0 the same way it is in 2.2. Thus, why make them different? If you disagree with my assumption, that's a whole different argument.

In the Generic-Yes MIR army the list would say simply "5x Bd". That is what we call in database theory a "lossy transformation."

And on this, I am seeing what you are saying: even though the DBA rule set is a lossy compression of reality*, let's keep as much detail as we can. Sorta like the difference between the mp3 and m4a file format, right?

Whereas I am saying, since we have an upper limit of 5MB per file, let's stick with the 'compression and consistency is best' paradigm and scrap the distinctions between the same types of units. If a client asked you for a database with data { X, Y, Z } and you delivered a DB to them that stored { X, Y, Z, A, B, C, ...., V, W }, and then when they asked you why you kept all that erroneous info and you said "Just because you don't speed doesn't mean you should let drunk people drive.", how would you expect them to respond?

Ah databases... i have to deal with them too much in real life already, now they are invading my hobby life as well!:V

good times.
n.

* The only way to really have reality, it to have reality... DK, get out your pilum and let's get down! But really, DBA is specially designed to be very lossy, thus the fast-play aspect.

Redwilde
02-04-2011, 12:39 AM
Both of you are a little too tall to be megalomaniacs. That distinction is usually reserved for those shorter than 5'-7".

Au contraire! Remember that you are allowed, perhaps required to measure in French inches. A Napoleon Complex actually doesn't make much sense using English measurements. :p

Tony Aguilar
02-04-2011, 06:04 AM
Au contraire! Remember that you are allowed, perhaps required to measure in French inches.

Don't you mean centimetres?

winterbadger
02-04-2011, 08:21 AM
Don't you mean centimetres?

Or pouces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_units_of_measurement), 1.066 English inches?

Redwilde
02-04-2011, 11:30 AM
Or pouces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_units_of_measurement), 1.066 English inches?

Yup. 1 pouce = 1/12 pied = 1 French Inch.

Martyn
02-06-2011, 05:52 PM
Sue has posted on Yahoo as follows

Please, no more comments on section 2. I've a lot to cover in the next few weeks
and I must press on.

Thank you for the comments already sent. I've noted them and will discuss them
with Phil.

Hopefully the final version of section 2 will appear on my website soon.

Sue.

We wait with baited breath.

Don Ray
02-06-2011, 07:00 PM
In all honesty, I think having a single base size and figure count for each different unit type is the best way to go for clarity and ease of use.

And indeed there is little likelihood that there will be future distinctiions between base-depths, and also it's unlikely that anyone plays both DBA and DBMM :)

That's my 2cents.
n.

Well said! :up

Don

winterbadger
02-06-2011, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by neldoreth ... also it's unlikely that anyone plays both DBA and DBMM

Well said! :up

Don

Other than the people on this forum who have identified themselves as players of both games? :rolleyes

Macbeth
02-06-2011, 08:11 PM
While I have some sympathy for the notion that Lit shouldn't be an element type (a potentate in a portable chair, even if accompanied by a respectable number of flunkies, doesn't take up anything resembling an element's footprint, particularly not a super-duper deep element's), but I don't see how they belongs in the camp. Andean generals were carried practically in the battleline, AFAIU.


Like having an 8Pv for 8Bw I would also like to see Rl for Relics as an element type to represent the Andean or Early Egyptian Potentates, Khagan Whagans, Carriocco, and the ubiquitous Anglo Norman WWg - let them move up with the army and provide rear or side support (boosting the morale of those around them) and when fighting themselves let them be steadfast (+4/+4 and never recoil).

that is my pipe dream - let any prospective KOW put that on his platform and you'll have my vote :cool



... but what is that - a voice from the archives of python "You don't vote for kings" ;):p

Cheers

timurilank
02-07-2011, 02:39 AM
... I would also like to see Rl for Relics as an element type to represent the Andean or Early Egyptian Potentates, Khagan Whagans, Carriocco, and the ubiquitous Anglo Norman WWg - let them move up with the army and provide rear or side support (boosting the morale of those around them) and when fighting themselves let them be steadfast (+4/+4 and never recoil).

Cheers

A long time ago, we added those DBM options only to our big battle DBA games, as the standard 12 element game the one side would have an unfair advantage. In the big battle option, the Sacred Banner or relic would remain with the central command and would bring benefit when moving forward.

Martyn
02-07-2011, 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neldoreth
In all honesty, I think having a single base size and figure count for each different unit type is the best way to go for clarity and ease of use.

And indeed there is little likelihood that there will be future distinctiions between base-depths, and also it's unlikely that anyone plays both DBA and DBMM

That's my 2cents.
n.

Well said! :up

Don

Why don’t we have just a single element on each base, then rationalise the base sizes, let’s say a square base.

Now the terrain placement doesn’t work too well so lets not bother with terrain. If we replace it with a grid that will help movement and avoid ZoC problems. There, that should do it. :)

Hummm, something is missing? I know let’s have 16 elements on each side. Now I bet nobody has thought of that. :silly

jcpotn
02-26-2011, 06:49 PM
Sue has evidently updated the missing Patrician lists (unfortunately).

Jeff :sick


http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/LISTS%202.pdf

Martyn
03-01-2011, 05:31 AM
Had a quick flick through the latest and apparently final version of the Book II lists, some changes to the list from the previous draft, the ones I had noticed were;

Classic Indian II/3a reinstated a choice of LCh or HCh,
Later Cartho II/32 get a post Zama alternative list,
MIR II/64a get a choice on Art rather than compulsory,
LIR II/78b get the option to take Art,
SRB II/81 lots of changes.

Most of the above have been suggestions put forward (although I don稚 remember seeing any great demand for the SRB list to be changed)

It is good to see that Sue has been listening and incorporated some of the changes suggested.

Andreas Johansson
03-01-2011, 05:48 AM
Most of the above have been suggestions put forward (although I don稚 remember seeing any great demand for the SRB list to be changed)
I dunno if I count as great demand, but I did suggest major changes to that list, much of which has been adopted.

(Don't blame me for the choice of Ax or Sp in the early list, however, I didn't ask for that. :silly)

Martyn
03-01-2011, 06:21 AM
I dunno if I count as great demand, but I did suggest major changes to that list, much of which has been adopted.


Obviously I知 not paying enough attention.

You must be great demand or maybe you are 素ull of Weighty Responsibility! as a play tester (apologies to DK for the plagiarism).

I particularly like the change for the 租 list to other SRB armies rather than the previous Strathclyde only. I can now justify a Cornish (West British) army to take on the invading Anglo Saxon heathens. Hehil and Hengestesdun here we come and I call for Viking Allies. :V

jcpotn
03-01-2011, 09:10 AM
Martyn or Andreas ,

Any idea where the changes to the Patrician lists came from? Are they from the Barkers or others?

Jeff

Andreas Johansson
03-01-2011, 09:58 AM
Any idea where the changes to the Patrician lists came from? Are they from the Barkers or others?

I don't know. (They certainly don't correspond to my modest suggestion of less Wb and more Ax!)

I would guess they're not from the Barkers, however: Phil doesn't seem to be involved in DBA list work, at this stage at least, and Sue seems to rely almost completely on others for suggestions of updates. (Which, coupled with her disinclination to state what principles list work should follow, guarantees inconsistency. But I digress ...)

Martyn
03-01-2011, 10:22 AM
Martyn or Andreas ,

Any idea where the changes to the Patrician lists came from? Are they from the Barkers or others?

Jeff

Some comment was made on the yahoo group proposing changes, but Sue does not appear to have followed those suggestions. Presumably she has gone her own way modelled on the DBMM list.

Kingo
03-01-2011, 05:49 PM
These list look good, quite a few changes to my armies, I will dust off my Sassanids now :up

Got to build a Hd for my Indians

jcpotn
03-01-2011, 08:05 PM
These list look good, quite a few changes to my armies, I will dust off my Sassanids now :up

Got to build a Hd for my Indians

Well, I'm converting a figure to show what I think of the lists in general and the E. Patricians in particular. One figure is worth 10,000 words.;)

Jeff

Paul A. Hannah
03-01-2011, 08:12 PM
Seems to be a chronology boo-boo in the proposed II/69a Sassanid Persian list (AD 230-349). Two of its listed historical opponents, III/4a & III/4b Early Byzantine, do not emerge until AD 493.

(If this hasn't been spotted previously, perhaps Doug, or others, could relay this possible error on to Sue. Thanks.)

Macbeth
03-02-2011, 01:46 AM
Well, I'm converting a figure to show what I think of the lists in general and the E. Patricians in particular. One figure is worth 10,000 words.;)

Jeff

I have a couple of Central Asian Turkish figures modelled such that as they are riding away from the enemy they are giving the ubiquitous 2 finger salute ;)

Is this what you have in mind Jeff?

Cheers

Andreas Johansson
03-02-2011, 01:48 AM
Seems to be a chronology boo-boo in the proposed II/69a Sassanid Persian list (AD 230-349). Two of its listed historical opponents, III/4a & III/4b Early Byzantine, do not emerge until AD 493.

(If this hasn't been spotted previously, perhaps Doug, or others, could relay this possible error on to Sue. Thanks.)

I wonder if Phil will let that one through. Sue's current Sassy list is based on an interpretation that he vociferously disagreed with during the DBMM list development.

Rich Gause
03-02-2011, 02:05 AM
Was looking at the book 2 list and II/19d the 5Wb option was replaced with a Hd. Does anybody know if that is an oversight in translating DBMM Horde S or F whichever it is to DBA Horde instead of 5Wb or is that intentional?

Rich Gause
03-02-2011, 02:06 AM
If they make all 5 Wb horde instead there will probably be lots of annoyed people who have Aztec armies.

Andreas Johansson
03-02-2011, 05:57 AM
Was looking at the book 2 list and II/19d the 5Wb option was replaced with a Hd. Does anybody know if that is an oversight in translating DBMM Horde S or F whichever it is to DBA Horde instead of 5Wb or is that intentional?

Well, since it replaced an "established" warband, it's presumably intentional.

That said, I can discern no sensible pattern in whether Hd (S/F) types become Hd or Wb in Sue's lists. I thought all "old" ones were remaining as Wb, but this'd be an exception, and "new" ones, introduced in the 'MM lists, are being treated variously.

snowcat
03-02-2011, 06:29 AM
I see the Qin can still have 1/4 of their army as HCh.

Is it really worth contacting Sue directly about this - or has the final decision been made?

Andreas Johansson
03-02-2011, 07:00 AM
FWIW, she said recently she's not currently seeking feedback on Bk II.

SUMRULD
03-02-2011, 02:50 PM
II/5 has some interesting changes plus something wonky with the dating on the armies. Two particularly drew my attention.

II/5a LHG Spartan now has 13 elements!?! That has to be a mistake. It is listed as now having up to 3 Ax elements and exists only from 448-360 BC but has opponents who it could not have encountered until after 360 BC.

II/5f LHG Phokian now must field 5 Sp elements and is dated from 357 to 347 BC but also has opponents who did not exist yet during those years.

I wonder. What the caused the dating issues? I also wonder why Spartans suddenly get 13 elements and up to 3 Ax and why Phokians now get 5 Sp and up to 2 Cv. On the Ax and Sp changes, is there some new research that I don't know about?:???

Andreas Johansson
03-02-2011, 03:44 PM
I wonder. What the caused the dating issues?
Sue updating the dates but not the enemies lists.
I also wonder why Spartans suddenly get 13 elements and up to 3 Ax
13 elements is a simple mistake surely. Why extra Ax particularly, no idea.

and why Phokians now get 5 Sp and up to 2 Cv. On the Ax and Sp changes, is there some new research that I don't know about?:???

The changes were suggested (I forget by whom) on the grounds that Phokis fielded substantial armies only during the Third Sacred War, when she fielded lots of mercenary hoplites.

teenage visigoth
03-02-2011, 05:54 PM
If they make all 5 Wb horde instead there will probably be lots of annoyed people who have Aztec armies.

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter.sargent/public.www/web%20103/aztec%20sacrifice.jpg

It is unwise to annoy people with Aztec predilections.

david kuijt
03-02-2011, 06:25 PM
If they make all 5 Wb horde instead there will probably be lots of annoyed people who have Aztec armies.

And it would turn the evenly matched Aztec/Tlaxcalan matchup into something reminiscent of a Sarmatians vs. Early Libyan battle.

SUMRULD
03-02-2011, 06:28 PM
Sue updating the dates but not the enemies lists.

13 elements is a simple mistake surely. Why extra Ax particularly, no idea.


The changes were suggested (I forget by whom) on the grounds that Phokis fielded substantial armies only during the Third Sacred War, when she fielded lots of mercenary hoplites.

OK but the dating still does not make much sense to me, because this way we only get 10 years of Phokis, when we know Phokis fought wars outside these time parameters and we have no Spartan Army from 360 to 275 BC when it suddenly shows up again. Are there plans for an additional Spartan list or additional Phokian lists?

david kuijt
03-02-2011, 06:31 PM
OK but the dating still does not make much sense to me, because this way we only get 10 years of Phokis, when we know Phokis fought wars outside these time parameters and we have no Spartan Army from 360 to 275 BC when it suddenly shows up again. Are there plans for an additional Spartan list or additional Phokian lists?

You are asking the wind, Bill. If a plan exists (for anything), Sue isn't telling anyone.

winterbadger
03-02-2011, 07:19 PM
You are asking the wind, Bill.

Perhaps if her referred to Mariah by her proper name, he'd get an answer. :silly

Or perhaps he's just talking to the trees... :D

Andreas Johansson
03-03-2011, 02:29 AM
OK but the dating still does not make much sense to me, because this way we only get 10 years of Phokis, when we know Phokis fought wars outside these time parameters and we have no Spartan Army from 360 to 275 BC when it suddenly shows up again. Are there plans for an additional Spartan list or additional Phokian lists?

Sue is seemingly working from this comment by Jim Webster:
First the list should probably stop at 275BC



II/5a Spartan Hoplite Army: 1xSp (Gen), 8xSp, 1x(Sp or Ax), 1x(Sp or Cv),
1xPs

This extends after 360BC when Sparta lost over half its' territory. It has
to cover operations in the North where the Spartans used a lot of allied and
mercenary peltasts and cavalry (Brasidas and to a lesser extent Agesilaus)

After 360 there would have been a lot of mercenary peltasts used



I suggest that you have something like

1xSp (Gen), 4xSp, 4x(Sp or Ax), 1x(Sp or Cv), 1xPs, 1x (Sp or Ax or LH)





II/5b Athenian Hoplite Army: 1xSp (Gen), 1xCv, 1xLH, 7xSp, 1x (Sp or Ax),
1xPs

Again because you are taking the list so late (the classic Peloponnesian war
armies are only the first 45 years of a 173 year list, you also cover the
Battles against Macedon as well) the Athenians ought to have more option for
peltasts etc

1xSp (Gen), 1xCv, 1xLH, 5xSp, 3x (Sp or Ax), 1xPs



II/5f Phokian Hoplite Army: 1x (Ax or Cv) (Gen), 1xSp, 4xAx, 3xPs, 1x(Cv or
Sp), 2x (Art or Ps)



The only way the Phokian army warrants a list of its' own is during the 3rd
Sacred War, when the greater majority of the army was mercenaries and would
be hoplites. The Phokians on their own would barely warrant a 12 element
army under DBMM



So I think you want something like



1x (Ax or Cv or Sp) (Gen), 5xSp, 3x(Ax or Ps), 1x(Cv or Sp), 2x (Art or Ps)

At face value, the Spartans of 360-275 would be covered by the Others list. (Which, contrary to Jim's proposal, has less Ax than the (a) list.)

Doug
03-03-2011, 08:36 AM
These list look good, quite a few changes to my armies, I will dust off my Sassanids now :up

I am just so happy that my favourite all time neglected Empire actually has revised lists that (IMHO) are much improved. And can even do the later Civil Wars.

I will be running my Sasanians under V 3.0 without feeling like I have both hands tied behind my back. The middle period looks like a really interesting mix (challenging but with lots of potential .. mixing LH/Cv and El in one army is usually not a great idea, would be very cool to make it work).

The later period matchup with E. Byzantine should be a fantastic game.

Doug
03-03-2011, 08:58 AM
I wonder if Phil will let that one through. Sue's current Sassy list is based on an interpretation that he vociferously disagreed with during the DBMM list development.

Well, he disagreed with large parts of it... some changes did get through..

I will look on with interest.

SUMRULD
03-03-2011, 01:36 PM
Sue is seemingly working from this comment by Jim Webster:


At face value, the Spartans of 360-275 would be covered by the Others list. (Which, contrary to Jim's proposal, has less Ax than the (a) list.)

Thanks for your patient attempts to explain this to me, so far. I still have a few questions.

OK. The Agesilaus justification does make some sense. And lets hope the dating is just screwed up and not intentional on the Spartans, since the extra Ax would be for the period from 360 and not before 360. But since Agesilaus was so keen on Cv and in his campaigns in Asia seems to have gotten quite a bit of it, for a Classical Greek Army, wouldn't the option of another Lh or Cv be appropriate as well?

The Phokians, then, would be just for the Sacred War and no other time frame?

Andreas Johansson
03-03-2011, 01:50 PM
Thanks for your patient attempts to explain this to me, so far. I still have a few questions.

OK. The Agesilaus justification does make some sense. And lets hope the dating is just screwed up and not intentional on the Spartans, since the extra Ax would be for the period from 360 and not before 360. But since Agesilaus was so keen on Cv and in his campaigns in Asia seems to have gotten quite a bit of it, for a Classical Greek Army, wouldn't the option of another Lh or Cv be appropriate as well?
Probably. (The 'MM list has some Agesilaos in Asia options that allows him some Asiatic mounted.)

The Phokians, then, would be just for the Sacred War and no other time frame?
That's how I read Jim's proposal.

(I should perhaps make it explicit that I have no privileged access to information regarding the list work. I just read the relevant threads on the Yahoo list with a certain degree of obsessiveness.)

SUMRULD
03-03-2011, 02:27 PM
Thanks. Now, it is making a bit more sense to me.

Kingo
03-07-2011, 02:45 PM
I agree - the 6Kn is a good way of making a historically cumbersome type (such as medieval German Kn wedges) difficult to manoeuver in DBA, assuming we keep the requirement to measure movement by furthest moving (?) rear corner.
Martin

I agree 100%, I would like to see Pike be 8 figures on a 40*30 or 40*40 base, when we play pike armies we do this and they look much better to the eye. :D

winterbadger
03-07-2011, 02:59 PM
I agree 100%, I would like to see Pike be 8 figures on a 40*30 or 40*40 base, when we play pike armies we do this and they look much better to the eye. :D

For a single Pk element? So that two Pk would take up 80mm of depth?

Or do you mean mounting Pk in a compulsory double-based element? The deep elements in DBA are still single elements (one of the things that bothers me about them--if they were meant to be two DBA elements that *had* to operate together, I'd be much elss bothered by them).

Kingo
03-07-2011, 03:05 PM
For a single Pk element? So that two Pk would take up 80mm of depth?

Or do you mean mounting Pk in a compulsory double-based element? The deep elements in DBA are still single elements (one of the things that bothers me about them--if they were meant to be two DBA elements that *had* to operate together, I'd be much elss bothered by them).

I have pike elements based 8 figures on a 40*30 base, they look GREAT on the table :2up, deeper bases may be needed for Tin Soldier, Xyston and other chunky figures.

Kingo

Bob Mcleish
03-10-2011, 06:57 AM
I've been following the basing discussions, both on here and on the Yahoo group, with interest. FWIW, I quite like things just the way they are - even 6Kn and the different depths for 3, 4 and 5 Wb. I like, as others have said, the aesthetic of it.
Special rules for the different sized elements would be a nice addition to DBA - something along the lines of a +1 to the 6Kn OR -1 to elements facing a wedge of 6Kn OR 6Kn being able to ignore overlaps for example (these are from DBMM but would be simple enough to implement in DBA). Too many of these however might over complicate DBA as a "quick play" set of rules..
Also, although I'm unlikely to build any more DBM(M) armies, the club I attend do occasionally put on really big DBM(M) games, often pooling many players miniatures together to do so. I'd like to keep my elements "morphable" for these occasions..

As a bit of a change from painting Ming, Koreans and Indians I've dusted off an old Hussite army I bought a while ago (Essex miniatures, with Irregular War Wagons). The Irregular war wagons are very nice, but difficult to fit on to 40mmx40mm bases (even at an angle - which doesn't look quite right to me anyway).
Even amongst those calling for base depths to remain as is, there does seem to be a push for Wwg to revert to 40mmx40mm bases. I'd really love to know whether this is likely to happen before I start on this army.