PDA

View Full Version : Inspired by the Draft 3.0 Army lists


SteveW
01-15-2012, 01:02 PM
I am only really interested in a few of the Armies, several of which are Roman.

I have not been keen on Early Imperial Roman Army as per 2.2, but the draft list for 3.0 Book II/56 looks really good.

I am tempted to splurge out immediately on a BBDBA sized army, but my head tells me to wait.

Has anyone else been so inspired/enthused?

Ammianus
01-15-2012, 01:06 PM
From what we've just seen today, Sue Barker's posting of a Phil Barker's newest take on Late Romans & their opponents; don't be surprised to see some major changes in the final lists.

Pavane
01-15-2012, 01:52 PM
Has anyone else been so inspired/enthused?
Just the opposite. I would be tempted to sell my Picts with the 3.0 army list as presented.

Rich Gause
01-15-2012, 02:31 PM
They don't seem very different than the old army lists, nothing approaching the choices of a DBMM list still too much dictationg of choices. Its nice they are more descriptive but that is not near as nice as translating DBMM lists.

Xavi
01-15-2012, 02:40 PM
A pitty Marian lists still do not allow elephant use despite overwhelming evidence

Martin Smith
01-18-2012, 06:58 AM
I am tempted to splurge out immediately on a BBDBA sized army, but my head tells me to wait.

Has anyone else been so inspired/enthused?

Steve
I have been both inspired AND dismayed :eek, as there are threats of major changes to some of the armies I own. HOWEVER, I have no plans for major outlay until the FINAL versions are in hard copy.....I'd recommend holdin' yer horses until you see the final versions of lists on paper.
M

Bobgnar
01-18-2012, 03:25 PM
The versions that are posted are very close to final, just checking for typos and inconsistencies.

Xavi,
The Marians have an Elephant:
II/49. Marian Roman Army 105 - 25 BC: 1 x General (Cv or Bd), 1 x cavalry (Cv) or javelin light horse (LH), 5 x legionaries (Bd), 2 x legionaries (Bd) or auxiliary foot (Ax) or horse archers (LH), 1 x javelinmen (Ps or Ax), 1 x archers or slingers (Ps), 1 x Cavalry (Cv) or Numidian elephant (El) or wild Gauls (Wb) or requisitioned city artillery (Art).

Moreover, the new idea of Allies allows the Polybian Romans to get an Elephant. This is for Magnesia

II/33 Polybian Roman Army 275 – 105BC: 1 x General (Cv), 1 x equites (Cv), 4 x hastati/principes (Bd), 2 x hastati/principes (Bd) or allies (Ax), 2 x triarii (Sp), 2 x velites (Ps).


ally, pick three, or at least one Elephant in exchande for a Bd?

II/40 Numidian or Early Moorish Army 215 BC – 24 AD: 1 x General (with Spanish bodyguard Cv, otherwise LH), 4 x horsemen (LH), 4 x javelinmen (Ps), 1 x archers or slingers (Ps) or elephants (El), 2 x Roman-trained regular javelinmen (4Ax) or imitation legionaries (Bd) or javelinmen (Ps) or horsemen (LH).
======================
Yes, the Picts are changed for the better against historical enemies. I recently played a big King Arthur game with them as Spears vs Warband and they were blown away. Now they fight Wb equally, each can get a +1 rear rank, and the Ax can fight Blades equally in Bad Going. A change for the best. My Pict spears were 3 to a Ax base so all I have to do is call them Ax. Move faster in Bad Going too.
-------------------------------------
Seems like many choices available, but some folks will stick to the DBA 2.2 lists which have more variety ?

john meunier
01-18-2012, 04:36 PM
Has anyone else been so inspired/enthused?

I really like what I have seen of the 3.0 lists. I imagine they will cause me some grief in the case of my existing armies, but that is the price of life.

The new ally rule is really interesting, although I expect it might be subject to abuse, but then what rule is not.

The new Marian list is enough to get me looking at Julius Caesar again.

peleset
01-18-2012, 06:07 PM
Good to see the Numidians are back to two blades. The best part I've seen about DBA3 so far are the samples of the new army list format.

larryessick
01-18-2012, 06:07 PM
One small thing concerning allies.

In the case of matched pairs competition, where players bring two armies, will there be an expectation to have all possible allies available as well?

Rich Gause
01-18-2012, 06:28 PM
One small thing concerning allies.

In the case of matched pairs competition, where players bring two armies, will there be an expectation to have all possible allies available as well?

Generally for matched pairs the person bringing the pair picks all 24 elements for both armies. It is a lot easier to ensure a good matchup that way.

SteveW
01-18-2012, 06:28 PM
:up

"The Marians have an Elephant:
II/49. Marian Roman Army 105 - 25 BC: 1 x General (Cv or Bd), 1 x cavalry (Cv) or javelin light horse (LH), 5 x legionaries (Bd), 2 x legionaries (Bd) or auxiliary foot (Ax) or horse archers (LH), 1 x javelinmen (Ps or Ax), 1 x archers or slingers (Ps), 1 x Cavalry (Cv) or Numidian elephant (El) or wild Gauls (Wb) or requisitioned city artillery (Art). "

Thanks Bob.

If this list remains in this form, I think that I shall be fielding my Marian Romans (who get used for earlier and later Romans a lot) more.

:)

snowcat
01-18-2012, 06:40 PM
Just the opposite. I would be tempted to sell my Picts with the 3.0 army list as presented.

The Picts are a tricky one, mysterious bunch that they were.

Without giving them an "All Sp or Ax" option, I'm more comfortable with them as Ax – it just seems more Pictish to me. (And I have a couple of books on them which do indeed describe them fighting in spear clusters against certain opponents, but for some reason this never felt right to me as DBA Sp). It's also a shame we don't know more about the Attecotti, as a few Wb elements wouldn't go astray either…

Ammianus
01-18-2012, 06:57 PM
Those ever mysterious Attecotti!

Pavane
01-18-2012, 07:06 PM
Yes, the Picts are changed for the better against historical enemies. I recently played a big King Arthur game with them as Spears vs Warband and they were blown away. Now they fight Wb equally, each can get a +1 rear rank, and the Ax can fight Blades equally in Bad Going. A change for the best. My Pict spears were 3 to a Ax base so all I have to do is call them Ax. Move faster in Bad Going too.
Bob, your opening sentence is a bold statement and I beg to differ. How often does an Aggression 3 army dictate the amount of BGo? I have a Pictish army and all but one of the historical enemies. Let's look at each historical opponent in turn and decide if the 3.0 Picts are better or worse than the 2.2 Picts. Of course this is just my opinion and I welcome the opinion of better players.

Scots-Irish
I would say worse overall, but so much depends on who wins the Aggression roll. The early S-I have a lot of chariots, which will give 3Ax Picts more grief than 3Sp Picts. The late S-I are 75% 3Ax, who are over-matched by the combined arms Picts with 3Sp, but not so much with 3Ax Picts.

Middle Imperial Roman
Worse. The MIR will be the defender 75% of the time and force the fight in GGo. 3Ax Picts will fare worse against an army containing 3Cv, 3Kn, and 4 x Bd.

Pictish
Obviously a wash.

Early Anglo-Saxon
Better, for the reasons you mention above. That is not to say that 3Sp Picts are hopeless. The 3Sp have great 2Ps support and the army has a strong mounted contingent for flank attacks on the foot-bound E-A-S.

Late Imperial Roman
Worse. See MIR above, but one less Bd and more mounted in the LIR still makes it a winner over 3.0 Picts.

Sub-Roman British
Worse overall. The earliest S-R-B have lots of 4Ax, so the Aggression die roll has the greatest impact. The later S-R-B armies are definately better than the 3.0 Picts.

Middle Anglo-Saxon
Slightly worse overall. The early list has up to 3 Wb, which will be tougher for the 3Sp Picts, but the comments for E-A-S stand. The later M-A-S are better toe-to-toe with the 3Ax Picts, but either Pictish list has far more mobility.

Norse Vikings
Much worse. No need to spell this one out.

In my opinion the 2.2 Picts have been nerfed in 3.0.

snowcat
01-18-2012, 07:20 PM
Hmm, and if Phil could be persuaded to allow Picts (or at least Later Picts) to be 'spear' classed, they would probably fall into the Pk category under 3.0.

How would that (Pict Pk) fare in the same matchups?

(Personally I dislike the Pk idea more than Sp for Picts anyway; it just conjures up entirely the wrong impression.)

Macbeth
01-18-2012, 07:22 PM
Love your work Pavane :2up

Cheers

Pavane
01-18-2012, 07:37 PM
Hmm, and if Phil could be persuaded to allow Picts (or at least Later Picts) to be 'spear' classed, they would probably fall into the Pk category under 3.0.

How would that (Pict Pk) fare in the same matchups?

(Personally I dislike the Pk idea more than Sp for Picts anyway; it just conjures up entirely the wrong impression.)
We are working on it in 2.2+.

snowcat
01-18-2012, 07:39 PM
We are working on it in 2.2+.

What - conjuring up the wrong impression? :p

john meunier
01-18-2012, 07:46 PM
In my opinion the 2.2 Picts have been nerfed in 3.0.

How have the been treated versus all these armies relative to history?

Pavane
01-18-2012, 07:56 PM
How have the been treated versus all these armies relative to history?
I don't quite understand your question. Look at DBA 2.2, DBM, DBMM, and DBA 3.0. Phil has changed the troop type at every opportunity in the Pictish army list. I have a 500AP DBM/M Pictish army and it will play completely differently in each game. It is fun, but which one is the most historical in a Dark Ages army is anyone's guess. Let's not kid ourselves.

snowcat
01-18-2012, 09:24 PM
Having had a quick look in one of my Pict books, it does seem that the option to field Picts as either Sp/Pk or Ax depending on the period and/or opponent being faced would be a fair mirror of historic record, as they appear to have adopted different fighting styles depending on their opponents. I write "Sp/Pk" as I'm not certain if all 3Sp are to become Pk under 3.0.

The compulsory all Ax doesn't seem to match the historic record for the Late Picts, but might be a better fit for the earlier 'Roman' period.

Perhaps it could be presented as:
Pictish 211-499AD: Spearmen (Ax)
Pictish 500-846AD: Spearmen (all Ax or Sp/Pk)

Does anyone have info/evidence re early Picts (211-499AD) fighting in spear blocks?

Pavane
01-18-2012, 09:28 PM
The compulsory all Ax doesn't seem to match the historic record for the Late Picts, but might be a better fit for the earlier 'Roman' period.
Why Auxilia for early Picts instead of Warbands (devil's advocate)? Early Welsh are Warbands, as are Caledonians.

snowcat
01-18-2012, 09:31 PM
Yup, good point. I'll look into that too. :)

Lobotomy
01-18-2012, 09:43 PM
One small thing concerning allies.

In the case of matched pairs competition, where players bring two armies, will there be an expectation to have all possible allies available as well?

That would be up to the organizer. In the past, I have seen players come without all the options available. Of course, you do not bring early Libyans to a knife fight as you will end up playing them. So there is the strong reason to bring matched armies as your opponent picks the one to play.

snowcat
01-18-2012, 09:55 PM
Back on those early Picts as potential Wb again - I suppose it would depend on whether there are records of them charging ferociously and fighting to the death (as a rough example of warband) or being more likely to melt back into the woods as soon as things got a bit tough (something more akin to Ax)...I suspect the latter, but I'll see what I can find.

PS We already have the Atecotti available as Wb (1 element) in the early Pictish list, as these had the record of exceptional ferocity - so perhaps the early list is about right with the garden variety Pict as Ax...

john meunier
01-18-2012, 10:06 PM
It is fun, but which one is the most historical in a Dark Ages army is anyone's guess. Let's not kid ourselves.

I'm just curious how Picts did in field battles against Romans, Saxons, Scots-Irish, Vikings and others that were listed earlier.

larryessick
01-18-2012, 10:35 PM
Scots-Irish
I would say worse overall, but so much depends on who wins the Aggression roll. The early S-I have a lot of chariots, which will give 3Ax Picts more grief than 3Sp Picts. The late S-I are 75% 3Ax, who are over-matched by the combined arms Picts with 3Sp, but not so much with 3Ax Picts.

Middle Imperial Roman
Worse. The MIR will be the defender 75% of the time and force the fight in GGo. 3Ax Picts will fare worse against an army containing 3Cv, 3Kn, and 4 x Bd.

Pictish
Obviously a wash.

Early Anglo-Saxon
Better, for the reasons you mention above. That is not to say that 3Sp Picts are hopeless. The 3Sp have great 2Ps support and the army has a strong mounted contingent for flank attacks on the foot-bound E-A-S.

Late Imperial Roman
Worse. See MIR above, but one less Bd and more mounted in the LIR still makes it a winner over 3.0 Picts.

Sub-Roman British
Worse overall. The earliest S-R-B have lots of 4Ax, so the Aggression die roll has the greatest impact. The later S-R-B armies are definately better than the 3.0 Picts.

Middle Anglo-Saxon
Slightly worse overall. The early list has up to 3 Wb, which will be tougher for the 3Sp Picts, but the comments for E-A-S stand. The later M-A-S are better toe-to-toe with the 3Ax Picts, but either Pictish list has far more mobility.

Norse Vikings
Much worse. No need to spell this one out.

There is a curious affinity for the Southern armies in ACW games although the Confederacy lost the war. And while the two armies don't have much substantial to differentiate them, somehow the Johnny Reb is deemed more noble and heroic.

I wonder if that might not be a similar case with the Picts -- more romantic fascination than a reflection of true ability.

While I do not doubt the analysis that is given my question would be whether the resulting outcomes are not what should be expected. Aside from the obvious point that the Romans were occupiers so that the aggression values give a wrong impression about where the battles were fought, are the outcomes described actually more accurate historically?

Picts are among those armies about which I know very little, so unlike other debates this is not one where I have an opinion. I am simply curious as to whether the outcomes described are problematic from a historical perspective or only from a game perspective.

Pavane
01-18-2012, 11:26 PM
I'm just curious how Picts did in field battles against Romans, Saxons, Scots-Irish, Vikings and others that were listed earlier.
They survived. They won some; they lost some.

Seriously though, they raided the Romans, but the Romans didn't have the manpower or will to conquer them. They defeated and were defeated by the Sub-Roman Britons, Scots-Irish and Anglo-Saxons. They suffered raiding defeats at the hands of the Vikings facilitating the amalgamation with the Scots-Irish (Dalriada) to form the Kingdom of Alba (Pre-Feudal Scots).

And of course against the Vikings and Anglo-Normans, in Phil's 3.0 mind, the Pre-Feudal Scots retain the ever successful, killer troop type, Auxilia :silly. For some reason in 1124AD (I guess it must be feudalism) the Auxilia turn into Scots Common Army Pikemen!