PDA

View Full Version : Revised DBA 3.0 Book IV Army Lists


Imperator
07-03-2011, 10:56 AM
From Sue L-Barker:

"I attach an updated version of the Book IV lists .... I shall continue to invite suggestions about these lists until after COW (10th July) and then move on to Book I. Please ask people to email me on sue@wrg.me.uk with their comments and I will read them and include them in my update of the final version."

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_IVa.pdf

Roland Fricke
07-03-2011, 11:34 AM
Looks like some significant changes in my quick persusal.

Mongols need more Cav now

Anglo-Norman, HYW English, Med French, Early Burgundians and Portuguese no longer dismount (but Free Company still do if I'm reading the list correctly.) Blade options in place of dismounters.

Hannibal Ad Portas
07-03-2011, 04:39 PM
The Khmer list got a heck of a lot better....with aggression 3, their big gob of Wb or Ax might have had to game on a billiard table. However, now they have a big gob of flying blades instead!

Martyn
07-03-2011, 04:51 PM
Looks like some significant changes in my quick persusal.

Mongols need more Cav now

Anglo-Norman, HYW English, Med French, Early Burgundians and Portuguese no longer dismount (but Free Company still do if I'm reading the list correctly.) Blade options in place of dismounters.

Interesting, at least it gets away from the rights or wrongs of dismounting elements for several of the lists. The choice has to be made before deployment. How would this affect comps where the choice for the army must be kept throughout the tournament?

Couple of points I noticed:

IV/3 Anglo Norman - lose the option of Wwg which I feel is a retrograde step losing a bit of colour.

IV/16 Scots Common - get the Art that has recently been discussed, just an option for one, but no time frame so can be taken from 1124, this needs a sublist for pre and post 1456 ish

IV/23 Feudal English - get an option for 4xSp or Hd which gives them a potential for a larger heavy inf presence which they did rather lack previously.

Just on armies that I have an interest in.

Hannibal Ad Portas
07-03-2011, 05:24 PM
Man....huge changes to the lists....not good for those of us with big DBA collections. Very sad indeed.

Noted that the Ghurids mention spears and pikes in the narrative, but now only have pikes in their list....seems a change is needed in the narrative?

kontos
07-03-2011, 05:34 PM
Looks like some significant changes in my quick persusal.

Mongols need more Cav now

.

Great. I just bought a effin Mongol army a few months ago. Now I need more cav? :rolleyes

Alan Lauder
07-03-2011, 08:13 PM
Ha ha ha ha ...

Of the 14 Book IV armies I own (Lithuanian, Feudal English, Estonian, Prussian, Teutonic Orders, Navarrese, Early Swiss (if double base is dropped ... pending), Post Mongol Russian, Order of St John, Low Countries, HYW English, Albanian, Later Swiss, and WOTR English) only the Post Mongol Russian b list is unchanged!

Fortunately and embarrasingly large proportion of them are unpainted - many more Fanatici will be worse off I'm sure! ;)

If I'm reading the lists correctly - that is - they have scaled new heights of unreadability in my opinion.

Just think of all the 'bits and pieces' orders miniatures manufacturers are going to receive in the next year or so!

Mind you, at first glance, I quite like some of the changes. I, too, like the extra heavy foot in the Feudal English and wont miss the dismounting knights in my opponent's Early Burgindians - maybe my Low Countries dudes will beat them more often now.

We live in interesting (DBA) times. :eek

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-03-2011, 08:18 PM
The Wallachians got a nice workover...:up

SUMRULD
07-03-2011, 08:21 PM
We live in interesting (DBA) times. :eek

Someone once told me that an ancient Chinese curse was "May you live in interesting times" because the times that are usually the most interesting to read about are horrid to live through. I don't know if that is a genuine Chinese curse but I do know the part about interesting to read about versus horrid to live through. So, what does this mean for DBA?:???

Kingo
07-03-2011, 09:45 PM
I do'nt really give two monkeys about the changes as long as the changes make the lists more accurate. So far its swings and roundabouts for the armies that I have. :up

Alan Lauder
07-03-2011, 09:57 PM
Someone once told me that an ancient Chinese curse was "May you live in interesting times" because the times that are usually the most interesting to read about are horrid to live through. I don't know if that is a genuine Chinese curse but I do know the part about interesting to read about versus horrid to live through. So, what does this mean for DBA?:???

For me the 'interesting' in this example .. should not always be seen as negative. Some change is good ... but not all! :rolleyes

I do'nt really give two monkeys about the changes as long as the changes make the lists more accurate.

Yeah, you are right, Kingo ... we got to keep that in our sights as the best possible outcome.

Andreas Johansson
07-04-2011, 01:09 AM
Noted that the Ghurids mention spears and pikes in the narrative, but now only have pikes in their list....seems a change is needed in the narrative?

I think it's trying to say that the Ghurid spearmen are classed as Pk.

(They had long spears and "karwah", probably a sort of pavises, which makes them Pk (X) in 'MM. Arguably Pk (X) would be better translated as Sp than Pk in DBA but that's another question and not one either Phil or Sue seems interested in discussing.)

Andreas Johansson
07-04-2011, 01:15 AM
Great. I just bought a effin Mongol army a few months ago. Now I need more cav? :rolleyes

No 2.2-conformant Mongol Conquest list has been illegalized. You only need more Cv if you want all options.

I understand people being annoyed at needing new figs to have a legal list at all (PoMo Samurai (b) now has a compulsory Bw that wasn't in the list at all before, frex), but what's so bad about having new options added?

Hannibal Ad Portas
07-04-2011, 02:14 AM
Oh...I quite agree, if it were true that most of the list changes were simply adding extra options. It doesn't seem to be shaping up that way though.

If I were running any DBA tournaments, then I would likely allow all valid 2.2 and 3.0 lists. I fear that others will not see it that way though.

David Constable
07-04-2011, 04:06 AM
PART CUT

I understand people being annoyed at needing new figs to have a legal list at all (PoMo Samurai (b) now has a compulsory Bw that wasn't in the list at all before, frex), but what's so bad about having new options added?

The problem with new list and figures in my case is two part:
First ~ I built IV/13c so I could use the 2xWWg, some others for the same reason, what if that reason no longer applies.
Second ~ The boxes I use exactly fit in my carry case, which is convenient for public transport. Most armies exactly fit in the boxes, and I do mean exactly, will they if the lists change.

You could add a third reason, what do I do with all the spare figures.

I shall borrow DBA3, looking at the army lists first, not the rules, my descision about DBA3 will be based on that. It has to first pass the army test, nothing else matters if it fails that.

David Constable

Martyn
07-04-2011, 04:33 AM
The problem with new list and figures in my case is two part:
First ~ I built IV/13c so I could use the 2xWWg, some others for the same reason, what if that reason no longer applies.
Second ~ The boxes I use exactly fit in my carry case, which is convenient for public transport. Most armies exactly fit in the boxes, and I do mean exactly, will they if the lists change.

You could add a third reason, what do I do with all the spare figures.

I shall borrow DBA3, looking at the army lists first, not the rules, my descision about DBA3 will be based on that. It has to first pass the army test, nothing else matters if it fails that.

David Constable

From what I can recall most of the organisers of comps who have expressed a view have suggested that they would allow any list that is v2.2 or v3 compliant to be valid

This is following the common sense approach that followed the changed lists to DBM and the changes to DBMM. I think that this is still the situation in DBM circles.

So I would feel that it is more critical that v3 is acceptable, the list are adaptable.

David Constable
07-04-2011, 07:03 AM
From what I can recall most of the organisers of comps who have expressed a view have suggested that they would allow any list that is v2.2 or v3 compliant to be valid

This is following the common sense approach that followed the changed lists to DBM and the changes to DBMM. I think that this is still the situation in DBM circles.

So I would feel that it is more critical that v3 is acceptable, the list are adaptable.

Hello Martyn

2012 is going to be a make and break year, with problems for players and organizers, unless the matter is sorted out within DBA3, as bases may well be.

If DBA3 says you can use DBA2.2 bases and lists, then fine.

David Constable

Andreas Johansson
07-04-2011, 07:03 AM
If I were running any DBA tournaments, then I would likely allow all valid 2.2 and 3.0 lists. I fear that others will not see it that way though.

I've heard a number of tournament arrangers say they'll allow 2.2 lists at least initially. I haven't heard anyone saying they won't.

Martyn
07-04-2011, 07:25 AM
Hello Martyn

2012 is going to be a make and break year, with problems for players and organizers, unless the matter is sorted out within DBA3, as bases may well be.

If DBA3 says you can use DBA2.2 bases and lists, then fine.

David Constable


Hi David,

At the moment every thing that Sue has said has identified that v2.2 base standards will be specifically acceptable within v3. How the potential game effects of different base sizes and things like recoil is resolved will presumably be in the rules (I hope).

The use of the different lists within a comp will be down to the organisers. Presumably the same way that they decide on themed events or restricted lists, they will also decide if v2.2, v3 or both are acceptable.
For example, the Sussex Shield had a restricted list of a min of 3LH elements, there is nothing to stop a v3 or v2.2 army being used as long as it meets that criteria. Just makes a bit more work for the organisers if they are going to provide a list of valid armies as Claudius did or Bill does for the PAWS events.

In the short term this is not a major headache (even when personally I am looking at an extra three Sp and two Hd for my Feudal English only recently completed and extra Pk, Bd and Art for my Scots Common which are primed and ready to go, not to mention all the rest). It depend on how long organisers are prepared to run dual lists, DBM comps still do several years after the first DBMM lists came out.

Macbeth
07-04-2011, 11:05 PM
I guess what I am hankering to know is

Is DBA3.0 the end of the 3Sp element

As I understand it correctly these boys are the Ax(X) from DBM(M) which get to be the best kine of Ax in the worst situations (fighting Mounted) and the worst kind of Ax in the best situations (fighting other foot).

In DBA their translation as Sp kept my keeness for the Pre Fuedal Scots alive - my old Pre Feudals were one of my great loves and I was happy that in DBA2 I could continue to play them in the same style as previous editions.

Looking at the current lists I see the Polynesians are now classed as Ax rather than Sp - is this the wave of the future Ax(X) no longer being spearmen and if so how have I discovered a loophole in the concept of allowing 2.2 lists in new competitions - I rock up with Macbeth's army and state that I want to use it as a 2.2 (spear heavy) army rather than its otherwise identical force where the bulk of ther army is now composed of Ax (given that 3Sp and 3Ax are identically based).

This might be the same as stating you want to keep using your v2.0 Medieval Portuguese because they dismount. :p

Cheers

Andreas Johansson
07-05-2011, 12:58 AM
Looking at the current lists I see the Polynesians are now classed as Ax rather than Sp - is this the wave of the future Ax(X) no longer being spearmen

Most old 3Sp types (Pk (F) in DBMM) will remain Sp in DBA 3.0 (unless Phil has a last minute conversion). The Melanesians* are an exception because they were reclassified as bog-standard auxilia in DBMM.


* You presumably mean Melanesians - the Polynesians are Bd in 2.2.

Martyn
07-05-2011, 04:36 AM
Most old 3Sp types (Pk (F) in DBMM) will remain Sp in DBA 3.0 (unless Phil has a last minute conversion). The Melanesians* are an exception because they were reclassified as bog-standard auxilia in DBMM.


* You presumably mean Melanesians - the Polynesians are Bd in 2.2.

Andreas, does this mean that Ax(X) has been dropped from MM?
Are all the elements that were classifiesd as such now Pk(F)?

However, in DBA terms (at the present time) I am glad to see there is no difference both being classified as 3Sp in old money.

Andreas Johansson
07-05-2011, 05:01 AM
Andreas, does this mean that Ax(X) has been dropped from MM?

Yes. There is no Ax (X) subtype in 'MM.

Are all the elements that were classifiesd as such now Pk(F)?

Well, no, some are now other element types (eg. the Melanesians are now Ax (O), or Wb (F) if Fijian, while French brigans are mostly Bd (I)). But that's because Phil's been persuaded they didn't fight in "Ax (X)-style" - those still thought to have done so are now Pk (F).

Andrethegreat
07-05-2011, 11:15 AM
Is there a need for new rules? whats wrong with the 2.2 version?

Redwilde
07-05-2011, 11:32 AM
Is there a need for new rules? whats wrong with the 2.2 version?

The general feeling is that 2.2 could use a little more polishing up and a 2.3 would be just fine and helpful.

Much anxiety abounds about 3.0. The anxiety will continue until we can actually see the final product.

Martyn
07-05-2011, 11:35 AM
Is there a need for new rules? whats wrong with the 2.2 version?

That is the question we have been asking ever since v3 was first suggested.

There are some problems with v2.2 which would benefit from official interpretation and some aspects of the rules that many feel don't work (I am not going to list them but a review on the archive will bring up hundreds of threads on these problems). Many feel that a revision in the shape of a v2.3 would be much more appropriate.

However Phil Barker (one of the original authors) felt that this was an opportunity to carry out a major review and rewrite. There has been much speculation as to the reasons.

We now wait with baited breath for the final published version. Then the weeping and wailing can really get some steam up.

Alan Lauder
07-05-2011, 11:41 AM
Is there a need for new rules? whats wrong with the 2.2 version?

Ahhh you ask a loaded question! There are things the community have identified that could be done to improve the current rule set - the rules are not 'broken' they just could benefit from some improvements. However, it would seem that the latest version may not address some of the core concerns DBA players have identified and also, the author(s) seems to be 'tinkering' with things that may proved unpopular. There is a review of the army lists going on as well for 3.0 - overall this is probably a good thing but will bring some short to medium term pain in terms of updating our armies.

How'd I go? My brain nearly imploded writing this :silly

You are now on the first peak of the roller-coaster ride that has been previously alluded to - enjoy!

Alan

Edit: it will be interesting to compare responses to your post. Ha ha ha 3 replies from 3 corners of the globe!

pawsBill
07-05-2011, 04:23 PM
Andreas, does this mean that Ax(X) has been dropped from MM?
Are all the elements that were classifiesd as such now Pk(F)?

Yes. There is no Ax (X) subtype in 'MM.

However, in DBA terms (at the present time) I am glad to see there is no difference both being classified as 3Sp in old money.

Well, no, some are now other element types (eg. the Melanesians are now Ax (O), or Wb (F) if Fijian, while French brigans are mostly Bd (I)). But that's because Phil's been persuaded they didn't fight in "Ax (X)-style" - those still thought to have done so are now Pk (F).

There were some DBM Ax(X) types that were not classed as 3Sp in DBA V2 but remained as 3Ax. In some cases they have become Pk(F) in DBMM but remained as Ax in the proposed DBA V3 list.

An example is list II/2 Mountain Indian.

Macbeth
07-05-2011, 06:20 PM
Most old 3Sp types (Pk (F) in DBMM) will remain Sp in DBA 3.0 (unless Phil has a last minute conversion). The Melanesians* are an exception because they were reclassified as bog-standard auxilia in DBMM.


* You presumably mean Melanesians - the Polynesians are Bd in 2.2.

Good catch Andreas - I did mean the Melanesians but was trying to sqeeze in yesterday's response within a very tight time window :D

I am happy enough that the Mels are now bog standard Ax - but without access to DBMM or the book III lists I am apprehensive about my beloved Pre Feudal Scots

There are some of us - like Doug who can work miracles with all armies (except Caledonians or Gauls when there is bar service at the tournament ;))

There are others (like myself) that have a style of play which does not include the abililty to fight well with wall to wall Ax. :(

I will mourn the passing of my solid line of spear if the list changes but there is nothing for it but to "Suck It Up Princess"

Cheers

Ammianus
07-05-2011, 06:53 PM
Same here RE the Pre Feudal Scots.

Don Ray
07-05-2011, 11:43 PM
:D Had a delightful time playing DBA this afternoon. we played 2 games following, more or less, the rules. Such a nice relaxing change from following the hand-to-hand trench bloodbath on DBA yahoo 3.0:eek
Don

Doug
07-06-2011, 04:04 AM
That is the question we Which we would that be? The Royal we?have been asking ever since v3 was first suggested.

There are some problems with v2.2 which would benefit from official interpretation and some aspects of the rules that many feel don't work (I am not going to list them but a review on the archive will bring up hundreds of threads on these problems). Many feel that a revision in the shape of a v2.3 would be much more appropriate.

However Phil Barker (one of the original authors) felt that this was an opportunity to carry out a major review and rewrite. There has been much speculation as to the reasons.

We now wait with baited breath for the final published version. Then the weeping and wailing can really get some steam up.

Martyn
07-06-2011, 04:31 AM
Which we would that be? The Royal we?

Naturally, does one not realise that we are all related. :silly

OK, guilty of lazy shorthand. 'We' implies everybody which may not be the case.

Dunctator
07-06-2011, 06:27 AM
[QUOTE=Inanna'sBoyToy;127137]The Wallachians got a nice workover...:up[/QUOTE

Don't they just!

Recently finished painting a version 2.2 army. Like the idea of possibly fielding 6xBw and an extra LH! :D

Dunc

snowcat
07-06-2011, 10:33 PM
[QUOTE=Inanna'sBoyToy;127137]The Wallachians got a nice workover...:up[/QUOTE

Don't they just!

Recently finished painting a version 2.2 army. Like the idea of possibly fielding 6xBw and an extra LH! :D

Dunc

INDEEDY!! :up

Andreas Johansson
07-07-2011, 01:03 AM
I confess I was distinctly unhappy about suggesting adding potential massed Bw for the Wallachians*. It dilutes the character of the army.


* And the Moldavians, who everyone seems to forget. Note that the Kn (Gen) option is strictly meant for the Moldavians.

snowcat
07-07-2011, 04:06 AM
I confess I was distinctly unhappy about suggesting adding potential massed Bw for the Wallachians*. It dilutes the character of the army.


* And the Moldavians, who everyone seems to forget. Note that the Kn (Gen) option is strictly meant for the Moldavians.

Perhaps a maxima could have been applied to the number of Bw allowed, eg 3.

Andreas Johansson
07-07-2011, 05:22 AM
Perhaps a maxima could have been applied to the number of Bw allowed, eg 3.

We-ell, if the 'MM list is correct that anything up to all the archers might engage in static shooting rather than hopping around in psiloid fashion, they should all be allowed in DBA too, whether it pleases my aesthetics or not.

Haardrada
07-10-2011, 04:47 AM
After reading through the revised lists I am quite happy at the changes!

The Mongol,Sicilian & Knights Hospitallier lists I am more than happy with as they seem greatly improved.

But what strikes me most is the expansion and depth of the Late Swiss lists(s).These now.,IMHO are truly reflecting the composition of these armies. :2up

I notice the LH has been dropped from the list,but have never been convinced that they were present in Swiss armies in large numbers anyway or were mounted LI. Plus in DBA 2 mounted elements in an army not containing League allies was too high anyway. Well done and hope this doesn't change in the final lists.:)

Andreas Johansson
07-10-2011, 05:31 AM
After reading through the revised lists I am quite happy at the changes!

The Mongol,Sicilian & Knights Hospitallier lists I am more than happy with as they seem greatly improved.

But what strikes me most is the expansion and depth of the Late Swiss lists(s).These now.,IMHO are truly reflecting the composition of these armies. :2up

I notice the LH has been dropped from the list,but have never been convinced that they were present in Swiss armies in large numbers anyway or were mounted LI. Plus in DBA 2 mounted elements in an army not containing League allies was too high anyway. Well done and hope this doesn't change in the final lists.:)

Principal thanks are due to Duncan Head, who spent a lot of time on the 'MM list (of which the draft DBA one is a fairly straightforward simplification).

Haardrada
07-10-2011, 06:36 PM
Principal thanks are due to Duncan Head, who spent a lot of time on the 'MM list (of which the draft DBA one is a fairly straightforward simplification).

The expansion of the list from dba 2.2 to that of 3.0 is more than a simplification of another list as time and effort has been spent researching and updating the list.Thanks for bringing it to our attention that Duncan Head was behind this. I've long been a fan of his work and his books have a valuable place in my library.:)

Doug
07-10-2011, 10:57 PM
:D Had a delightful time playing DBA this afternoon. we played 2 games following, more or less, the rules. Such a nice relaxing change from following the hand-to-hand trench bloodbath on DBA yahoo 3.0:eek
Don

I had a delightful time playing DBA on Thursday night, played three games following the V3.0 rules. Such a nice relaxing change. Neither my opponent or myself found anything to whine about.

cheers

Andreas Johansson
07-11-2011, 02:42 AM
The expansion of the list from dba 2.2 to that of 3.0 is more than a simplification of another list as time and effort has been spent researching and updating the list.
Not really (I should know, I did it). It's really just a simplification of the DBMM list.

Haardrada
07-11-2011, 02:30 PM
Then whoever updated the DBMM list combined with 'whoever' decided to expand the list from the version 2.2 to the more detailed list proposed for version 3.0.Be it yourself,Duncan Head or others involved imho deserves some credit.:)

maerk
07-18-2011, 09:33 AM
The Revised DBA 3.0 Army List IV/7 Early Crusader now allows for one Warband element which didn't exist in this list before. Does anybody know what this element stands for? I cannot find a clue neither in the DBM army list, in WRG's Armies and Enemies of the Crusades and in Osprey's the First Crusade. Can the DBMM list clarify this?

Imo the ill-equipped pilgrims are represented by the optional Hd element.

Maerk

Andreas Johansson
07-18-2011, 10:07 AM
Imo the ill-equipped pilgrims are represented by the optional Hd element.

Both the Wb and the Hd represent ill-equipped pilgrims, depending on how aggressive you think they were.

Macbeth
07-21-2011, 09:13 PM
I note with some sadness the passing away of the Yorkist Pretender option in the Wars of the Roses English army list as is contracts from two sublists to one single list.

Rest In Peace Lambert Simmnel with your German mercenary pikemen, and your Irish Bonnacht (Ax) and Kern (Ps).

I remember the fun that could be had by fielding a WOTR army with no Lb

Cheers

Rich Gause
07-21-2011, 11:00 PM
I note with some sadness the passing away of the Yorkist Pretender option in the Wars of the Roses English army list as is contracts from two sublists to one single list.

Rest In Peace Lambert Simmnel with your German mercenary pikemen, and your Irish Bonnacht (Ax) and Kern (Ps).

I remember the fun that could be had by fielding a WOTR army with no Lb

Cheers

We used it in BBDBA with 1/2 pk/ax/ps and 1/2 LBw this year.......