And another dumb question

[Ammianus]

I imagine this has been answered elsewhere but I can't see to find it.
Once 2.2+ has solidified; does the group plan to do anything with army lists?
Just curious. Thanks!

[winterbadger]

I imagine this has been answered elsewhere but I can't see to find it.
Once 2.2+ has solidified; does the group plan to do anything with army lists?
Just curious. Thanks!

I'm not on the GM List, but I think the answer is no.

Quite a few ideas that have been discussed here have eventually been kiboshed by the GMs on the grounds that they would require rewriting the army lists "and that's a project we're not interested in taking on right now".

ETA: from the initial announcement thread (http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showpost.php?p=138440&postcount=33)


Any early thoughts on which army lists will be used? Strict 2.2? Modified 2.2? 2.2 with a bit from 3.0?

Strict 2.2.

Modifying army lists is a very long process fraught with peril, not to be done lightly. Much better to be using straight 2.2 than some quicky hack-job modification, totally aside from the legal issue (which is significant and important). And when you say "used", the v2.2 army lists will be official, but will not be available with the v2.2+ line edits. Because of the legal issue.

And the 3.0 army lists are likely to be unacceptable in various ways for v2.2+ play. Plus probably not available until November 2012 or later, based upon the current rate PB is going through them, and generalizing based upon the speed of the process when last he worked on the DBA army lists (of which I am very knowledgeable).

[Ammianus]

Well, thanks; I hadn't heard anything on the subject for a while.
The lists that Sue came out with seemed pretty good to me (given my particular armies) but who knows what 3.0 will end up with.

[david kuijt]

The lists that Sue came out with seemed pretty good to me (given my particular armies) but who knows what 3.0 will end up with.

Sue's lists from last summer and the year before are being completely reworked in several ways; her concept of abandoning number of figs per base across the whole army lists have essentially been discarded by Phil as he created rules for double-deep elements (6Kn, 8Bw, etc.) and then adopted his own version of rules for Cataphracts and 3Sp, and this last few months Phil's new idea of making 3x elements move 1 BW faster than 4x elements, which naturally requires that 3x and 4x elements be differentiated.

[Ammianus]

Well thanks DK, now I have a nosebleed. ;-)

[Ammianus]

So it appears another 3.0 draft's out in a couple of weeks (maybe).
Is there an ETA for the next and/or final version of 2.2+?

[david kuijt]

So it appears another 3.0 draft's out in a couple of weeks (maybe).
Is there an ETA for the next and/or final version of 2.2+?

Beta2 has been up and stable without anything showing up that needs modification for quite some time now. It doesn't appear that a Beta3 will be needed. As such, I've just put the draft line edits up on the GMlist for commentary. It will take some analysis and discussion (a few weeks?) to ensure that the line edits are a true encapsulation of the conceptual Beta, and that the wording is clear and simple and doesn't create additional unforeseen oddities.

The v2.2+ Beta2 (which was only a minor modification from Beta1) is the conceptual changes (as shown on the Playsheets). The actual wording is the line edits (four pages at the moment, including white space for legibility; not much longer than the line edits put out for v2.1 around 2002 or so, IIRC). Our process is to resolve on concepts first, and then try to implement those concepts with appropriate wording. Note that this is a very different process from the way Phil is comfortable working (I'm mentioning this not as a criticism of Phil, but to illustrate why Phil's creative process generates highly unpredictable timing estimates). Phil does all his work on the wording first, and relies on his group to spot implications and bizarreness that might result, then makes another change to the wording, and so on.

If nothing comes up, we'll be done significantly before Historicon. If something comes up, we'll probably still be done before Historicon. After all, the current v2.2+ Beta has been stable for months. All that we need to do is create the set of line edits that characterizes it in the rulebook.

[Ammianus]

Thanks DK,
you guys convinced me that 2.2+ is the proper incremental change from 2.2 that many of us either wanted or can live with. I've been enjoying it.
Bravo Zulu!

[itchysama]

With the changes in movement distances, I have a couple of questions regarding pursuit in 2.2+.

1. When a defender either recoils, flees, or is destroyed, does the attacker still pursue its own still a base depth as previously or a MU?

2. Are there any options beyond moving straight forward for the attacker if the defender flees or is destroyed?

Tks,
Alan (thinking cap on tonight) Spencer

[Redwilde]

Still pursues a base width and straight forward. No changes there.

[david kuijt]

1. No change to followup distance for impetuous elements.

2. I'm not sure what you're talking about, Alan? Defender destroyed allows a tactical move of some sort, rather than a normal one-basedepth followup?

If that's what you're getting at, that would end up being a rules disaster, I'd guess, and a casual glance doesn't see any burning need for the additional complexity. Further, the dead/fleeing element is not (and should not be treated as) a soap-balloon -- the followup is part of what causes the destruction of the element, so allowing variety-spiced-moves instead of a normal followup is ... wacked.

[itchysama]

To DK - Cool. Just checking. May want to add the info on followup on the 2.2+ rules, since the movement distance has changed.

"Units following up must pursue directly straight ahead one of their own base depths. This follow up pursuit may only be shorten only if either of the following occurs:

A. Contacted only on their front edge by any edge of an enemy unit before they complete their followup movement
B. Terrain they are not allowed into and/or not allowed to pursue into."

I'm thinking of people who have never played and want to learn. I know how it has "always been" per se, about many of these kind of things. But with the major changes of 2.2+, some seemingly "normal" ways of playing need to be spelled out.

Not a rebuke; query, clarification and request to help make it better.



1. No change to followup distance for impetuous elements.

2. I'm not sure what you're talking about, Alan? Defender destroyed allows a tactical move of some sort, rather than a normal one-basedepth followup?

If that's what you're getting at, that would end up being a rules disaster, I'd guess, and a casual glance doesn't see any burning need for the additional complexity. Further, the dead/fleeing element is not (and should not be treated as) a soap-balloon -- the followup is part of what causes the destruction of the element, so allowing variety-spiced-moves instead of a normal followup is ... wacked.

[winterbadger]

To DK - Cool. Just checking. May want to add the info on followup on the 2.2+ rules, since the movement distance has changed.

I see where you're coming from, but as I understand it, the purpose of the beta guide (of the whole project) is to list what *is* changed, not what isn't. If they list everything that hasn't changed, they'll just be reprinting 90% of the rules, and we all know what sort of problems that raises. :rolleyes

Since the recoil and pursuit rules in 2.2 basic don't have anything to do with the move rates of elements, I think it's safe to assume (unless otherwise stated) that they won't have anything to do with them in a variant.

[david kuijt]

To DK - Cool. Just checking. May want to add the info on followup on the 2.2+ rules, since the movement distance has changed.

[wording suggestion elided]

I'm thinking of people who have never played and want to learn. I know how it has "always been" per se, about many of these kind of things. But with the major changes of 2.2+, some seemingly "normal" ways of playing need to be spelled out.


We're working on the wording of the line edits now. What you've seen is the playsheet, which is the concepts tested (not the actual wording).

With that said, note that the line edits are not going to be an attempt to reword the rulebook to make it clearer. They are line edits; brevity is one of their virtues. And fixing everywhere Phil wrote things awkwardly would be fixing everything. That goes far beyond line edits.

[Ammianus]

Just wondering here....has any enterprising player made a 2.2+ Quick Reference Sheet?

[david kuijt]

Just wondering here....has any enterprising player made a 2.2+ Quick Reference Sheet?

Quicker than the playsheet? Not that I'm aware of.

[Ammianus]

Roger understood, thanks DK!

[Ammianus]

I'm guessing 2.2+ (which I like) will not have its own army lists due to various reasons. RE the 2.2+ element types...will there be an explanation somewhere explaining which armies have Raiders (Vikings I gather) and which Light Spear (Welsh, PFS, Picts?)? Thanks!

[winterbadger]

I'm guessing 2.2+ (which I like) will not have its own army lists due to various reasons. RE the 2.2+ element types...will there be an explanation somewhere explaining which armies have Raiders (Vikings I gather) and which Light Spear (Welsh, PFS, Picts?)? Thanks!

Raiders are any 3Bd.

Light Spear are any 3Sp.

So any armies that have 3Bd or 3Sp will have Raiders or Light Spear.

[Ammianus]

Thanks....however, the last 2 sets of Army Lists don't give numerics.
for example
II/45b Pre-Feudal Scots army 1052-1124 AD: 1 x General (on horseback (Cv or Kn) or on foot (Wb)),
1x light horse (LH), 1 x warband (Wb), 5 x spearmen (Sp), 2 x spearmen (Sp) or warband (Wb), 2 x skirmishers (Ps).

So we fall back on the old lists of 2.2?

[winterbadger]

Thanks....however, the last 2 sets of Army Lists don't give numerics.
for example
II/45b Pre-Feudal Scots army 1052-1124 AD: 1 x General (on horseback (Cv or Kn) or on foot (Wb)),
1x light horse (LH), 1 x warband (Wb), 5 x spearmen (Sp), 2 x spearmen (Sp) or warband (Wb), 2 x skirmishers (Ps).

So we fall back on the old lists of 2.2?

Ah, sorry, didn't realise you were planning on using 3.0 lists.

AFAIK, everyone playing 2.2+ uses the 2.2 lists. If and when 3.0 is published, I expect that its lists will be optimised to take account of the rules changes that will be seen in whatever final form 3.0 takes. So I wouldn't expect 3.0 lists to be suitable for 2.2+.

[Ammianus]

rgrgr, no sweat and thanks for your help.

[david kuijt]

AFAIK, everyone playing 2.2+ uses the 2.2 lists. If and when 3.0 is published, I expect that its lists will be optimised to take account of the rules changes that will be seen in whatever final form 3.0 takes. So I wouldn't expect 3.0 lists to be suitable for 2.2+.

In addition, any 3.0 army list that doesn't have numerics will have them all put back in, as Phil just put in "Loose" and "Solid" troop classes. Differentiating all 3Ax from 4Ax, 3Bw from 4Bw, 3Bd from 4Bd, and so on.

This isn't the thread for discussing that concept, of course (although I find the class names humorous -- jokes about prune consumption abound). I just mention it to say that the numbers would likely be coming back into the 3.0 army lists.

But as Jan says, it isn't likely that the 3.0 army lists will be suitable for 2.2+.

[john meunier]

So since 2.2+ will be dependent on 2.2 and that edition is not in print any more, how will new players get the basic information they need to play the game?

I've lost some touch with the forums in the last couple months as I've despaired of ever playing DBA again. But I'm interested in how the game goes forward.

[lkmjbc]

So since 2.2+ will be dependent on 2.2 and that edition is not in print any more, how will new players get the basic information they need to play the game?

I've lost some touch with the forums in the last couple months as I've despaired of ever playing DBA again. But I'm interested in how the game goes forward.

Some time next year 2.2 will be sold as part of a larger book containing 1.0, 2.0, 2.2 and several proto-sets that predate 1.0.

3.0 lists should be easily usable by 2.2+. Just transpose the 3Pk to Lt. Spear and such...

Joe Collins

[Ammianus]

Under 2,2+...
Supporting Elements. Elements that provided support to an element are not destroyed when the supported element is destroyed.

At both armies extreme flank, the following occurs.

Army A has 2 Spear units in column which Contact Army B's Blade unit.
Army B's PSiloi unit has closed the door, on the 2 Spears.
Combat ensues, Blade rolls high; Spears must recoil...does this mean both Spears are destroyed? Little puzzled here.

Thanks,
A

[winterbadger]

Under 2,2+...
Supporting Elements. Elements that provided support to an element are not destroyed when the supported element is destroyed.

At both armies extreme flank, the following occurs.

Army A has 2 Spear units in column which Contact Army B's Blade unit.
Army B's PSiloi unit has closed the door, on the 2 Spears.
Combat ensues, Blade rolls high; Spears must recoil...does this mean both Spears are destroyed? Little puzzled here.

Thanks,
A

Nothing's really changed about this situation by that rule change. What if Army A's elements were both also Blade? The front Bd would be killed for being forced to recoil while enemy in contact with its flank; the second Bd would not. Same thing here.

The change is just removing the condition where (some) supporting elements were *automatically* destroyed if the element they supported was destroyed.

I think it will be clearer when the lines edits are released, as I would expect that this change will be implemented not by including this language but by deleting the language that describes supporting elements being automatically destroyed.

[ferrency]

Nothing's really changed about this situation by that rule change.

In the situation described, double ranked spear vs blade with a psiloi flanking the spear, nothing has changed between 2.2 and 2.2+ regarding the second rank if the spear loses the combat.
- It doesn't die in 2.2, because it wasn't providing support to the front rank of spear (spear doesn't support spear against blade in 2.2).
- It doesn't die in 2.2+, because supporting ranks do not automatically die anymore (spear does support spear against blade in 2.2+, but supporting ranks no longer die).

However, if the blade were facing double ranked Warband instead of Spear then the situation does change when the Warband loses the combat:

- In 2.2, the second rank of Warband would also die, because of the rule in 2.2 stating that supporting elements (other than Pike) die when the supported element dies.
- In 2.2+, the second rank of warband does not die immediately, because this rule was removed in 2.2+. However, the lone warband is still bad off, most likely facing a 2-5 mutual quick kill next turn.

In any case: Whether you are flanked or not doesn't affect whether a supporting rank dies or not.

Does this help?

Alan

[Ammianus]

Alan,
yes perfect. I can now sleep nights....;-)

[pozanias]

Another way to look at the 2.2+ rule is to see that ALL rear support elements are now treated the way only Pike were in 2.2 (with regards to whether or not it is destroyed in combat). So the rule is not new, it just covers more situations than it used to.

[ferrency]

Another way to look at the 2.2+ rule is to see that ALL rear support elements are now treated the way only Pike were in 2.2 (with regards to whether or not it is destroyed in combat).

Furthermore: all rear support (except by psiloi) provides support against the same element types.

Alan

[Viking]

But as Jan says, it isn't likely that the 3.0 army lists will be suitable for 2.2+.
Why is that? The army lists may be the only part of 3.0 which I like so I've considered using them although sticking with 2.2/2.2+ rules. Now that element numbers are re-introduced to 3.0 I figured this approach would be fairly simple; is there something I have not thought of?

[David Schlanger]

Why is that? The army lists may be the only part of 3.0 which I like so I've considered using them although sticking with 2.2/2.2+ rules. Now that element numbers are re-introduced to 3.0 I figured this approach would be fairly simple; is there something I have not thought of?

I think your approach would probably work based on the 3.0 draft lists I have seen. Not 100% sure, but it seems likely.

DS

[Martyn]

Why is that? The army lists may be the only part of 3.0 which I like so I've considered using them although sticking with 2.2/2.2+ rules. Now that element numbers are re-introduced to 3.0 I figured this approach would be fairly simple; is there something I have not thought of?

From what I understand the elements will all have their numbers reinstated.

The only substantive changes that I can see that will need tweaking are:
1. the introduction of new element 8Sp in v3 which presumably can be used as a standard 4Sp;
2. the change for 3Sp which are now 3Pk in v3. Presumably this is a straight swap which can be swapped back with all 3Pk being used as 3Sp;
3. the change for 5Wb which are now 5Hd in v3, again presumably this is a straight swap which can be reversed;
4. the introduction of the Pavise in v2.2+, which presumably works as it is a rule mechanism change for the existing 8Bw so is simple to implement.

I can’t see any major problems. It will be interesting in the long run to see if the competition organisers allow the different versions lists to be used in the same tournament.