PDA

View Full Version : Basing Elements in DBA 3.0


El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 12:04 AM
There's a long and occasionally rancorous discussion on another thread debating the pros and cons of the proposed changes that would eliminate element subtypes. Without getting into the pros or cons myself, I would like to point out that proposal as it now stands has a hole in it.

To summarize the proposal as I understand it...

All element subtypes will be eliminated and element types will standardized as to depth and number of figures. This is summarized in the table kindly provided by The Last Conformist:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/tlc49/suetable.gif

But there's a loophole designed to allow DBMM armies to be used for DBA.

If you wish to use the same figures for DBA and DBMM, then you will need to consult the DBMM Army Lists for details - any element which is valid for a DBMM army may also be used for the corresponding DBA army.

The Aztecs have been mentioned before and they make the perfect poster child illustrating the problems with this rule as it's currently proposed. The Aztec list in DBA 2.2 includes 1x4Wb, 6x5Wb, and an optional 1x3Wb. These correspond to the equivalent element types in the DBM list:

Cuachic shock troops - Irr Wb (S) 2-10
Clan Warriors - Irr Hd (S) 30-90
Otomi - Irr Wb (F) 0-10

So far, so good. Now, the equivalent DBA list using the proposed DBA 3.0 rule would include 7xWb and an optional 1xWb. If I put this army together new standardized DBA elements, my warband would all be on 20mm deep bases. But I have the option of using elements from DBMM! Assuming that the DBMM Aztec list is roughly the same as the DBM list, I would have the option of basing my warband using any of the warband subtypes. Can I base all 8 warband on 15mm deep bases (with 4 figures per base)? Or maybe I like deep bases because of the longer pursuit and longer recoil. Can I base all 8 warband on 30mm bases? According to the proposed rule, the answer is yes. I can manipulate the base depths to meet my tactical plans.

Ok, so maybe it's not the end of the world. But it does introduce some gamey-ness into a part of the rules that hasn't had it before. And that's a bad thing. If we're going to rewrite this part of the rules, it would be good to iron out all the problems before DBA 3.1.

- Jack

Stephen Webb
02-03-2011, 01:30 AM
This is why would should try to avoid compatibility of DBA 3.0 basing with DBA 2.2 or DBM(M).

Just change to one size of base per element type.

If that requires re-basing, so be it...

Andreas Johansson
02-03-2011, 02:14 AM
Assuming that the DBMM Aztec list is roughly the same as the DBM list
It's a bit different: Cuachic and Otomi are Irr Bd (F) (= 3Bd) and clan warriors are all Irr Hd (F) (= 5Wb) or all Reg Ax (I) (= 4Ax).

Martyn
02-03-2011, 05:15 AM
This is a problem for Phil if his intent is to make DBA compatible with DBMM. The Aztecs are an extreme example but do show the concerns well. The three different types become one, as previously stated, very boring for DBA, problematic if you want to build up a DBMM army. You could paint them differently to reflect the different types, but that does not help much.

If you wish to use your DBA army as the basis for a DBMM army some/many of the figures will not fit. All Wb are based 20mm deep (15mm scale) rather than the current 4Wb 15mm, 3Wb 20mm 5Wb 30mm (classed as Hd) which is continued in DBMM, not to mention other armies with 3Bd/Sp and others.

As posted elsewhere the proposal put forward by Sue was subject to Philís agreement I find it hard to believe that Sue would have gone out on a limb, but maybe she was testing the water to gauge reaction. Her initial post introducing the idea identified it as a suggestion so maybe this is still up for consideration.

David Constable
02-03-2011, 05:58 AM
This is why would should try to avoid compatibility of DBA 3.0 basing with DBA 2.2 or DBM(M).

Just change to one size of base per element type.

If that requires re-basing, so be it...

I agree with you apart from the re-basing.
At last count I had 56 (yes fifty-six) elements on non legal sizes, some too large, some to small.
Why should I as a DBA only player alter my sizes to suit DBMM players, let the DBMM players alter theirs.
I am still building my armies for 2.2 and will continue to do so.
However I am looking at other periods at the moment, and might well go back to 1/300th tanks, dropping DBA except for 2.2.

David Constable

Andreas Johansson
02-03-2011, 06:16 AM
Why should I as a DBA only player alter my sizes to suit DBMM players

In what bizarro world does decoupling DBA basing from DBM(M) basing constitute suiting DBMM players?

In the real world, sticking largely to DBA 2.2 basing is what would suit DBMM players.

Martyn
02-03-2011, 06:55 AM
In what bizarro world does decoupling DBA basing from DBM(M) basing constitute suiting DBMM players?

In the real world, sticking largely to DBA 2.2 basing is what would suit DBMM players.

Yes surely DBA basing originated with WRG 7th and predecessors. DBM followed suit and DBMM continued that trend. Each uses the same basic element basing, both numbers of figures and base sizes to maximise the capacity for players to swap from one to the other. (obviously DBA to/from 7th originally, then DBM and now DBMM)

Removing that link in v3 will not help compatibility even if DBA has to accept that DBMM bases are legal although not specifically complying with the DBA rules.

Personally, I feel that the retention of the existing basing requirements is best, accepting that some elements do not really work in DBA and may need tweaking.

Jeff
02-03-2011, 09:10 AM
I am with some of you. I only play DBA so DBM and DBMM are irrelevant to me. I plan on basing new armies with DBA 3.0 and leaving the old ones alone. If my opponent doesn't like it....well they can just deal with it or not play with me.

I think I am up in the 100s of stands that would need to change to comply to one size stand fits all. Not investing the time into it.

I must add....according to the 3.0 and Sue, no re-basing is required. So what is the issue?

Jeff

Tony Aguilar
02-03-2011, 09:13 AM
I am with some of you. I only play DBA so DBM and DBMM are irrelevant to me. I plan on basing new armies with DBA 3.0 and leaving the old ones alone. If my opponent doesn't like it....well they can just deal with it or not play with me.

I think I am up in the 100s of stands that would need to change to comply to one size stand fits all. Not investing the time into it.

I must add....according to the 3.0 and Sue, no re-basing is required. So what is the issue?


Start reading here, Jeff, especially some of the later pages:

http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=10754

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 09:40 AM
I must add....according to the 3.0 and Sue, no re-basing is required. So what is the issue?


Discarding subtype numbers prevents only one type of rebasing requirement; one which is honestly fairly rare. Every other army list change (adding more Bw, taking away Bd, whatever) requires significant change. For example, the Early Armenians in v1.1 had 4x 3Kn, 2x 2LH. In 2.0 they had 2x 3Kn, 4x 2LH. So the idea that removing subtype numbers will do anything much to save us from rebasing is unrealistic.

The exception is 3/4Ax and 3/4 Bw, but again, that reflects a difference in DBM (Irregular vs. Regular) that is very unlikely to have changed due to new research in the last decade, so we aren't getting saved from anything there either.

Martyn
02-03-2011, 10:49 AM
Itís a three pronged attack;

1) Revised army lists may require additional elements to be added to existing armies in order to comply with the latest rules. We could, as a community or individual comp organisers, allow either old or new list armies to be fielded. Whether this is a short or long term solution is up to us. In the DBM community they still allow the old DBM lists and new DBMM lists into competitions.
2) The removal of the number of figure required in itself does not need rebasing although some (3Sp/Bd, 5Wb, 6Kn etc) are not recognised by the proposed basing convention. Sue has identified that these would be acceptable as a DBMM valid arrangement.
3) The changes proposed to the base depths again would not necessitate rebasing for the reason in 2 above.

However the reason that has sometimes been cited for the change in basing convention is to make it simpler and clearer, particularly for the beginner. This seems to be a worthy goal but totally undermined by the above. Most newbies get to DBA through groups, how confusing is it going to be if there are different basing arrangements for the element which are not identified in the rule book. Those moving from DBMM may understand but those with no prior knowledge are going to find it most unusual.

The more this problem is discussed the more I fail to see any benefit, but I do see a lot of disadvantages.

Wm.E.Reseigh
02-03-2011, 11:29 AM
While I have read many posts that DBM(M) players don't generally play DBA, I feel that changing the basing standards would rapidly drive that from "generally" to "never" and as I feel that the compatibility of the basing in the DBx rule systems is a strength not a weakness, I am in favor of keeping the current base standards.

It seems to me that most posts I have read regarding basing dissatisfaction is related to the recoil distances of double based elements, which are grossly oversized in the DBA ground scale relative to the DBM(M) ground scale. If recoils were limited to a single standard base depth for double based elements, or just to some arbitrary minimum, most of this would be resolved favorably.

I expect that basing changes will, in the end, not be approved, as this has been one of the most conservative aspects of rules changes for gaming based on the WRG rules series. However, some attention should be paid by the authors to anomalous game effects on elements deriving from the differing ground scales between the games.

ferrency
02-03-2011, 12:46 PM
While I have read many posts that DBM(M) players don't generally play DBA, I feel that changing the basing standards would rapidly drive that from "generally" to "never" and as I feel that the compatibility of the basing in the DBx rule systems is a strength not a weakness, I am in favor of keeping the current base standards.

I think the opposite would happen.

The proposed basing changes specifically allow DBMM bases to be used in DBA; but the official DBA basing can't be used in DBMM. So I would expect no change in the number of DBMM players who also play DBA, but the basing incompatibility in the other direction would discourage DBA3 players from trying out DBMM.

Alan

winterbadger
02-03-2011, 01:02 PM
I'll point out, as I did in the other thread, the remark that Jack hasn't reproduced, to the effect that bases of *any* depth are acceptable, as long as they have the basic frontage for that scale.

So, under the proposed scheme, players seeking to play DBA will find

* Existing DBA armies: totally legit under the new scheme with its provisos, unless the army composition has changed from 2.2 to 3.0 in the way that DK has highlighted (Kn replaced with LH), which has nothing to do with how deep a base or how many figures you use for different subtypes.

* Existing DBM(M) armies: also totally legit, unless the army composition has changed (which is unlikely since the DBA 3.0 lists are based on DBMM)

* Future DBM(M) armies: also legit, for the same reasons.

* Future DBA armies: Obviously legit.

Future DBA players seeking to play DBMM may have to build an additional element or two if when they chose to build, say a DBA Aztec army they made all their Wb standard DBA size. But of all the situations being contemplated, *they* are already going to be building *lots* more elements to make a DBMM army, so having to build one or two more doesn't seem like a great inconvenience.

NONE of us with current armies will need to rebase solely so as to meet these generic basing sizes because all our elements are being grandfathered by all these exceptions. So the only people who might need to rebase are future DBA players who decide when they start building DBA armies that they are definitely not going to play DBMM with them in the future (because otherwise they will build them with DBMM bases) and then change their minds and decide they do want to play DBMM after all and have to rebase a few stands or build additional ones to play DBMM.

This all seems like an awful lot of fuss about the possible changes of notional future players who can't make up their minds to begin with. :rolleyes

david kuijt
02-03-2011, 01:35 PM
The more this problem is discussed the more I fail to see any benefit, but I do see a lot of disadvantages.

Amen, brother. Just vote NO on Generics!

kontos
02-03-2011, 02:08 PM
I vote NO to generic basing. I'll stuff the ballot boxes if need be. :up

Frank

winterbadger
02-03-2011, 02:17 PM
I'll stuff the ballot boxes if need be. :up

Frank

There speaks the proud son of New York, following in the footsteps of Beau James, Al Smith, and the Little Flower. ;)

pozanias
02-03-2011, 02:26 PM
I don't have a problem with varied base depths. But if we are going to have them, I wish there was a little more intent as to why different elements have different base depths.

For example, I like 6kn -- and they are definitely clumsier than 3kn, and I think they should be. So, that's a good thing. But, I feel as though this is just accidental.

Generally speaking, I think 20mm deep elements are meant to represent loose order (possibly irregular) troops, and 15mm deep elements are meant to represent close order (possibly drilled) troops. So, do these base depths produce the desired results? For example, would it make more sense to base pike on 30mm deep bases to create a bit more clumsiness?

I'm all for variety. But arbitrary variety doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Having said all that, I don't really have strong feelings about basing. So, I suppose I favor the status quo as it requires the least amount of work.

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 02:51 PM
So, under the proposed scheme, players seeking to play DBA will find

* Existing DBA armies: totally legit under the new scheme with its provisos, unless the army composition has changed from 2.2 to 3.0 in the way that DK has highlighted (Kn replaced with LH), which has nothing to do with how deep a base or how many figures you use for different subtypes.

* Existing DBM(M) armies: also totally legit, unless the army composition has changed (which is unlikely since the DBA 3.0 lists are based on DBMM)

* Future DBM(M) armies: also legit, for the same reasons.

* Future DBA armies: Obviously legit.


So in order to determine if a given element is legally based, we're going to need to have a copy of DBA 2.2, DBA 3.0, and the DBMM army lists books. I'm glad things are getting simpler. :)

- Jack

winterbadger
02-03-2011, 03:00 PM
So in order to determine if a given element is legally based, we're going to need to have a copy of DBA 2.2, DBA 3.0, and the DBMM army lists books.

Well, not really. Given the provisos, *any* basing is legal as long as it's the right width (and the players agree...) The base depths specified are effectively just *suggestions*.

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 03:16 PM
Well, not really. Given the provisos, *any* basing is legal as long as it's the right width (and the players agree...) The base depths specified are effectively just *suggestions*.

Is this really the proposal that's being discussed? I thought that the proposal was for new generic base depths, with a loophole for DBMM elements.

- Jack

winterbadger
02-03-2011, 03:25 PM
Is this really the proposal that's being discussed? I thought that the proposal was for new generic base depths, with a loophole for DBMM elements.

- Jack

The version that I saw said (http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/picture.php?albumid=2&pictureid=73), before listing the different sizes, "Base size is not critical provided that all bases have the same frontage and both armies use the same conventions."

It also says that any elements based for DBMM or prior versions of DBA are acceptable.

So it seems to me that this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot.

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 03:33 PM
The version that I saw said (http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/picture.php?albumid=2&pictureid=73), before listing the different sizes, "Base size is not critical provided that all bases have the same frontage and both armies use the same conventions."

That's identical to the wording in DBA 2.2. But showing up at an HMGS convention to play DBA 2.2 with elements based to something other than the standard is generally discouraged. I don't see that as license to base your elements any old way you choose.

- Jack

winterbadger
02-03-2011, 03:41 PM
That's identical to the wording in DBA 2.2. But showing up at an HMGS convention to play DBA 2.2 with elements based to something other than the standard is generally discouraged. I don't see that as license to base your elements any old way you choose.

Well, that's what it *is*. Whether it's accepted as such is an entirely different issue.

I base my armies the way the rules and lists specify, for the most part because even though on the boards I may be an ass, as DK has pointed out, when I play FTF I try to go along to get along. But I've also been using my 1.0 Vikings, originally based as 3Wb, as 4Bd for years, and no one has ever caviled (or, perhaps, even noticed).

ETA: I also seem to recall fighting at least one Book I army at the last HMGS event that was standing in en masse as a totally different Book II army. HMGS players are not all the flint-hearted hardasses you suggest. :D

El' Jocko
02-03-2011, 04:07 PM
Well, that's what it *is*. Whether it's accepted as such is an entirely different issue.

I base my armies the way the rules and lists specify, for the most part because even though on the boards I may be an ass, as DK has pointed out, when I play FTF I try to go along to get along. But I've also been using my 1.0 Vikings, originally based as 3Wb, as 4Bd for years, and no one has ever caviled (or, perhaps, even noticed).

ETA: I also seem to recall fighting at least one Book I army at the last HMGS event that was standing in en masse as a totally different Book II army. HMGS players are not all the flint-hearted hardasses you suggest. :D

Just wait until you see my Lycians! We'll see just how flexible these players can be. :)

You're absolutely right that the players both locally and at HMGS events tend to be relaxed about these things. That's one of the reasons that I like playing DBA. I suppose that one important distinction, in my mind at least, is that currently these variations from the standard really are exceptions, not the norm. I worry that in the future these variations will become extremely commonplace, with some armies based to DBA 2.2, some to DBA 3.0, and some to DBMM. To the extent that base depth matters, then that's a concern.

On the other hand, if the affect of base depth was reduced (as in my suggestion on the other thread), I'd be much less concerned. If base depth doesn't have an impact on play, then viva la difference!

- Jack

ferrency
02-03-2011, 04:13 PM
ETA: I also seem to recall fighting at least one Book I army at the last HMGS event that was standing in en masse as a totally different Book II army.

Was that the Indian maiden guards standing in for Gauls in the Gallic wars event?

We joked that my exceedingly fast loss was due to the fact that the maiden guard transformed my Warbands into Spears and quick killed me.

Alan

snowcat
02-03-2011, 04:26 PM
I don't mind if all Wb end up on 20mm deep bases - but I won't be basing them all 3 figs/base. Some Wb demand 4/base. And the sooner we know, the better.

Kingo
03-12-2011, 02:11 PM
I'm just about to base a box of Indians, they now have a Hd elements, will it be 7-8 figures on a 40*30 base?

Kingo

Bob Mcleish
03-12-2011, 03:03 PM
I'm just about to base a box of Indians, they now have a Hd elements, will it be 7-8 figures on a 40*30 base?

Kingo

I think that would be a safe bet..

Bobgnar
03-12-2011, 08:51 PM
Do not know size of base but we have been told no rebasing so expect hordes to be same size. Number of figures will be optional.

Rome
03-12-2011, 11:21 PM
I could see a warband army with both three or four figures on a base. Some of the four figure bases could have a depth of 15mm to reflect chieftians and their retainers. The other bases could be 20mm in depth to reflect the tribal levy.

Kingo
03-12-2011, 11:46 PM
The problem is Indians did'nt have hordes in 2.2, but will in 3.0, I may even use a 40*40 base and have a BIG HORDE :D


Do not know size of base but we have been told no rebasing so expect hordes to be same size. Number of figures will be optional.

broadsword
03-13-2011, 12:26 AM
FWIW DBA is a game whose only method of partially "damaging" a unit is recoiling, and this is meant by design to cause a drain of PIPs.

Now since there are very few elements in an army, any loss of distinction between base depths in subtypes will produce less variety. In game terms, the difference between a line of 3Wb and one with 4Wb interspersed is huge in terms of group cohesion under recoils! If all elements are the same basedepth, recoils in series reconsitute a group free of charge. With differing base depths, recoils in series leave a non-group in some cases. I for one wouldn't like to see the loss of variety that results in eliminating subtypes.

A second argument involves some scenario-specific House Rules (I am thinking Light Spear here) that are easily implemented under the existing framework. So from the point of view of causing PIP-drains in armies with differing subtypes present, and the ease with which some elements can be house-ruled if necessary seems to suggest the elimination of subtypes will create less fun overall.

Bob Mcleish
03-13-2011, 03:56 AM
Do not know size of base but we have been told no rebasing so expect hordes to be same size. Number of figures will be optional.

Bob,

Do you reckon this will apply to Wwg too??
I'm loathe to start work on my Hussites until I know what's happening with Wwg


regards
Bob Mcleish

Jeff
03-13-2011, 12:47 PM
Bob,

Do you reckon this will apply to Wwg too??
I'm loathe to start work on my Hussites until I know what's happening with Wwg


regards
Bob Mcleish

I have begun to base my Wwg on two 40x40 stands so that the diorama looks cooler. That way you don't worry about what Phil and his thoughts are.

Jeff

Tony Aguilar
03-13-2011, 12:54 PM
I have begun to base my Wwg on two 40x40 stands so that the diorama looks cooler. That way you don't worry about what Phil and his thoughts are.

Jeff

Definitely the way to go, Jeff.

snowcat
03-13-2011, 04:59 PM
Re War Wagon basing, check these: http://fanaticus.org/DBA/armiesofthefanatici/MarkBaker/Hussites/index.html

Evil Gong Miniatures produce them exactly 40mm across. And the horse team(s) can be on a separate base behind (like Mark Baker's but his appear integral).

snowcat
03-23-2011, 07:07 AM
Any updates on the base depths for 3.0? (Specifically Wb?)

Rong
03-23-2011, 10:37 AM
I seem to remember that there would be no re-basing in 3.0. What happened to that? :???

winterbadger
03-23-2011, 10:46 AM
I seem to remember that there would be no re-basing in 3.0. What happened to that? :???

I've heard nothing to suggest there will be rebasing; if anything, basing may become more generic. Army lists may change, but there won't (at least as I understand what's been said publicly so far) any sort of "3Wb becomes 4Wb" sort of silliness going on.

david kuijt
03-23-2011, 11:49 AM
I've heard nothing to suggest there will be rebasing; if anything, basing may become more generic. Army lists may change, but there won't (at least as I understand what's been said publicly so far) any sort of "3Wb becomes 4Wb" sort of silliness going on.

Army list changes represent the vast majority of rebasing regardless. Changes from 3Wb to 4Wb, or from 4Bw to 3Bw, were never a real issue -- players would have ignored such rebasing in their armies regardless of anything else, and I've never met a tournament organizer who would kick someone out of a tournament for such a picayune detail.

Martyn
03-23-2011, 12:13 PM
Sue has always made it clear that any changes to the recommended basing conventions in v3 would have the caveat identifying that any v2 or DBMM valid basing would be valid in v3 and therefore there is no forced rebasing required.

Having said that I always feel it is a retrograde step to introduce variable basing, but that is just my point of view.

As DK points out the bigger effect is the changes to the army lists. Having just completed my South Welsh the latest proposed army lists means that I will need to get an addition element of Bw. :mad

However this is generally an amiable community and I would expect that for friendly games nobody will be too worried, whilst I sure that in competition games organisers are likely to allow any valid army list whether v2 or v3.

What I would like to know is whether the new army lists and basing proposals that Sue has been working on are now definitely part of v3? Previously Sue has suggested that Phil has not decided. Do any of the cats know, and if so are they able to clarify?

david kuijt
03-23-2011, 12:19 PM
What I would like to know is whether the new army lists and basing proposals that Sue has been working on are now definitely part of v3? Previously Sue has suggested that Phil has not decided. Do any of the cats know, and if so are they able to clarify?

This cat does not know. Nothing in the 3.0 playtest group discussions have shed any light on the matter.

Roland Fricke
03-24-2011, 06:08 AM
Nothing in the 3.0 playtest group discussions have shed any light on the matter.

Just Heat?

elsyr
04-13-2011, 10:00 PM
Well, since I game with 6mm figs on 15mm scale bases, # of figs per element is immaterial to me, but of course base depths are not. That said, what happened to the idea of using base widths for measurements, which I thought I had heard was floating about in 3.0-land? That would make depths irrelevant to game play, which seems to me to be a good thing.

Doug

Martyn
04-14-2011, 04:07 AM
Well, since I game with 6mm figs on 15mm scale bases, # of figs per element is immaterial to me, but of course base depths are not. That said, what happened to the idea of using base widths for measurements, which I thought I had heard was floating about in 3.0-land? That would make depths irrelevant to game play, which seems to me to be a good thing.

Doug

My understanding is that this is still proposed. No doubt the cats can confirm but I think they are not fully at liberty to discuss v3.

The idea is to use DBMM concepts that tactical movement and shooting ranges are in multiples of base widths (plus the occasional half width).

However recoil and pursuit are still a base depth

Bobgnar
04-14-2011, 10:00 AM
snip
However recoil and pursuit are still a base depth

How do you know this?

Martyn
04-14-2011, 10:48 AM
How do you know this?

Perhaps I was not clear. In DBMM recoil and pursuit are still a base depth.

As an additional leap of unsubstantiated guess work I would take from that that in v3 this is likely to follow because it maintains the current rule and follows DBMM. Unless Phil has come up with another fiendishly clever concept that nobody has thought of before.

elsyr
04-15-2011, 08:34 AM
Perhaps I was not clear. In DBMM recoil and pursuit are still a base depth.

As an additional leap of unsubstantiated guess work I would take from that that in v3 this is likely to follow because it maintains the current rule and follows DBMM. Unless Phil has come up with another fiendishly clever concept that nobody has thought of before.

I had misinterpreted that, apparently - I had thought (wishful thinking, perhaps) that moving to measurement it terms of base widths would have included recoil and pursuit moves (which would probably be halves). Poop.

Doug