PDA

View Full Version : DBA 3.0 Clarifications from the Playtest Group


Doug
12-19-2011, 05:27 PM
Try these:

"Area features other than Gentle hills must be placed entirely within the indicated quarter."

And

An element of any of Knights (but not mounted infantry), Scythed Chariots or Elephants that is fighting against mounted or foot, or of Pikes, Blades or Warband (or that could provide rear support to a pursuing element of these *that is directly in front,* even if not providing such support against current opponents) that is fighting against foot, whose close combat opponents recoil, break-off, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue ˝ BW if foot or 1 BW if mounted; unless it is in a camp or BUA, or would cross a battlefield edge, or is in or would enter bad going other than Marsh or Rough. "

* my emphasis* - So essentially, the Ps directly behind the Bd follows up.

As for the 0 PIP move that Larry wanted to try - I have suggested..

The first move of each bound by either a single element or by a column, uses 0 PIPs if entirely by road and moves the full distance possible without reversing direction.

Not sure whether this will be the final formulation, but it is what is intended.

Rich Gause
12-19-2011, 06:07 PM
That wording for the 0 pip move seems clear to me.

Doug
12-19-2011, 08:47 PM
That should probably read 'moving the full distance' anyway - it is subject to change.

chezstewart
12-20-2011, 12:16 AM
With all the effort to base ALL measurements on BASE-WIDTHS,
should the play area be defined as 15 BWs square or the larger
size 18.75 BW (admittedly an odd number)?

Speaking of BW; I agree with the earlier comment about changing
Bw (Bow) to “Bo” to reduce confusion. Like when explaining that:
“At a range of 2 BW from the front base of Bw within ˝ BW of directly
in front, (however, a half BW depth of difficult hills, woods, oasis or dunes
blocks shooting) a Bw gains a +1 from any other Bw that also….”

larryessick
12-20-2011, 12:37 AM
With all the effort to base ALL measurements on BASE-WIDTHS, should the play area be defined as 15 BWs square or the larger
size 18.75 BW (admittedly an odd number)?

It is my view that metric should be adopted for all purposes, including table measurements. I also think that the base width to table size relationship should be the same for all scales that are in use. This is a suggestion that I've made through the years concerning all the various DB games.

I think that most players will find the impacts of deployment and movement mitigated by playing on larger boards. I would recommend 18 BW as the appropriate length and width for the table size.

Martyn
12-20-2011, 05:16 PM
With all the effort to base ALL measurements on BASE-WIDTHS,
should the play area be defined as 15 BWs square or the larger
size 18.75 BW (admittedly an odd number)?

Speaking of BW; I agree with the earlier comment about changing
Bw (Bow) to “Bo” to reduce confusion. Like when explaining that:
“At a range of 2 BW from the front base of Bw within ˝ BW of directly
in front, (however, a half BW depth of difficult hills, woods, oasis or dunes
blocks shooting) a Bw gains a +1 from any other Bw that also….”

It does seem strange to have millimetres, inches, paces and base widths as units of measurement all in the same 'simple' rules. ;)

Haardrada
12-20-2011, 07:17 PM
On the subject of rule clarification.,why do double elements count as two elements lost for victory conditions? This seems unfair when a supporting element of any other type than psiloi is not destroyed. Plus the definition given for double elements is to show depth of formation not increase in army strength.

Doug
12-20-2011, 07:37 PM
On the subject of rule clarification.,why do double elements count as two elements lost for victory conditions? This seems unfair when a supporting element of any other type than psiloi is not destroyed. Plus the definition given for double elements is to show depth of formation not increase in army strength.

An attempt to balance up the 'benefit' of a DBE. Other supporting elements use up one of the 12. A DBE has it's support built in.

I see it as an interesting choice in risk/reward. You can take the reward of additional support, (without narrowing frontage and tying up another element), plus the change to how movement is measured, makes DBE less clumsy, (and the revised recoil rules also help). In return you take a big risk that if you lose one it is halfway to army break.

kontos
12-20-2011, 07:45 PM
An attempt to balance up the 'benefit' of a DBE. Other supporting elements use up one of the 12. A DBE has it's support built in.

I see it as an interesting choice in risk/reward. You can take the reward of additional support, (without narrowing frontage and tying up another element), plus the change to how movement is measured, makes DBE less clumsy, (and the revised recoil rules also help). In return you take a big risk that if you lose one it is halfway to army break.

But +1 only against certain element types and you don't have the "choice" to support or not. It is thrust upon you. I was a fan of DBE hoping for better rules in 3.0. This is as clumsy a compromise as their movement was in 2.2. I, for one, am disappointed. So much more could have been in this new "realistic" version of DBA.

Bobgnar
12-20-2011, 08:10 PM
Good point on the size issue.
600mm is 23.6 inches so there is slippage between the scales.

Note that the 30inch square is just an artifact of hotel table width, not the actual proportional size the board should be to be in sync with 48 inch board. The "real" size should be 800mm or 32 inches square but these do not fit on East Coast USA hotel provided tables.

24/36 compared to 32/48. The original request was for the 15mm game to be on a board that was proportional to the 25mm game. That would be 32". Instead Phil just reduced the 25mm game board to 36in.

The 15mm board should be 800mm square, or 32in. 800mm is 20 base widths. Better than the "odd" 18.75BW.

So, should the rules be based on actual proportions or on hotel table requirements? Notice that for 25mm games on 48" boards those hotel tables work.

Somebody check my math as I am often wrong.

I was thinking of just abbreviating Bow to Bow. We use WWg for War Wagon so not to mix it up with WW. Water Way.


With all the effort to base ALL measurements on BASE-WIDTHS,
should the play area be defined as 15 BWs square or the larger
size 18.75 BW (admittedly an odd number)?

Speaking of BW; I agree with the earlier comment about changing
Bw (Bow) to “Bo” to reduce confusion. Like when explaining that:
“At a range of 2 BW from the front base of Bw within ˝ BW of directly
in front, (however, a half BW depth of difficult hills, woods, oasis or dunes
blocks shooting) a Bw gains a +1 from any other Bw that also….”

Bobgnar
12-20-2011, 08:14 PM
Frank, you raise the same concerns I have. I do not know this type of troop so I have not been able to argue for change. Can you make a suggestion on how to make "better rules" for these? Then I can argue from a stronger position, thanks.

ThanksBut +1 only against certain element types and you don't have the "choice" to support or not. It is thrust upon you. I was a fan of DBE hoping for better rules in 3.0. This is as clumsy a compromise as their movement was in 2.2. I, for one, am disappointed. So much more could have been in this new "realistic" version of DBA.

Bobgnar
12-20-2011, 08:24 PM
I think the wording is good as "moves the full distance possible."

I brought up a test game situation where I had a column on the road led by Blade but an enemy had an element on the road, only a BW ahead. The rule at that time was
"The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a group in a single element wide column and its leading element moves the full distance allowed and entirely by road. "

My opponent said I could not make the road move for 0 PIPs because the Bd did not move the full distance allowed, which was 2BW.

I asked for a change to allow the move to be made if the element in front (no single elements allowed at that time) moved as far as possible. So now as long as the mover goes the full distance possible according to the rules, the 0 PIPs applies.


That should probably read 'moving the full distance' anyway - it is subject to change.

john meunier
12-20-2011, 08:30 PM
On the whole BW vs. Bw issue: Isn't this a good reason to just go back to paces?

It saves all the confusion and is simple to interpret and read.

snowcat
12-20-2011, 08:40 PM
Or as someone put forward on the Yahoo Group, call them element widths. EW.

Redwilde
12-20-2011, 09:17 PM
It does seem strange to have millimetres, inches, paces and base widths as units of measurement all in the same 'simple' rules. ;)

Considering that anyone can order rulers with their own custom measurements, I think we should use different historical standard inches for armies from each Book...

Suggested examples, earlier historical examples compared to current standard feet:

Book I, Athenian 12.44" per foot
Book II, Roman 11.66"
Book III, French 12.79"
Book IV, English 13.19"

:p

http://www.rulers-of-the-world.com/index.html

Doug
12-20-2011, 09:32 PM
But +1 only against certain element types and you don't have the "choice" to support or not. It is thrust upon you. I was a fan of DBE hoping for better rules in 3.0. This is as clumsy a compromise as their movement was in 2.2. I, for one, am disappointed. So much more could have been in this new "realistic" version of DBA.

A number of suggestions re DBE and how they should treated were considered earlier in the development process. They were generallly thought to be too complex (micro) for a game on the scale of DBA. Remember, this was at a stage when fanaticus was full of complaints about how 3 was going to ruin everything by bringing in complexity from DBMM.

Do you think DBE should get +1 against everything ? And should you get to choose when the rear rank counts/is destroyed? This would seem to be a very significant advantage for a DBE with no countervailing disadvantage.

One of the strengths of DBA is that there are few occasions when you would always choose one troop type over another (one example is a dismounting Kn over a non-dismounting Kn). This would be an equivalent, and another advantage where you would never choose a single based element over a DBE.

I think these sort of cases (of 'free' advantages) are bad for the game and lead to reduced variety in armies.

I am hoping that the risk/reward equation with DBE is about right, although I have my concerns about 8 Bw, and so do several others in the test group, who pointed out that the loss of 2 elements meant it would be 'picked on' by other Bow and Artillery.

winterbadger
12-20-2011, 09:45 PM
I was thinking of just abbreviating Bow to Bow. We use WWg for War Wagon so not to mix it up with WW. Water Way.

I think that's an excellent suggestion.

BTW, any explanation ever (other than "sheer fancy" which may often be the true and only answer) why some Bow are specifically listed as longbow and crossbow, unlike any other element type? Other element types may have several different weapons representing them, even in the same army (LH using bows vs. those using javelins, blade using two-handed words versus those using halberds). And of course there are different types of armour, etc. represented by the same element type. Why is it that Bow alone are seperately notated this way?

Alan Saunders
12-20-2011, 11:09 PM
It is my view that metric should be adopted for all purposes, including table measurements.

I, for one, welcome our new metric overlords :)

kontos
12-20-2011, 11:16 PM
A number of suggestions re DBE and how they should treated were considered earlier in the development process. They were generallly thought to be too complex (micro) for a game on the scale of DBA. Remember, this was at a stage when fanaticus was full of complaints about how 3 was going to ruin everything by bringing in complexity from DBMM.

Do you think DBE should get +1 against everything ? And should you get to choose when the rear rank counts/is destroyed? This would seem to be a very significant advantage for a DBE with no countervailing disadvantage.

One of the strengths of DBA is that there are few occasions when you would always choose one troop type over another (one example is a dismounting Kn over a non-dismounting Kn). This would be an equivalent, and another advantage where you would never choose a single based element over a DBE.

I think these sort of cases (of 'free' advantages) are bad for the game and lead to reduced variety in armies.

I am hoping that the risk/reward equation with DBE is about right, although I have my concerns about 8 Bw, and so do several others in the test group, who pointed out that the loss of 2 elements meant it would be 'picked on' by other Bow and Artillery.

Doug and Bob -

I was not part of the develoment team nor a playtest group so what was bantered around is unknown to me. Greater minds than mine have tried to tackle this as you have noted. Without the creation of differing DBE by type with special rules, albeit some that have gained acceptance as house rules, would be too complex to many. One way, off the top of my head, would be to have DBE quick killed by certain, or even, all opposing elements within reason. While many would find that objectionable, it is a lesser evil than counting as two losses. The owning player at least can decide how to use these units, aggressively or not, as they would normal elements put into a QK situation. Now just more so to offset the +1. After all, part of the argument is these units are more unwieldy, so a loss turning into a rout (elimination) is kind of plausible. It would certainly have to be playtested. Like I say - just off the top of my head.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 11:32 PM
Of all the suggested reasons to pass on 3.0 the issue of DBE is one that has legitimacy.

The effect of a DBE counting as 2 elements lost is that players will not play DBE, or do so only in themed events where they have no other choice. This has the potential of sidelining a host of armies.

There is no need for complexity in resolving the problem. What there is need of is some simplicity.

DBE need to be +1 against specific enemy based on the type of DBE. That isn't complex, that is intuitive and mirrors historical use. Their slight advantage is not so great that it horribly imbalances anything so the offset need be nothing. A negative is not required.

A very few tournament tigers will, perhaps, find a new killer army. But, that is going to be taking place anyway. So what if it does happen? Every edition of every rules has its A list.

Every other objection being raised has a remedy even if people don't particularly like it. DBE is just broken and the only remedy is to sideline armies.

That hardly seems the appropriate route.

kontos
12-20-2011, 11:44 PM
Of all the suggested reasons to pass on 3.0 the issue of DBE is one that has legitimacy.

The effect of a DBE counting as 2 elements lost is that players will not play DBE, or do so only in themed events where they have no other choice. This has the potential of sidelining a host of armies.

There is no need for complexity in resolving the problem. What there is need of is some simplicity.

DBE need to be +1 against specific enemy based on the type of DBE. That isn't complex, that is intuitive and mirrors historical use. Their slight advantage is not so great that it horribly imbalances anything so the offset need be nothing. A negative is not required.

A very few tournament tigers will, perhaps, find a new killer army. But, that is going to be taking place anyway. So what if it does happen? Every edition of every rules has its A list.

Every other objection being raised has a remedy even if people don't particularly like it. DBE is just broken and the only remedy is to sideline armies.

That hardly seems the appropriate route.

The other "legitimate" reason is the increased movement rates making 3.0 comparable to speed chess. Larger boards is not a solution IMO. 3.0 would need, at a minimum, 36" boards to gain some semblance of maneuver, which is historically verifiable, back into the game. My playtests have been conducted at max distance deployment away from each other and it still plays too quickly and doesn't provide the feel I enjoy. I cannot stop my opponent from deploying forward so that aggravates the situation. This is too much like line 'em up and charge. There's also one more reason of the intangible effect. Most DBA tournament tables currently in use are 30" across. Not a biggie. Most tournament areas allotted to DBA are cramped for space so larger tables is an issue. Finally, and this is personal to many, DBA is an "intimate" social game. Many conversations amongst friends in local play and at tourneys occur across the small DBA gameboard. It is a time to catch up, chit chat, or simply converse one on one. This is the part of the game that made me love DBA. I don't want to have to shout across three to four feet to converse with my friends. That may not be important to many, but it is to me and it is a major reason I love this game. So, saying it isn't 2.2 matters to me. You may laugh all you want or try to dismiss it, but it is there to many if they really reflect. And personally, I don't give a rat's ass if anyone disagrees. I probably don't play against you and certainly never will.

Doug
12-21-2011, 12:18 AM
I think that's an excellent suggestion.

BTW, any explanation ever (other than "sheer fancy" which may often be the true and only answer) why some Bow are specifically listed as longbow and crossbow, unlike any other element type? Other element types may have several different weapons representing them, even in the same army (LH using bows vs. those using javelins, blade using two-handed words versus those using halberds). And of course there are different types of armour, etc. represented by the same element type. Why is it that Bow alone are seperately notated this way?

Phil's not given much to explaining. I suspect 'Idiosyncracy' or 'Sheer Fancy' is likely enough.

I wonder as well whether at some stage he was considering changing rear support rules for crossbows or something, and just making sure the lists would support it if he did? (In his other rules, only bows can support from more than 1 rank back due to the supposed flatter trajectory for slings and crossbows.)

Doug
12-21-2011, 12:19 AM
Doug and Bob -

I was not part of the develoment team nor a playtest group so what was bantered around is unknown to me. Greater minds than mine have tried to tackle this as you have noted. Without the creation of differing DBE by type with special rules, albeit some that have gained acceptance as house rules, would be too complex to many. One way, off the top of my head, would be to have DBE quick killed by certain, or even, all opposing elements within reason. While many would find that objectionable, it is a lesser evil than counting as two losses. The owning player at least can decide how to use these units, aggressively or not, as they would normal elements put into a QK situation. Now just more so to offset the +1. After all, part of the argument is these units are more unwieldy, so a loss turning into a rout (elimination) is kind of plausible. It would certainly have to be playtested. Like I say - just off the top of my head.

Gratefully received. And passed on if they are sufficiently fleshed out. If you want to expand this one, happy to take back to Phil direct.

Doug
12-21-2011, 12:26 AM
The other "legitimate" reason is the increased movement rates making 3.0 comparable to speed chess..

Interesting - the games I have played after an initial 'wham bam' have settled into a more responsive game where the longer moves have made it easier to respond to opponents post deployment. As defender I am never going to set up far forward!

Finally, and this is personal to many, DBA is an "intimate" social game. Many conversations amongst friends in local play and at tourneys occur across the small DBA gameboard. It is a time to catch up, chit chat, or simply converse one on one. This is the part of the game that made me love DBA. I don't want to have to shout across three to four feet to converse with my friends. That may not be important to many, but it is to me and it is a major reason I love this game. So, saying it isn't 2.2 matters to me. You may laugh all you want or try to dismiss it, but it is there to many if they really reflect. And personally, I don't give a rat's ass if anyone disagrees. I probably don't play against you and certainly never will.

I can certainly agree with this. The social part of the game is critical. Do you really think it would be much damaged by sitting 6 inches further apart? (Many of our games are on boards placed on trestle tables that are 36" wide so we wouldn't sit any further apart than now.)

Alan Saunders
12-21-2011, 12:48 AM
Finally, and this is personal to many, DBA is an "intimate" social game. Many conversations amongst friends in local play and at tourneys occur across the small DBA gameboard.

I've played in numerous HOTT tournaments where the tables we wide enough to take a 2' or 3' board, since both 15mm and 25mm games were a possibility. Social chit-chat has never been a problem with the 3' board. And with a faster game, you have more time to engage in it :)

Bobgnar
12-21-2011, 01:25 AM
I have never heard Phil say exactly why, but I have gotten the impression it is just to differentiate among the types of figures to use. The new army lists will have much more descriptive information about the troops so we can better represent them in the game.

Here is a near final draft for Alexander Imperial that Phil send me to use in a giant battle. Note the last two elements. Thracians, Illyrians or Agrianians, I believe would be javelin troops either Ps or Ax, while the next element could be slinger or archers as Ps. I think the armies with different bow types will be listed as
Crossbows (Bw), or Longbows (Bw), or Archers(Bw) maybe Bow instead of Bw :)

II/15. Alexandrian Imperial Army: 1 x General (Kn), 1 x companions (Kn), 1 x Asiatic light horse (LH), 6 x argyraspids and phalangites (Pk), 1 x artillery (Art) or elephants (El), 1 x Thracians, Illyrians or Agrianians (Ax or Ps), 1 x archers or slingers (Ps).


Here is a LH with figure to use
I/14e Jung or Chi’ang Army 400-315 BC: 1 x General (Cv or LH or Wb), 2 x horse archers (LH) or warriors (Wb), 6 x warriors (Wb), 3 x archers or slingers (Ps).


Vietnamese with a couple of Bd options: dagger-axe or halberd. Also reference to Crossbow (Bw)
I/49b Nan-Yueh Vietnamese Army 206-111 BC: 1 x General in 4-horse 3-crew chariot (HCh), 1 x ex-Ch’in spearmen (Ax), 1 x ex-Ch’in dagger-axe or halberd men (Bd), 2 x ex-Ch’in crossbowmen (Bw), 3 x axemen and spearmen (Wb), 2 x archers (Bw and Cb), 2 x unshielded skirmishing spearmen (Ps).

All this detail for what the element consists of makes the new lists very rich in information on how to make the armies. No need to buy lists from other armies.


I think that's an excellent suggestion.

BTW, any explanation ever (other than "sheer fancy" which may often be the true and only answer) why some Bow are specifically listed as longbow and crossbow, unlike any other element type? Other element types may have several different weapons representing them, even in the same army (LH using bows vs. those using javelins, blade using two-handed words versus those using halberds). And of course there are different types of armour, etc. represented by the same element type. Why is it that Bow alone are seperately notated this way?

Bobgnar
12-21-2011, 01:30 AM
\\Thanks. Glad Doug got this too, to pass on. Phil wants to keep this type of element because of his reading of the history on these. He wants to replicate the specific style of fighting in certain armies. I do not know that history, and only want the game to play well. If we must have the DBE, then let's have them playable.


Doug and Bob -

I was not part of the develoment team nor a playtest group so what was bantered around is unknown to me. Greater minds than mine have tried to tackle this as you have noted. Without the creation of differing DBE by type with special rules, albeit some that have gained acceptance as house rules, would be too complex to many. One way, off the top of my head, would be to have DBE quick killed by certain, or even, all opposing elements within reason. While many would find that objectionable, it is a lesser evil than counting as two losses. The owning player at least can decide how to use these units, aggressively or not, as they would normal elements put into a QK situation. Now just more so to offset the +1. After all, part of the argument is these units are more unwieldy, so a loss turning into a rout (elimination) is kind of plausible. It would certainly have to be playtested. Like I say - just off the top of my head.

Pillager
12-25-2011, 08:11 PM
With respect to the putative subject of "clarifying" what DBA means to say -- ya'll are just pissing in the wind.

Most of these changes are abbreviated versions of what DBMM says with more detail & more words.

So if you want to UNDERSTAND what the rule intends -- READ DBMM !!!!

Only then can you talk about whether the DBA phrasing is clear enough.

And I wish there were separate sub-forums for talking about whether you like the game effect of a rule versus what people think a rule says. I'm only interested in the latter.

Doug
12-25-2011, 09:11 PM
With respect to the putative subject of "clarifying" what DBA means to say -- ya'll are just pissing in the wind.

Most of these changes are abbreviated versions of what DBMM says with more detail & more words.

So if you want to UNDERSTAND what the rule intends -- READ DBMM !!!!

Only then can you talk about whether the DBA phrasing is clear enough.

It is not necessary or desirable for people to have to read another set of rules to understand a game.

And there are significant differences between the two sets. Continually making claims like - "DBA is an introduction to DBMM", or "you have to read DBMM to understand DBA" is singularly unhelpful and untrue.

It actually just makes you sound like some anti-DBA3 sock-puppet whose intention is to spread FUD.

peleset
12-25-2011, 09:22 PM
It actually just makes you sound like some anti-DBA3 sock-puppet whose intention is to spread FUD.

Stated more bluntly than I would have done, but glad someone did :up

larryessick
12-25-2011, 09:25 PM
So if you want to UNDERSTAND what the rule intends -- READ DBMM !!!!

DBMM is a pile of horse manure. Why would anyone bother with it. It is one of the worst rules for ancient/medieval warfare ever developed.

You will find that what you have to contribute will matter more if it stands on its own merit and does not continually advocate for and depend on an inferior game.

Doug
12-25-2011, 09:45 PM
DBMM is a pile of horse manure. Why would anyone bother with it. It is one of the worst rules for ancient/medieval warfare ever developed.

You will find that what you have to contribute will matter more if it stands on its own merit and does not continually advocate for and depend on an inferior game.

And Larry, you might want to consider whether dumping on a game you dislike makes you sound authoritative or just comes across as petty. There are plenty of people who would disagree with you about DBMM. Myself included. But that has nothing to do with DBA3. Don't feed the Troll.

Kingo
12-25-2011, 09:56 PM
DBA got me in when I saw it for the first time played on the corner of the bar @ the Monday Knights :D, its good to combine hobbies :up,

DBMM, DBM, what are these games?, for big games I play 6th, so no point in quotes on DBMM etc, it lost:up on many of us.

anyway back to the test match ttfn Kingo

Pillager
12-25-2011, 10:34 PM
>for big games I play 6th

A LUDDITE !!! such a variety of disfunctional types you have here :D

Kingo
12-25-2011, 10:54 PM
>for big games I play 6th

A LUDDITE !!! such a variety of disfunctional types you have here :D

I've sent a request to "befriend" you mate, you need one lol :D

Pillager
12-25-2011, 11:01 PM
I've sent a request to "befriend" you mate, you need one lol :D

Confidentially --- I've still got some single-based LH...

Kingo
12-25-2011, 11:03 PM
Confidentially --- I've still got some single-based LH...

you mean Light cavalry!

Doug
12-25-2011, 11:12 PM
you mean Light cavalry!

Alex - you should know better than converse with the troll...

Bob Santamaria
12-25-2011, 11:24 PM
DBMM is a pile of horse manure. Why would anyone bother with it. It is one of the worst rules for ancient/medieval warfare ever developed.

.

Even I wouldn't go that far.

larryessick
12-26-2011, 02:32 AM
And Larry, you might want to consider whether dumping on a game you dislike makes you sound authoritative or just comes across as petty.

I understand DBMM has undergone revision, maybe it has moved up from horse excrement. Interestingly, the discussion surrounding DBA 3.0 has a lot of the same noises that were made during the development of DBMM.

The main difference is that DBMM doesn't try to pass itself as a revision of DBM but is instead an entirely different game, by Phil's own assertion. DBA 3.0, OTOH, is not an entirely different game but a revision of the existing one.

And, I really don't know of a worse rules set for ancients & medievals than DBMM. Is there one currently in print?

Doug
12-26-2011, 03:40 AM
And, I really don't know of a worse rules set for ancients & medievals than DBMM. Is there one currently in print?

Yes - there are lots, but that's a set of opionions, and I don't want to offend anyone.

Bobgnar
12-26-2011, 12:57 PM
I only know DBA, all the other ones are just too complicate to even read. My criterion for a good set of rules is that I already know how to play it. I have looked at DBMM, but knowing DBA was certainly not a useful introduction. Maybe DBMM is a good introduction to DBA.

Pillager
12-26-2011, 07:43 PM
And, I really don't know of a worse rules set for ancients & medievals than DBMM. Is there one currently in print?

Warhammer Ancients.

LorenzoMele
12-26-2011, 10:28 PM
Yes - there are lots, but that's a set of opionions, and I don't want to offend anyone.

Well said.
Why don't we stick on DBA and let out other rulesets from discussion?
Rgds
Lorenzo

jtstigley
01-11-2012, 12:40 PM
An attempt to balance up the 'benefit' of a DBE. Other supporting elements use up one of the 12. A DBE has it's support built in.

I see it as an interesting choice in risk/reward. You can take the reward of additional support, (without narrowing frontage and tying up another element), plus the change to how movement is measured, makes DBE less clumsy, (and the revised recoil rules also help). In return you take a big risk that if you lose one it is halfway to army break.
I look at it this way - My DBE Kn has an improved chance of beating Pk and destroying it, and has a reduced chance of being doubles and so lost.

Particularly when being beaten and being required to be double to be destroyed means that the enemy must now throw 2 higher on the dice in order to achieve this.

e.g. Kn v DBE Kn is 4 v 5 - the DBE cannot be destroyed unless the single Kn has an advantage, and conversly the chances of the DBE Kn destroying the Kn is doubled.

jtstigley
01-11-2012, 12:50 PM
The other "legitimate" reason is the increased movement rates making 3.0 comparable to speed chess. Larger boards is not a solution IMO. 3.0 would need, at a minimum, 36" boards to gain some semblance of maneuver, which is historically verifiable, back into the game. My playtests have been conducted at max distance deployment away from each other and it still plays too quickly and doesn't provide the feel I enjoy. I cannot stop my opponent from deploying forward so that aggravates the situation. This is too much like line 'em up and charge. There's also one more reason of the intangible effect. Most DBA tournament tables currently in use are 30" across. Not a biggie. Most tournament areas allotted to DBA are cramped for space so larger tables is an issue. Finally, and this is personal to many, DBA is an "intimate" social game. Many conversations amongst friends in local play and at tourneys occur across the small DBA gameboard. It is a time to catch up, chit chat, or simply converse one on one. This is the part of the game that made me love DBA. I don't want to have to shout across three to four feet to converse with my friends. That may not be important to many, but it is to me and it is a major reason I love this game. So, saying it isn't 2.2 matters to me. You may laugh all you want or try to dismiss it, but it is there to many if they really reflect. And personally, I don't give a rat's ass if anyone disagrees. I probably don't play against you and certainly never will.
Can I say that in the 25 or so DBA/HoTT I have played on only one occasion were the tables not 24" Sq and that was when I played in Australia when at the time I believe that the competition organiser were experimenting with a 30" Sq table.

Wm.E.Reseigh
01-12-2012, 11:38 PM
Hi,
Offering five opinions, I guess this is my 10 cents worth; not claiming more than that.

Bow is abbreviated to Bow, or BW becomes EW, either one’s good to me.
The LB and CB designations can probably be done away with in DBA as they are an artifact of earlier attempts at commonality with other rules. They will still need to be in the basing chart which compares DBA and DBMM.
Board sizes in paces seems a good choice, but people will want to know the actual size without working it out themselves. As many players live in the stubbornly non-metric USA, I don’t see any hope of simplifying this section.
I can see the similarity of the small 15mm boards to chess, and the similarity in style of games played. As I have only 25mm armies, I have always played on large boards. I never have felt the need to shout to my opponents.
Yes, please don’t feed the trolls. It’s an election year here in the States; I see enough trolls on the news each day. And please stop tempting me to get off topic. I hate that on the forum. Please excuse me while I go slap my wrists…
I don’t have an army with DBEs, but how this question plays out will probably decide me on getting one.
And may I say that I am glad the people on this thread seem willing to consider the game as not totally destroyed. Except for the ground scale change, most things seem slightly tweaked to me, and generally much clearer in the new edition.

With respect, WER

Bobgnar
01-13-2012, 03:13 PM
All good points, thanks. Let me comment on the LB, CB, Bw issue. Phil gives these with elements in an army as a guide to the know what sort of figure to use. The new lists do a better job, but still nice to know what the guys should look like.

e,g,
II/77a Shilla Korean Army 300-520 AD: 1 x General and Chong (Cv or 4Kn), 1 x hwarang (3Kn or LH), 1 x cavalry (Cv), 4 x spearmen (Sp), 1 x crossbowmen (Cb), 3 x archers (Bw), 1 x archers (Ps).

II/79a Northern Dynasty Army: 1 x General (3Kn or 4Kn), 2 x barded cavalry (3Kn or 4Kn), 1 x horse archers (LH), [1 x dare-to-die swordsmen (Bd) or un-barded cavalry (Cv) + 1 x archers (Bw) or tribal foot (Ax) + 3 x militia (Sp or Hd) + 3 x militia (Bw and Cb or Hd)] or [2 x barded horsemen (3Kn or 4Kn) + 2 x un-barded cavalry (Cv) + 4 x horse archers (LH)].

Hi,
Offering five opinions, I guess this is my 10 cents worth; not claiming more than that.

Bow is abbreviated to Bow, or BW becomes EW, either one’s good to me.
The LB and CB designations can probably be done away with in DBA as they are an artifact of earlier attempts at commonality with other rules. They will still need to be in the basing chart which compares DBA and DBMM.
snip
With respect, WER