PDA

View Full Version : New Element Type???


kontos
12-13-2011, 12:02 AM
Regardless of various opinions, I feel there has been a need for new element types in DBA. I won't go into detail on what types, however; there has been successful implementation of various special rules tried and tested with much success an no "complication" to the simplicity that is DBA.

And now to the point.

Where has the clamor been for Mounted Infantry??? :???

With all the elements that could be imagined, mounted infantry? Where did that come from in 3.0? I don't get it.

Bob Santamaria
12-13-2011, 12:07 AM
It has probably been lost among all the clamour for 8Sp, and counting loss of two elements for the loss of one

larryessick
12-13-2011, 12:15 AM
In this newly rekindled period of civility I'd point out that there are basically two types of ancients/medievals gamers.

One type is primarily concerned with historical opponents and if pushed outside that will accommodate contemporary opponents of historical opponents. In those cases having mounted infantry with its larger move is a step forward and a positive thing.

The other type is primarily concerned with open competitions or, if the comps are restricted, to much less historical opposition. In that situation having mounted infantry can bugger up well laid plans due to their increased mobility.

While both types of players have value and their points of view are legitimate from their perspectives, I think Phil Barker writes primarily from the point of view that this is a game meant to replicate history. As such, inclusion of mounted infantry seems a logical step in describing a number of armies who seem to have used such tactics for at least some of their troops.

This also opens up space for the inevitable rethinking of chariot warfare and the revisionist view that chariots were either mobile shooting platforms or rapid transport for troops that would dismount to fight. Not that that particular debate hasn't been running around for a while now.... ;)

Bob Santamaria
12-13-2011, 12:26 AM
It may also have been lost among the clamour for retaining BUA's in an even more obscure and unsatisfactory form

Alan Saunders
12-13-2011, 01:28 AM
It may also have been lost among the clamour for retaining BUA's in an even more obscure and unsatisfactory form

I got a few lines into the BUA rules and decided that if I do play DBA 3.0, I'll actually play DBA 3.1, where a BUA is just a polygonal area of bad going, with the same effects as a wood.

Like it in in HOTT :)

David Brown
12-13-2011, 02:25 AM
A number of OZ comps indeed have put BUAs as just a bit of Bad Going and ignored the people's democratic freedom fighters etc.

I think the BUA stuff mostly might be best shunted to the campaign section.

Given the power to re-write them I'd be tempted to;

a) enforce a perimiter in exact and straight BW multiples and 90o corners (each multiple, when the feature is defended, exerting a tz so that can be tidied along with contacting the thing - you line up on one of the complete BW multiples as if it was an element).

Allow the area defence as now.

or b) have them as any other BGo excepting foot inside or defending the perimiter get a +2 in close combat or if shot at.

Stephen Webb
12-13-2011, 03:13 AM
A number of OZ comps indeed have put BUAs as just a bit of Bad Going and ignored the people's democratic freedom fighters etc.

They are allowed at my competitions, even though I personally think they are a stupid idea.

Some players even use them, sometimes to their detriment.

Victor
12-13-2011, 03:17 AM
They are allowed at my competitions, even though I personally think they are a stupid idea.

Some players even use them, sometimes to their detriment.

Whenever I have used one I invariably lose, thinking they were effective against low CF armies (eg no +5 blades etc). Though with the new sorties rule, they might be more attractive now, as it gives an additional tactical option.

Scott Russell
12-13-2011, 03:48 PM
Back to the original question. The idea seemed to come absolutely out of nowhere. None of us had clamoured for it (or even thought of it), but there was no real objection as it seemed historically justified, only affected a small number of armies, and we had bigger fish to fry. If it does raise a question, it is why mounted infantry were chosen over apparently more deserving cases.
Scott

kontos
12-13-2011, 04:38 PM
Back to the original question. The idea seemed to come absolutely out of nowhere. None of us had clamoured for it (or even thought of it), but there was no real objection as it seemed historically justified, only affected a small number of armies, and we had bigger fish to fry. If it does raise a question, it is why mounted infantry were chosen over apparently more deserving cases.
Scott

And that is part of my point, Scott. There has been debate about how certain chariot armies were modelled (Ancient British and Trojan War types come to mind) and this rule, if well thought out, may be beneficial from a historical and even game play aspect. But seriously, equal thought should have been placed on DBEs. Firstly, they were never a result of any intentional inclusion in DBA. They were retrofitted from the offspring of DBA and had no place in this scale. Now it is obvious they are not going away and a compromise rule is put into place that serves as a justification? These elements perform differently in the offspring games. I would accept it if they were to do the same in DBA. If it is beyond the scope of DBA to allow for their differences, GET RID OF THEM! The rule is inconsistent.

Warband can support themselves; gain a +1; and they only lose the lead element now. I have no problem with that. The supporting element will probably find themselves in a pickle anyway. A self supported 6Kn will gain a +1 and die as if 2 elements lost? Why? Because we can't saw the base in half? All elements in DBA have been equal up til now. Now certain elements are 50% toward winning and losing for a +1? The player really doesn't have a choice; he has to use them or be handicapped fighting 10 or 11 elements against his opponents 12. With the new speeds in the game the owning player may not be able to do anything about their engagement with the enemy. The rule doesn't even present a true tactical decision for the owning player. It is a retrofit mandated by Phil for whatever reason and the same amount of thought was not given to DBE as was Mounted Infantry. That is a shame. He could have made them work to the satisfaction of many.

Victor
12-13-2011, 04:55 PM
Warband can support themselves; gain a +1; and they only lose the lead element now. I have no problem with that. The supporting element will probably find themselves in a pickle anyway. A self supported 6Kn will gain a +1 and die as if 2 elements lost? Why? Because we can't saw the base in half? All elements in DBA have been equal up til now. Now certain elements are 50% toward winning and losing for a +1? The player really doesn't have a choice; he has to use them or be handicapped fighting 10 or 11 elements against his opponents 12.

Not sure what you are trying to say, comparing a DBE to two elements of warband is not comparing like with like. Yes, the second rank warband is not destroyed, but it has taken away from one of your 12 total elements total, it has forced you to reduce your frontage to obtain depth, putting your flanks under more pressure. So it is reasonable that the supporting element is not lost, as there are other adverse effects in play.

With a DBE, you get the benefits of rear support, but not the downside in having your frontage reduced or using up another of the 12 elements available - you are running now with 13+ elements. So it is reasonable that a 2DBE loss for losing one seems appropriate.

kontos
12-13-2011, 05:08 PM
Not sure what you are trying to say, comparing a DBE to two elements of warband is not comparing like with like. Yes, the second rank warband is not destroyed, but it has taken away from one of your 12 total elements total, it has forced you to reduce your frontage to obtain depth, putting your flanks under more pressure. So it is reasonable that the supporting element is not lost, as there are other adverse effects in play.

With a DBE, you get the benefits of rear support, but not the downside in having your frontage reduced or using up another of the 12 elements available - you are running now with 13+ elements. So it is reasonable that a 2DBE loss for losing one seems appropriate.

Really? You have a tactical choice and more flexibility. My DBE doesn't. My DBE isn't really a 13th element since it cannot perform any other tasks a 13th element could perform. It can only provide a +1 support. But its not just the math. Do you really want a DBA game to come down to 2x6Kn charging 2x8Bw? Should the whole game revolve around protecting that from happening? Its affect on the game, to me, is worse than the benefit derived from a retrofit that was never in DBA to begin with.

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 05:21 PM
DBE only get benefits against foot (minus Bw/Ps).

This causes some extreme effects in some matchups.

8Sp Thebans will have a huge advantage on any other Greeks.

6Bd Early Swiss are a destroyer army against any infantry army -- Early Swiss vs. Vikings, anyone? Early Swiss against Ancient Spanish? Hell, Early Swiss against Later Swiss? Hands-down smack-down.

But that reverses against mounted armies. Early Swiss against any army with Knights? 6Bd fight like 3Bd, except much more awkward and two losses breaks your army. Maurikian Byzantines? Devastating against foot armies (+4 Cav, in essence), but at a huge disadvantage against Sassanids or Parthians, where two losses can break your army and you get no benefit at all in combat.

kontos
12-13-2011, 05:27 PM
DBE only get benefits against foot (minus Bw/Ps).

This causes some extreme effects in some matchups.

8Sp Thebans will have a huge advantage on any other Greeks.

6Bd Early Swiss are a destroyer army against any infantry army -- Early Swiss vs. Vikings, anyone? Early Swiss against Ancient Spanish? Hell, Early Swiss against Later Swiss? Hands-down smack-down.

But that reverses against mounted armies. Early Swiss against any army with Knights? 6Bd fight like 3Bd, except much more awkward and two losses breaks your army. Maurikian Byzantines? Devastating against foot armies (+4 Cav, in essence), but at a huge disadvantage against Sassanids or Parthians, where two losses can break your army and you get no benefit at all in combat.

Good insights into certain matchups, DK. However; we know that DBA is a game of matchups already. The question remains, do you see the DBE rule as modelled a viable inclusion into the rules or a compromise for a retrofit forced into a game where it doesn't belong? Maybe another opinion? I don't want to limit your choice of response. :D

larryessick
12-13-2011, 05:33 PM
Well, as the discussion moves away from mounted infantry and the decision to include it rather than other possible new element types and onto the subject of double based elements, another new element type for DBA, it seems a good time to further interject.

I personally believe that DBE is a good addition to DBA. I also believe that the +1 in combat is a good thing in most cases.

I think that it has not been thought out to its fullest -- but I'm not in the playtest group so don't know what they've done. Maybe they are kicking around one or more of the ideas I'm about to present.

I don't think that they are enough of a game changer to justify counting them as two elements lost.

I would suggest:

DBE knight, blade, spear -- +1 in close combat against foot.
DBE cavalry -- +1 in close combat against Lh and Cv only.
DBE bow -- -1 to opponent in ranged combat, +1 in close combat against mounted.

I would further suggest that the loss of a DBE count as one only.

Now, reasons.

Knights in deep formations were described as clumsy or were cataphracts intentionally deployed against infantry formations. IMO cataphracts deployed against mounted should instead be regular knights on standard bases. Deep formations of blade I'm not entirely familiar with but appears to me to represent battle columns of looser formed infantry used to break opposing infantry lines. Spear formation was for spear opponent, not a response to mounted.

Cavalry in deep formations were used primarily to break opposing cavalry, driving off flank supports and making the enemy vulnerable to overlap.

Bow with front ranks of pavise were used primarily to protect the shooters from enemy missiles so that they could, themselves, have greater success shooting back. Reducing enemy shooting seems the better way to show this.

Victor
12-13-2011, 05:35 PM
DBE only get benefits against foot (minus Bw/Ps).

This causes some extreme effects in some matchups.

8Sp Thebans will have a huge advantage on any other Greeks.

6Bd Early Swiss are a destroyer army against any infantry army -- Early Swiss vs. Vikings, anyone? Early Swiss against Ancient Spanish? Hell, Early Swiss against Later Swiss? Hands-down smack-down.

But that reverses against mounted armies. Early Swiss against any army with Knights? 6Bd fight like 3Bd, except much more awkward and two losses breaks your army. Maurikian Byzantines? Devastating against foot armies (+4 Cav, in essence), but at a huge disadvantage against Sassanids or Parthians, where two losses can break your army and you get no benefit at all in combat.

All good points. I'm not sure why DBE's also wouldn't have an effect against knights.

Overall, DBE's become another part of the paper/rock/scissors effect in play in DBA, uber effects against some types, but normal against others. At worst, they are still no worse off than an ordinary single element, but do get stronger against others, an overall net gain. So some balancing detriment should still be be applied - having them as 2DBE's seems the most elegant.

Rong
12-13-2011, 05:40 PM
Thebans, DBE for just for the "Sacred Band". Why not Spartans or other spear armies of note? Throughout History.;)

john meunier
12-13-2011, 05:44 PM
For a very long time DBA has had an element that gets +1 in combat but its loss could spell the doom of the whole army. It was called the general.

The new DBE rules might not be good or well-balanced, but it has long been a part of DBA to have some elements worth more than others when it comes to battle outcomes. (We've also had elements worth less than others - SCh).

I think the best argument against the rule is the creeping complexity, but that fight is lost already.

dicemanrick
12-13-2011, 05:53 PM
For a very long time DBA has had an element that gets +1 in combat but its loss could spell the doom of the whole army. It was called the general.

The new DBE rules might not be good or well-balanced, but it has long been a part of DBA to have some elements worth more than others when it comes to battle outcomes. (We've also had elements worth less than others - SCh).

I think the best argument against the rule is the creeping complexity, but that fight is lost already.

Not any more, John...General counts like a DBE, two elements lost but game continues. :D

dicemanrick
12-13-2011, 05:55 PM
I don't think that they are enough of a game changer to justify counting them as two elements lost.

I would suggest:

DBE knight, blade, spear -- +1 in close combat against foot.
DBE cavalry -- +1 in close combat against Lh and Cv only.
DBE bow -- -1 to opponent in ranged combat, +1 in close combat against mounted.

I would further suggest that the loss of a DBE count as one only.

snip



Larry, this is REAL good. Too bad it won't happen with 3.0.

kontos
12-13-2011, 06:27 PM
Well, as the discussion moves away from mounted infantry and the decision to include it rather than other possible new element types and onto the subject of double based elements, another new element type for DBA, it seems a good time to further interject.

I personally believe that DBE is a good addition to DBA. I also believe that the +1 in combat is a good thing in most cases.

I think that it has not been thought out to its fullest -- but I'm not in the playtest group so don't know what they've done. Maybe they are kicking around one or more of the ideas I'm about to present.

I don't think that they are enough of a game changer to justify counting them as two elements lost.

I would suggest:

DBE knight, blade, spear -- +1 in close combat against foot.
DBE cavalry -- +1 in close combat against Lh and Cv only.
DBE bow -- -1 to opponent in ranged combat, +1 in close combat against mounted.

I would further suggest that the loss of a DBE count as one only.

Now, reasons.

Knights in deep formations were described as clumsy or were cataphracts intentionally deployed against infantry formations. IMO cataphracts deployed against mounted should instead be regular knights on standard bases. Deep formations of blade I'm not entirely familiar with but appears to me to represent battle columns of looser formed infantry used to break opposing infantry lines. Spear formation was for spear opponent, not a response to mounted.

Cavalry in deep formations were used primarily to break opposing cavalry, driving off flank supports and making the enemy vulnerable to overlap.

Bow with front ranks of pavise were used primarily to protect the shooters from enemy missiles so that they could, themselves, have greater success shooting back. Reducing enemy shooting seems the better way to show this.

I find it truly amazing that you have the same concerns I do about DBE and its potential benefit and agree with me that it wasn't thought out to its fullest extent. I called it a bad compromise and wanted to see more and was opposed to it counting as two elements lost. However; on the DBA Yahoo Group you profiled me as just being resistant to change and not liking the rules because I didn't want to like 3.0. Am I interacting with the same Larry here? ;)

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 06:30 PM
Overall, DBE's become another part of the paper/rock/scissors effect in play in DBA, uber effects against some types, but normal against others. At worst, they are still no worse off than an ordinary single element, but do get stronger against others, an overall net gain. So some balancing detriment should still be be applied - having them as 2DBE's seems the most elegant.

That's all true enough, for combined arms armies and open tournaments. But shouldn't we care a bit about history? Any change to the rules that messes up historical matchups (messes them up more than it fixes them) is automatically suspect. In my eyes, at least.

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 06:45 PM
Good insights into certain matchups, DK. However; we know that DBA is a game of matchups already.

Macro matchups (army vs. army) and micro matchups (element type vs. element type). One of the successes of DBA is that, most of the time, historical macro matchups are interesting, competitive games. In v2.2, anyway. There are exceptions, of course (Vikings vs. Anglo-Danes; Anglo-Danes vs. Normans) but by and large, battles between historical enemies play out in a way that feels like battles between those historical enemies. In other words, most of the macro matchups work. In v2.2.

The question remains, do you see the DBE rule as modelled a viable inclusion into the rules or a compromise for a retrofit forced into a game where it doesn't belong? Maybe another opinion? I don't want to limit your choice of response. :D

The word kludge comes to mind. A poorly tested, quick hack solution. Phil was faced with the compatibility issue between DBA and DBMM armies where double based elements are involved, and someone on the commentary group (Bob, perhaps?) made the comment that many DBA players are completely unsympathetic to having expensive, awkward elements that are no different in play, so he created a kludge so there was now a difference in play. (It happened while I was still part of the commentary group). The original kludge was even worse (it was +1 against all enemies, not just foot).

At this point it doesn't matter what the genesis of the rule was, or what I think of the motivation for adding the rule. There are good rules that started as kludges, and there are bad ones that started with the best intentions in the world. The only real question is, is this rule (on the whole, all things considered) a net plus to DBA, or not.

kontos
12-13-2011, 07:08 PM
At this point it doesn't matter what the genesis of the rule was, or what I think of the motivation for adding the rule. There are good rules that started as kludges, and there are bad ones that started with the best intentions in the world. The only real question is, is this rule (on the whole, all things considered) a net plus to DBA, or not.

That is a great non-answer to my question, DK. :g

Are you on some kind of dare or just on best behavior for Santa? :rotfl

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 07:31 PM
That is a great non-answer to my question, DK. :g

Are you on some kind of dare or just on best behavior for Santa? :rotfl

Geeze, Xavi said I'd been harsh recently, but if my saying "A poorly tested, quick hack solution" counts as my best behavior, I'm getting coal in my stocking for certain.

My last paragraph (the one you cite) basically says: try it, make up your own mind.

Not surprisingly, if you ask me whether the 3.0 DBE rule for 8Bw is better than the Pavisier rule DS and I made up last year for the Peloponnesian War campaign theme, I will have an opinion. But I sent Phil the full justification for the Pavisier concept about nine months ago, and his immediate response was to create the 3.0 DBE element rule (right afterwards). So Phil obviously likes his rule better.

But hey, he responded to half a dozen commentators asking him to drop the thousand words of BUA rules by revising and expanding them, with gates and sorties. Phil goes his own way.

Now everyone can see the 3.0 rules for themselves, and like them or not like them based upon what they see. I'm sure it is a relief for DS, Doug Melville, and Andreas. The wait is over -- it's alive.

Well, not truly, as Phil will probably be changing other things last-minute, but that was always going to happen. Still, if this isn't close to the final version of 3.0 we're looking at, then the rules won't be out before the end of 2012, and the Mayans are telling us the world ends then.

john meunier
12-13-2011, 07:35 PM
Not any more, John...General counts like a DBE, two elements lost but game continues. :D

Yes. But for a time ...

john meunier
12-13-2011, 07:41 PM
Still, if this isn't close to the final version of 3.0 we're looking at, then the rules won't be out before the end of 2012, and the Mayans are telling us the world ends then.

What is the shortest time frame people think we might be getting 3.0?

I'm trying to decide whether I should invest energy into starting to get the hang of them as presented here or wait.

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 07:55 PM
What is the shortest time frame people think we might be getting 3.0?

I'm trying to decide whether I should invest energy into starting to get the hang of them as presented here or wait.

Cold Wars (mid-March), perhaps?

Two or three weeks ago Phil said he was working his way through the army lists, and was (at that time) only about 1/3 of the way through book II, which is something like 1/4 or 1/5 the way through the army lists.

If he makes no more changes to the rules, he might finish the army lists between end of December and end of January. With the 2.0 army lists, repeated cycles of checking them took another six months after he finished going through them, but you were asking what the shortest time frame might be -- the shortest time frame is if he finishes going through them and just publishes them at that point. If that happens mid-late January, then mid-March is the earliest 3.0 could be available.

With the 2.0 army lists, though, the last cycle of editing on them was November, and the rules didn't hit the stands until that March. So my guess is that there will be no 3.0 rules available until early summer, even if he chooses not to go through three editing cycles on the army lists (which is what he did with 2.0). And if he goes through editing cycles (hopefully bouncing his army lists off Duncan Head and other knowledgeable people first) then we might be looking at Fall.

So that gives you my guess: somewhere between mid-March and the Mayan Apocalypse October/November 2012. Based purely upon the army lists -- if he makes many more changes on the rules, that could be delayed further.

Xavi
12-13-2011, 08:28 PM
Geeze, Xavi said I'd been harsh recently,

Ok kiddo. I will give you permission to be somewhat harsher only this time. Be sure to use your candy wisely :rotfl:LMAO

Basically I have seen some vitriolic comments lately. Not only from DK, but DK seemed one of the guys ready to jump, even when the topic was not specially problematic :) I have failed to see any smoke so far in this thread at all, much less any risk of flames ;)

Any I thionkl some parts of DBA 3.0 DESERVE high calibre flak and a few nukes. the World of DBA would be better if we nuked all cities from the face of Earth, for example. ;)

Cheers,
Xavi

david kuijt
12-13-2011, 08:47 PM
Ok kiddo. I will give you permission to be somewhat harsher only this time. Be sure to use your candy wisely :rotfl:


Nah, I'm saving it up for a future occasion, so I can go ballistic at that point without penalty.

More to the point of Frank's question, I think that the DBE rules have problems, but I find it difficult to get very hot under the collar about them. The big problems I have with 3.0 are more basic and structural, and I've stated them before. DBE? That's like debating whether you like the color of the car that just ran you over.



Any I thionkl some parts of DBA 3.0 DESERVE high calibre flak and a few nukes. the World of DBA would be better if we nuked all cities from the face of Earth, for example. ;)


What, you don't like gates and denizen sorties? Say it ain't so.

But yes, refining the BUA rules is turd-buffing.

kontos
12-13-2011, 09:42 PM
My heartburn is I took everyone's advice and kept my mouth shut about 3.0 until something was put out there to review ignoring the snippets that were escaping the inner circle. I had even gained a level of hope and anticipation when DK had mentioned there was some good in 3.0. Now I see that there is some good. I also see some major deal breakers in this system which in no way resembles DBA. I had false hopes that with all the "new" element types that the community had playtested and shown to be game enhancements, maybe, just maybe, there was hope for DBE which ARE cool looking and could have been a plus to 3.0. Well all my hopes were dashed when I read this online "draft" edition. I am sure others were as well. What really galls me is the high horse attitudes of some on this board but mainly on the Yahoo Group who profile all who do not like 3.0 as resistant to change and rabbler rousers or die hard tournament players (yeah, you, Bob). How dare they. What I am left with is a system that will be played if that is what it will take to keep the DBA tournament community alive and avoid fragmentation. You know, all of us die hard fun loving tournament players (yeah, you, Bob). 3.0 should have "been a contender" but is knocked out in this first round. That is a real disappointment to me. I have used the first person throughout all of this as I can only speak for myself. My local group has rejected 3.0. Unfortunately they have also rejected my suggestion to plug 'n play the good from 3.0 into 2.2 and make a better game. They are waiting for an "official" movement on this. I cannot venture to say that will ever happen. So, it is 2.2 for me unless the conventions I frequent force me to adopt 3.0. I will do so I can continue to enjoy the company of my DBA friends but it remains a shame that a great community cannot also enjoy a better game.

//rant off

And yes, I've been drinking. :beer

Inari7
12-13-2011, 09:46 PM
But yes, refining the BUA rules is turd-buffing.

Mythbusters had a show on buffing a turd, it is possible......

In this case I might have to disagree with the results the Mythbusters had found.

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html

David Brown
12-14-2011, 01:12 AM
DBEs are bad juju.

There's no need for them even in DBm(m).

I sometimes wonder if PB thinks about the design philosophy of his creations. In DBx we had the breakthrough of combining combat and morale into a single event.

That event was between troops clumped in what he saw as the smallest independently mobile groups, elements. We got the flash of combining morale into function and sumbsuming of weapons and armour into that role.

In one of the DBx rules there was a statement to the effect that, to go with all the above, the element was assumed to be in a formation appropriate to its role and tactical circumstance.

So who gives a rat's if they are in wedge or how deep they are, its just a lump of troops doing what's needed to get their job done.

This new version talks about non-skirmishers being 6-10 ranks deep, which should cover all the 8BW in a single rank, (the best guess is that Persian sparabara style chaps formed up 10 deep).

I reckon you could drop Pk back to a sinlge rank, depicted deep with lots of bodies for visual impact. Sure Hellenistic pike sometimes went twice or half deep, but surely that can be subsumed into what elements do in DBA.

Will 8SP really be for Thebans only? why open up a sub-class for possibly 2 elements in one army. Just change the definition of Pike to include them.

I get the feeling Byzantine cav only go deep because 6th 7th ed players had the different lancer/ shooter figs/elements. My memory is that some of the historical Byz formations were 7 deep, which is close enough to the 4-5 ranks mentioned in the rules.

Just round all these up into single elements and make them 3Kn/6Kn, 3Cv/6Cv etc in lists to let players depict them as they wish.

If you must, make 8Bw into a new sub-class by rules exception; count as a single element but, -2 if in Bgo, +1 if in CC v foot, +1 if shot at, quick-killed by Wb, don't kill Ps when doubling them, that should be enough.

A new Pavisier class would have been easier, how long would it take to patch into the rules and lists, a day or two + checking.

Rant over.

Db

Bob Santamaria
12-14-2011, 01:50 AM
I heartily concur with everything Mr Brown just said

larryessick
12-14-2011, 01:55 AM
I find it truly amazing that you have the same concerns I do about DBE and its potential benefit and agree with me that it wasn't thought out to its fullest extent. I called it a bad compromise and wanted to see more and was opposed to it counting as two elements lost. However; on the DBA Yahoo Group you profiled me as just being resistant to change and not liking the rules because I didn't want to like 3.0. Am I interacting with the same Larry here? ;)

I'll just say that I reply to what I read based on what I understand it to be saying. If here I replied to something you wrote and am in agreement and on Yahoo I replied and am in disagreement then it is either because we are holding conversations on different subjects or the points being made were presented or understood differently in one place from the other.

In this case I notice I did not quote anything you wrote so it is probably just fortunate happenstance. And, it is quite likely that my posting is much clearer and to the point, which is why you can agree with me and I have trouble agreeing with you. ;)

winterbadger
12-14-2011, 09:28 AM
More to the point of Frank's question, I think that the DBE rules have problems, but I find it difficult to get very hot under the collar about them.

That's because, despite having a kick-ass moustache, you don't have the requisite fiery Polish szlachta temperament.

http://pics.livejournal.com/winterbadger/pic/00056dfe

kontos
12-14-2011, 10:13 AM
Hey! Where did you find that painting of my Great Aunt? :rotfl

winterbadger
12-14-2011, 11:35 AM
Hey! Where did you find that painting of my Great Aunt? :rotfl

Frank, you *are* Pan Zagloba.

DK, on the other hand, is far too cheerful and profane to be Pan Longinus, although there's a surface resemblance...

Victor
12-15-2011, 04:00 AM
Frank, you *are* Pan Zagloba.

DK, on the other hand, is far too cheerful and profane to be Pan Longinus, although there's a surface resemblance...

Interesting analogies. There is a good candidate for Pan Chaplinksi around.

Doug
12-15-2011, 04:10 AM
Straight talk - Phil is wedded to DBE (whether because he sees it as a tactical choice or just wants to retain compatability with DBM(M) basing - who knows!)

The playtest group suggested numerous options, and while Larry's suggestion has merit, it is overly complex (especially as we have already heard vociferous protests about how complex DBA3 is). Eventually, this position was decided by Phil.

Bob Santamaria
12-15-2011, 04:16 AM
Is he wedded to all variants of DBE, including the 8Sp?

Is he wedded to loss of a double element counting double?

Is he wedded to the performance of a DBE being superior to other's of its type?

Adrian

Victor
12-15-2011, 04:17 AM
Straight talk - Phil is wedded to DBE (whether because he sees it as a tactical choice or just wants to retain compatability with DBM(M) basing - who knows!)

The playtest group suggested numerous options, and while Larry's suggestion has merit, it is overly complex (especially as we have already heard vociferous protests about how complex DBA3 is). Eventually, this position was decided by Phil.

The current solution can at least be universally applied to all DBE's. I do think that DBE's should also count +1 against knights, as depth was usually a counter to their impetus, such a reiters into the renaissance period.

kontos
12-15-2011, 08:11 AM
Frank, you *are* Pan Zagloba.

DK, on the other hand, is far too cheerful and profane to be Pan Longinus, although there's a surface resemblance...

Thank you so much for the compliment my Frisian friend however; let me point out that while I have a "propensity for drinking", my tales are far from exaggerated! :D

david kuijt
12-15-2011, 10:19 AM
Frank, you *are* Pan Zagloba.

DK, on the other hand, is far too cheerful and profane to be Pan Longinus, although there's a surface resemblance...

Am I supposed to be the guy on the left, or the guy on the right?

Tony Aguilar
12-15-2011, 10:49 AM
Am I supposed to be the guy on the left, or the guy on the right?

The one on the left is the non-beer drinker.

winterbadger
12-15-2011, 01:26 PM
Interesting analogies. There is a good candidate for Pan Chaplinksi around.

May he meet the same end!

winterbadger
12-15-2011, 01:27 PM
The one on the left is the non-beer drinker.

A very chaste and holy man, too!