Litters

[David Schlanger]

4. LITTER
A more elegant solution is to just let litter die as a troop type. Easier. This just adds complication for no real gain.

We are kind of most of the way there... the only thing that really remains is the "modeling" part of the troop type. Functionally speaking, it is now representative of the kind of foot troops represented in each army list that call for a Litter. And we have the additional change, that there can be only one Litter represented in Big Battle for a given army or ally.

So, I think you will find that your comment above is actually true to what is happening in 2.2+ right now:

Litter Elements
Litter elements and flag-bearing wagons are based as for DBA 2.2. In all other respects they are treated as an alternate element type:
I/2a Early Egyptian - Blade
III/72ab Communal Italian - Spear
IV/3 Anglo-Norman - Spear
IV/10 Mound Builder - Blade
IV/70 Chanca Light - Spear
IV/81 Inca - Auxilia

DS

[david kuijt]

So, I think you will find that your comment above is actually true to what is happening in 2.2+ right now:


... with one major distinction-- v2.2+ does not require new painting or rebasing, you just use your Lit elements with their super-cool diorama as a Bd (or whatever).

Repainting/rebasing are the super-enemy of players who already have hundreds of elements.

[Tony Aguilar]

Repainting/rebasing are the super-enemy of players who already have hundreds of elements.

...or those of us that have spent untold hours working on the few we have. ;)

[Xavi]

I can accept this. It is the easiest of the trop type modifications in 2.2+. The extra troop types is why I think 2.2+ should be rebranded "3.1" instead, but that is me.

Still, alternatives should be provided for people that do NOT have those armies and want to have a normal general isntead of the unwieldy thing. THe Lit element makes a good camp. IMO providing an alternative and having the lit sitting in the background might work better. One of the reasons I do not have an army with a Litter is that I hate how it looks in a deployed army.

Xavi

[david kuijt]

Still, alternatives should be provided for people that do NOT have those armies and want to have a normal general isntead of the unwieldy thing. THe Lit element makes a good camp. IMO providing an alternative and having the lit sitting in the background might work better. One of the reasons I do not have an army with a Litter is that I hate how it looks in a deployed army.


Okay, what do you suggest?

Easiest thing is just to allow depiction of a Lit element in any way appropriate to the figures used that takes at least as much depth as a normal element of the type in that army. That would fulfill our main objective (not forcing any rebasing of existing armies), and would allow players like you (who deliberately have NOT made any Lit armies because you don't like how they look) to go your way as well.

Because I agree with your last statement -- 40x80 Lit may fit the figures, but the depth of the element on the map doesn't have anything to do with the depth of the group of troops in real life!

[Xavi]

Exactly. That is the idea :) I think it could be suggested that they count as a 4-figure element of the same troop type, for example.

[Rich Gause]

That would work for me. I don't have any litters and think the base should only be as deep as needed to fit the figures on.

[Redwilde]

The amendment as it stands is the simplest line edit change to the rules.

Another simple step would also be to allow the Lit/Flag Wagon to be replaced with it's combat type for that army. It's just a different base depth of the same type.