PDA

View Full Version : Another base depth question


Denis the Menace
10-29-2011, 05:40 AM
Could anyone pass on the latest word on what the base depths are likely to be for Sp and Bd (in 15mm) in 3.0? I know the days of 3Bd vs 4Bd are said to be gone. But I don't know whether that means that base depth for all Bd is likely now to become 15mm or all 20mm, and ditto re Sp.
I confess I haven't kept up with the discussion/speculation about 3.0 and it's possible this has been talked about already. I also know that until its actually published, it's all guess-work. But if those of us who have seen drafts of 3.0 have a sense of which way things are going on this, I'd much appreciate hearing it.
Denis

Martin Smith
10-29-2011, 06:26 AM
Could anyone pass on the latest word on what the base depths are likely to be for Sp and Bd (in 15mm) in 3.0? I know the days of 3Bd vs 4Bd are said to be gone. But I don't know whether that means that base depth for all Bd is likely now to become 15mm or all 20mm, and ditto re Sp.
I confess I haven't kept up with the discussion/speculation about 3.0 and it's possible this has been talked about already. I also know that until its actually published, it's all guess-work. But if those of us who have seen drafts of 3.0 have a sense of which way things are going on this, I'd much appreciate hearing it.
Denis

The strong rumour is - all Sp and Bd on 15mm depth, all Wb on 20mm depth.
Martin
(haven't seen full 3.0, so might be wrong)

David Constable
10-29-2011, 08:47 AM
Hello DtM

If correct then the actual depth in the new DBA will be irrelivent as it will be based on base width.

However the problem comes if you play both DBA2.2 and the new version. In DBA2.2 it does matter (as regular players know).

As far as I can see I will continue to build for DBA2.2 as is, and use for new version if needed/have to (under dire threat - having to be a good boy for a day etc).

David Constable

dervel
10-29-2011, 12:28 PM
I thought in the new rules the recoil and follow up was still the base depth or half a base width... Whichever was smaller.

Martin Smith
10-29-2011, 02:18 PM
I thought in the new rules the recoil and follow up was still the base depth or half a base width... Whichever was smaller.

Could be, could be....I'm only going by the basing suggestions Sue posted a LONG time back for V3.0. May well be that all has changed since then. Apologies if I caused any confusion !
M

dervel
10-29-2011, 06:00 PM
We did a 3.0 playtest recently, and I am pretty sure that is the current rule..

mickw
10-30-2011, 03:21 AM
Could anyone pass on the latest word on what the base depths are likely to be for Sp and Bd (in 15mm) in 3.0? I know the days of 3Bd vs 4Bd are said to be gone. But I don't know whether that means that base depth for all Bd is likely now to become 15mm or all 20mm, and ditto re Sp.
I confess I haven't kept up with the discussion/speculation about 3.0 and it's possible this has been talked about already. I also know that until its actually published, it's all guess-work. But if those of us who have seen drafts of 3.0 have a sense of which way things are going on this, I'd much appreciate hearing it.
Denis
I think wanted to take all the 3 or 4s out but Phil now doesn't. I think the basing will end up the same as for DBMM or a lot of people will be very upset including me.

Denis the Menace
10-30-2011, 05:12 AM
We did a 3.0 playtest recently, and I am pretty sure that is the current rule..

I think we've got two separate questions here: (1) how the base depths figure in the rules (e.g. whether they determine recoil and follow up etc.) and (2) what the base depths are for different element types.
I was just asking about (2).
DTM

elsyr
10-31-2011, 01:45 PM
As for your point (1) above, I'd far prefer base depths to be irrelevant in the rules.

Doug

Richard Lee
11-01-2011, 03:20 AM
As for your point (1) above, I'd far prefer base depths to be irrelevant in the rules.

Doug

Me too! It is great for some people to have their DBA elements useable for DBM, DBMM or FOG, but for others it is nice to have a bit more freedom in basing.

john svensson
11-01-2011, 06:55 AM
"recoil is...base depth or one half base width, whichever is smaller." From playtesting it at Fall In if I recall that is now a choice for the player, not whichever is smaller. Decisions, decisions.....

Menacus Secundus
11-01-2011, 07:47 AM
Meanwhile, back at the question "as set".....

Or should my alter-ego and I just ask Scott Russell next time we see him?

Menacus Secundus

Martin Smith
11-01-2011, 02:00 PM
Denis, asking Scott might well be a good plan - the basing depth debate kicked off a while back, at the start of DBA 3.0 ...I'm sure there was a list of suggested base sizes, but can no longer find it (been withdrawn?). Feel pretty sure the SUGGESTION was all Sp and Bd on 15mm depth, all Wb (3Wb and 4Wb) on 20mm depth bases. Whether that will remain the case, only time will tell.
However, the Base depth debate runs from this thread -


http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=10888&page=13

Enjoy !! (only 120+ posts to wade through)

Martin

El' Jocko
11-01-2011, 03:44 PM
Could anyone pass on the latest word on what the base depths are likely to be for Sp and Bd (in 15mm) in 3.0? I know the days of 3Bd vs 4Bd are said to be gone. But I don't know whether that means that base depth for all Bd is likely now to become 15mm or all 20mm, and ditto re Sp.

According to the latest draft...

Bd are 15mm deep, with 3-4 figures per base.
3Bd are 20mm deep, with 3 figures per base.
6Bd are 40mm deep, with 6 figures per base.

Sp are 15mm deep, with 4 figures per base.
8Sp are 40mm deep, with 8 figures per base.

When recoiling, a foot element always moves its own base depth or 1/2 base width, whichever is less.

(And just for the record, I'll note that these are draft rules and subject to change. One bases at one's own peril. :) )

- Jack

winterbadger
11-01-2011, 04:16 PM
According to the latest draft...

Bd are 15mm deep, with 3-4 figures per base.
3Bd are 20mm deep, with 3 figures per base.

Is that a typo, or are there really Bd (which can have 3 figures) and a separate 3Bd class? :???

Denis the Menace
11-01-2011, 04:34 PM
these are draft rules and subject to change. One bases at one's own peril. :) )
- Jack

Thanks everyone for the input. Just to ask for a tiny bit more: any word on Pk??
DTM

El' Jocko
11-01-2011, 05:57 PM
Is that a typo, or are there really Bd (which can have 3 figures) and a separate 3Bd class? :???

That's how it's listed in the draft. I believe that it's intentional.

Thanks everyone for the input. Just to ask for a tiny bit more: any word on Pk??
DTM

Pike are unchanged, except that 4Pk are now called Pk:

Pk are 15mm deep, with 4 figures per base.


- Jack

Denis the Menace
11-02-2011, 05:33 AM
That's how it's listed in the draft. I believe that it's intentional.



Pike are unchanged, except that 4Pk are now called Pk:

Pk are 15mm deep, with 4 figures per base.


- Jack

Thanks
DTM

Redwilde
11-02-2011, 12:14 PM
Is that a typo, or are there really Bd (which can have 3 figures) and a separate 3Bd class? :???

3Bd already exist in 2nd edition on 20mm deep bases. They are Bd (F, X) from DBM.

winterbadger
11-02-2011, 01:17 PM
3Bd already exist in 2nd edition on 20mm deep bases. They are Bd (F, X) from DBM.

Um, yes. But what Jack posted suggested that there are two separate types: Bd (which may have 3 figures), and 3Bd (which always have three figures).Why would that be desirable? And how can one tell them apart?

Rich Gause
11-02-2011, 01:58 PM
Um, yes. But what Jack posted suggested that there are two separate types: Bd (which may have 3 figures), and 3Bd (which always have three figures).Why would that be desirable? And how can one tell them apart?

Bd with 3 figs would be on a 15mm base, 3Bd would be on a 20mm.

winterbadger
11-02-2011, 02:10 PM
Bd with 3 figs would be on a 15mm base, 3Bd would be on a 20mm.

Except that it's my understanding that undifferentiated types are agnostic to base depths, now. So 3Bd are a specific base depth, but Bd can be of a variety of base depths.

I guess I am alone in thinking this whole idea ridiculously strange. If there are going to be different types, why not specifically have 4Bd (15mm) and 3Bd (20mm)? Why have Bd that can be 3 or 4 and then a different type that can *only* be 3?

Well, if that's the least irrational thing in 3.o, I guess we're still ahead...

Blackadder
11-02-2011, 04:13 PM
I guess I am alone in thinking this whole idea ridiculously strange. If there are going to be different types, why not specifically have 4Bd (15mm) and 3Bd (20mm)? Why have Bd that can be 3 or 4 and then a different type that can *only* be 3?

You're not alone. I wish Phil had just gone with one approach or the other instead of trying to split the difference. I fear that's going to confuse new players even more than Phil's seizure-inducing writing style. :sick

But I seriously doubt I'll bother with 3.0, based on what I've heard, so I don't really get a vote. :o

El' Jocko
11-02-2011, 04:44 PM
Except that it's my understanding that undifferentiated types are agnostic to base depths, now.

That sounds like something that Sue had originally floated as an idea. But it hasn't made it's way into the draft rules. Here's the relevant section:

Players should keep as closely as possible to the depths specified below. However, they may extend them slightly if they have been sold over-large figures that cannot be modified to fit on bases of standard depths.

And the Bd type is clearly specified as having a 15mm depth for 15mm figures.

- Jack

winterbadger
11-02-2011, 05:01 PM
That sounds like something that Sue had originally floated as an idea. But it hasn't made it's way into the draft rules. Here's the relevant section: (snip)

And the Bd type is clearly specified as having a 15mm depth for 15mm figures.

- Jack

Thanks, Jack!

Hastati
11-09-2011, 06:09 AM
Forgive me, but I'm going to ask a really stupid question here. I have not really played DBA in about 10 years or so, but I'm looking forward to the new version as a way to play games with my kids. However, my 10 and 15mm figs are now based on 40mm x 20mm bases. Does it really matter if the base depth of my BD or SP is 20mm as long as I recoil them 15mm on the tabletop? I have no intention to rebase so if it really is a "in game" dealbreaker then I just won't bother with DBA. Cheers for any insights.

peleset
11-09-2011, 08:14 AM
Why would any reasonable person object?

Xavi
11-09-2011, 09:11 AM
Play HOTT. It will catch your kid's imagination much more. And you can have spaertans in HOTT as well. :)

And in any case, if it is for gaming at home, it does not matter at all as long as you and your kids are ok with it. :D

Xavi

Dangun
12-04-2011, 03:08 AM
What is the point of different base depths again?

There is such a cost in rules overhead, that they should be irrelevant.

In fact why not use square bases, it would solve a lot of problems.

Dangun

Richard Lee
12-04-2011, 03:25 AM
I will try to keep my 15mm DBA armies' base depths to the officially recommended sizes because I may want to use them in competitions. However, from now on I will base any new 6mm armies with 20mm base depths for all foot except for hordes and double-based bow such as sparabara. I might decide to use 40mm by 30mm bases (which are easier to store) for chariots and artillery, as well as cavalry, light horse and knights.

ferrency
12-04-2011, 11:29 AM
What is the point of different base depths again?

There is such a cost in rules overhead, that they should be irrelevant.

In fact why not use square bases, it would solve a lot of problems.

One important game effect of the different base depths is that shallow based elements (15/20mm) can exploit a one element wide gap in the line more safely than deeper based elements. The shallower bases allow you to close the door (flank the enemy element) and still recoil once without dying. Square bases wouldn't allow this.

Alan

Bobgnar
12-04-2011, 05:10 PM
There is an historic perspective on base depths, also. I do not know why the original dimensions were used, but in in the 1980's or maybe earlier, the WRG ancient rules used the measurements that carried over into DBA in the early 1990's. To facilitate an easy transition to DBA, Phil just kept the same basing system. This system was adopted by other games to allow players to move over to them without rebasing.

The second edition of DBA measured moves from back corners so you would not like slow foot on a 40mm square base. In Third Edition, measurement is again from the front so depth is less relevant.

There are many hundreds of players with many thousands of elements already based to the standards of Second Edition. It would be a major problem to now rebase everything to squares. Any one can so base if they wish. The widths need to be consistent.

Dangun
12-05-2011, 08:09 AM
"One important game effect of the different base depths is that shallow based elements (15/20mm) can exploit a one element wide gap in the line more safely than deeper based elements."

This is true ferrency.
But is this a well thought out part of the rules.
Or an accident of base depths.
If its an accident, we'd be better off without it.

Cheers
Dangun

david kuijt
12-05-2011, 08:32 AM
But is this a well thought out part of the rules.
Or an accident of base depths.
If its an accident, we'd be better off without it.


The situation is more complex, because (as Bob says) there are hundreds of thousands of elements out there already with the current basing. If by "better off without it" you mean "the basing should be changed," the genesis isn't really very important. The cost/benefit analysis depends upon how much the game would be improved with different basing, compared to how much work it would be. Whether the original idea was an accident or deliberate doesn't enter into it, for most players who have tens and hundreds of armies.

Rong
12-05-2011, 08:50 AM
Not rebasing. too many figures. I believe we were told early on that there would be no need to rebase. Has that changed?:sick

David Constable
12-05-2011, 10:28 AM
Not rebasing. too many figures. I believe we were told early on that there would be no need to rebase. Has that changed?:sick

Your guess is as good as anybodies.

But as already mentioned it is a big no-no for the rules to change base sizes because of all the existing figures people have. Those who say it is not, do not have a lot of odd sized bases, when Sue put out her proposals I had 56 bases not to size, and I had completed checking my armies when I got to 56.

David Constable

Bobgnar
12-05-2011, 12:59 PM
I thought this discussion was not about Third Edition, which has very little rebasing needed (WWg to squares is one example). I thought this was regarding a suggestion by "Dangun" to rebase all elements onto square bases for consistency or something.

Ron, be calm.

larryessick
12-05-2011, 01:30 PM
Any one can so base if they wish. The widths need to be consistent.

Is this really true?

In HotT there is a blurb about base depth being "recommended" so I suppose in that game players could do what they wanted provided frontage (width) remained consistent. But, in DBA I don't recall seeing such latitude with base depth.

What it says on p5 is, "Base size is not critical provided that all bases have the same frontage and both armies use the same conventions." Now, I'm no genius but doesn't the "both armies use the same conventions" part mean that players are not free to adopt whatever depth they desire? Doesn't that compel them to base according to standard for all but friendlies where both armies use the atypical basing -- or perhaps matched pairs where players provide both armies and alternate using theirs or their opponents?

Bobgnar
12-05-2011, 08:13 PM
I am free to use square bases if both my armies have that same convention. There is more to DBA than tournaments.

larryessick
12-05-2011, 09:43 PM
I am free to use square bases if both my armies have that same convention. There is more to DBA than tournaments.

Words above in bold red italics indicate my emphasis. I think it sufficient to illustrate the point.

Unlike HotT, players of DBA must use the same basing convention according to the rules. And, while it is true that there is more to DBA than tournaments that doesn't alter the key elements -- which is that to comply with the rules both armies must use elements of the same frontage and using the same depth standards.

The focus on tournaments is just a sound bite and irrelevant. If I build a DBA army and travel to visit Bob's dog I won't be able to play if my army isn't based using the same frontage and depth conventions as his (hers/its?). Thus it makes sense for players to view the basing standards provided in DBA as more than just a general guideline if they want to have games somewhere other than in their own, insular world.

My assumption is that people who put forth the effort to visit forums such as this have a less insular view of the world and entertain the notion that they will actually play DBA with a variety of people (or dogs). That means they really are not free to base their figures any which way but instead should -- and for the most part will -- use the conventions put forth in the rule book.

winterbadger
12-05-2011, 09:55 PM
Larry, as oft before, I think you're being awfully negative and confrontational. What Bob says is perfectly correct, and it's really no different for DBA than it is for HOTT. Not everyone plays in tournaments or in groups outside their own club. There's no call to be snide and sarcastic. In the words of a great (fictional) warrior, "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"

El' Jocko
12-05-2011, 10:02 PM
In the words of a great (fictional) warrior, "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"

Oddball ain't fictional! He's an American hero, man.

- Jack

Lobotomy
12-05-2011, 11:15 PM
Oddball ain't fictional! He's an American hero, man.

- Jack

Even if he was played by a Canadian. Doesn't that make DK something like him? Or not. :silly

larryessick
12-05-2011, 11:28 PM
Larry, as oft before, I think you're being awfully negative and confrontational. What Bob says is perfectly correct, and it's really no different for DBA than it is for HOTT. Not everyone plays in tournaments or in groups outside their own club. There's no call to be snide and sarcastic. In the words of a great (fictional) warrior, "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"

You're free to read and feel and think what you want. I can't control that and am not going to worry about it.

If you cannot grasp the central issue then it isn't my fault. Neither is it my responsibility to jump thru hoops to make it palatable to you.

If players do whatever they want to do with base depth then they run into problems when they go elsewhere to play other players. I don't care if you don't like that I make that observation. And, I don't care that in not liking it you choose to have your feelings hurt by it.

It isn't a negative comment about anyone or any thing. It is an entirely neutral observation about the reality of gaming.

A statement was made that implied players could do whatever they want with base depth. That is correct with a caveat. The caveat was not initially included. It was subsequently. And then it was brushed off with an irrelevant comment about tournaments.

The need for similar basing is not something to be ignored just because a person believes they can do whatever the hell they want to do. It has consequences. The consequence is that two people, regardless of their motive in wanting to play a DBA game, cannot do so -- or must voluntarily agree to ignore/suspend/modify the rules of the game.

That is not something I think people should be encouraged to do.

Irrespective of the history or reasons for basing depth, the standards are what they are. And people should be encouraged to conform to the standard if they are thinking about anything but playing with themselves.

So, if that bothers you and you feel or think that making such observations is negative then tough. I really do not care.

Bob and his dog were initially wrong. The caveat requiring opposed armies to use the same basing conventions is in the rules. Bob and his dog conceding that and then brushing it off as of no consequence because not all people tournament game is also wrong. Regardless of whether people tournament game or not, they will have issues playing DBA if their bases do not follow the same basing convention. The rules specifically require the same convention be used by both players. If they play regardless then they must suspend, ignore or modify the rules.

Making those observations is not negative. It is simply reading the rules.

David Schlanger
12-06-2011, 12:41 AM
Jan - Just so you know, I care about your feelings.

DS

El' Jocko
12-06-2011, 12:59 AM
If players do whatever they want to do with base depth then they run into problems when they go elsewhere to play other players. I don't care if you don't like that I make that observation.

The next time I need someone to point out the blindingly obvious, I know who to turn to.

- Anonymous

john svensson
12-06-2011, 08:40 AM
Hey, why say something with one sentence when it can be spread across several paragraphs of psudo-intellectual derision! :rolleyes

winterbadger
12-06-2011, 09:18 AM
Jan - Just so you know, I care about your feelings.

DS

Thank you! :) And I yours.

Richard Lee
12-07-2011, 03:43 AM
What I would like to see in DBA v3 would be standard recoil distances, for instance 1/2 base depth for infantry and 1 base depth for mounted. This would reduce some of the effects of minor differences in base depths, for instance between 3Wb and 4Wb, or 3Bl and 4Bl. Some DBA players disagree, I know, and like the differences in base depths because they distinguish the different sub-types of elements tactically.

If I were the author of DBA v3 then I would consider adding a small number of additional troop types to DBA. Unfortunatey, that isn't going to happen, I understand.

Martyn
12-07-2011, 04:46 AM
What I would like to see in DBA v3 would be standard recoil distances, for instance 1/2 base depth for infantry and 1 base depth for mounted. This would reduce some of the effects of minor differences in base depths, for instance between 3Wb and 4Wb, or 3Bl and 4Bl. Some DBA players disagree, I know, and like the differences in base depths because they distinguish the different sub-types of elements tactically.

If I were the author of DBA v3 then I would consider adding a small number of additional troop types to DBA. Unfortunatey, that isn't going to happen, I understand.

From what I have seen that is in effect what v3 is doing, there are no more 3Bd or 4Bd and the difference between 3Wb, 4Wb or 5Wb will be removed, etc.

Not having seen any of the v3 drafts I don't know if the recoil is going to change to measurements of base width, but there will be consistency across each element type.