BBDBA lists

[John Meunier]

I've had this question myself and just saw a similar issue raised on the Historicon thread a while back.

Is there any sentiment for creating some caps on element types in BBDBA armies. On the Historicon thread the post had to do with Anglo-Norman war wagons. In my own experience, the Nikephorian Byzantine list that would allow 3 6Kn elements in a BBDBA list seems too much. There were a small number of these guys -- in DBM even you can only get what would be a total of 2 elements of these double based knights.

I'm sure there are other cases in which the 12-element list includes elements that are somewhat unique and should not get tripled when playing BBDBA.

Perhaps this isn't a big enough problem to warrant the record keeping and enforcement that it would entail. But having read Bob's commentaries and the 2.1 amendments, perhaps a short list of limited element types in BBDBA would not be too hard.

If the limited type is a mandatory with no optional replacements in the 12-element list, I'd suggest any element that can have a general in BBDBA could be added from the army list to replace the restricted type. (No SCh, Ps, Art)

Again, I'd argue for a very conservative application of this idea.

Some initial thoughts:

II/7 Later Persian: 1 SCh
III/64 Nikephorian Byzantine: 2 6Kn
IV/3 Anglo-Norman: 1 WWg

JFM

[Ares]

While we're at it, how about the great carroccio controversy -

III/72 Communal Italian: 1 WWg

unless the army happened to bring some Communal Italian friends along from a different city.

The carroccio shouldn't be a WWg anyway... I know, I know, it's there for flavor.

I don't even have Communal Italians... :rolleyes:

Eric

[Grahamthemole]

Originally posted by John Meunier:
I've had this question myself and just saw a similar issue raised on the Historicon thread a while back.

Is there any sentiment for creating some caps on element types in BBDBA armies. On the Historicon thread the post had to do with Anglo-Norman war wagons. In my own experience, the Nikephorian Byzantine list that would allow 3 6Kn elements in a BBDBA list seems too much. There were a small number of these guys -- in DBM even you can only get what would be a total of 2 elements of these double based knights.

I'm sure there are other cases in which the 12-element list includes elements that are somewhat unique and should not get tripled when playing BBDBA.

Perhaps this isn't a big enough problem to warrant the record keeping and enforcement that it would entail. But having read Bob's commentaries and the 2.1 amendments, perhaps a short list of limited element types in BBDBA would not be too hard.

If the limited type is a mandatory with no optional replacements in the 12-element list, I'd suggest any element that can have a general in BBDBA could be added from the army list to replace the restricted type. (No SCh, Ps, Art)

Again, I'd argue for a very conservative application of this idea.

Some initial thoughts:

II/7 Later Persian: 1 SCh
III/64 Nikephorian Byzantine: 2 6Kn
IV/3 Anglo-Norman: 1 WWg

JFM Well I came accross the exact same problem last week when I fielded Nikephorian's in BBDBA format...too many Kataphractoi. The DBM list says there was usually only one such group but on ONE occaision there was two, then DBA BB alows you three!! I simply replaced my extra element with an element of Norman knights for that game.

I doubt if this army is the only one with this sort of annomoly- still we wargamers can sort this sort of thing out without having to have "official" ammendments can't we boys?

Graham.

I suppose there is no reason why my Sub-Roman British can't have three elements of knight now, together with three Arthurs.... :D

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Graham wrote:

I doubt if this army is the only one with this sort of annomoly- still we wargamers can sort this sort of thing out without having to have "official" ammendments can't we boys? Nope....I can't say that we can. Look at all the debates we're having about rules and interpretations of the rules on this site. Why would this situation be any different? This kind of stuff needs to be spelled out in the rules. Don't forget, not everyone who plays this game knows everything about every army covered in the rules. Try to tell the person who is not well versed on the army list why he can't have 3 war wagons....especially in a tourney. I doubt he will want to listen to reason after he has so carefully painted his army and planned his tactics based on its makeup. Granted, this won't apply to everyone....many of us research our armies at least a little...but we can't assume that is the case for everybody.

Here is another list that needs help in BBDBA: Incas.....they should only get one litter and that represents the supreme ruler. There can't be three of them on the table...it wouldn't make any sense!! I also don't think that the Anglo-Norman and Communal Italian standards (the ones in wagons....caroccio or whatever they are called.) should be treated as war wagons at all...and there shouldn't be more than one in a BBDBA army.

[xeswop]

In the past David Kuijt has given Phil good advice on army list consistency and errors. I suggest people send their comments to him for Phil. I do not think a tournament director can know enough about all the lists to make decisions as to what is acceptable or not. THis needs to be sent systematically to Phil and he needs to make the decision and include in an official amendment.

It seems reasonable to me to note some elements in a list are limited to 1 in a BB game. However, I wonder if we are too worried about the historical aspect of the game in a tournament situation.

Does it really matter from a historical point of view, that the Anglo-Normans have more than one WarWagon when they are fighing Inca with 3 litters? There seems to be already some stranger things going one with the space-time continuum with this match. Perhaps in a theme event, the organizers can make specifications about numbers of certain elements in an army to be used.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Bob Beattie wrote:
I wonder if we are too worried about the historical aspect of the game in a tournament situation. You are treading on thin ice Bob!! I know the tournament situations are ahistorical, but we need to keep a modicum of reason in there!! You really effect the game when an Anglo-Norman army is allowed to deploy three war wagons when even one never made sense before!! If we aren't worried about historical aspects at all, then why not switch to a points based army? I see no problem with tidying up the army lists with BBDBA in mind. If no one wants to put in the time, then fine. But explaining it away as not being too important in our already "ahistorical" tourneys kind of allows the genie to escape from the bottle.....

[John Meunier]

Originally posted by Grahamthemole:

Well I came accross the exact same problem last week when I fielded Nikephorian's in BBDBA format...too many Kataphractoi.

I simply replaced my extra element with an element of Norman knights for that game.

I doubt if this army is the only one with this sort of annomoly- still we wargamers can sort this sort of thing out without having to have "official" ammendments can't we boys?

Graham.

It is a fair point and the Nikephorian case is probably not worth the trouble of changing the lists. (I solved the problem the same way. Even though I don't think the Normans and Kataphraktoi fought at the same battle in any historical battle.)

I'm more inclined to say that the complication is not worth the trouble, but if we are running a historical scenario we should certainly take such list issues into account and adjust.

JFM

[Stelzone]

Originally posted by xes***:

It seems reasonable to me to note some elements in a list are limited to 1 in a BB game. However, I wonder if we are too worried about the historical aspect of the game in a tournament situation.

Does it really matter from a historical point of view, that the Anglo-Normans have more than one WarWagon when they are fighing Inca with 3 litters? There seems to be already some stranger things going one with the space-time continuum with this match. Perhaps in a theme event, the organizers can make specifications about numbers of certain elements in an army to be used. Bob,

As a player ,yes, I do think it is somewhat important. So that the armies reflect the historical fact better than, as in some systems, it looks like Vikings so we call them Vikings. Might as well go back to Fantasy gaming for that.

And as one who has participated in many tournaments and has run some now, I think keeping the accuracy close is important to bringing new players into the game, and keeping them satisfied. Many of the people that look at the game see nice figures and a quick game. That is the introduction to the game, their research and study allows them to paint their own armies and feel like they have accomplished something. We should aid their understanding of the historical accuracy of the armies at all levels, DBA, DBM and now BBDBA. BBDBA is growing quickly, Phil and those of us who do help guide the game should feel accuracy should be kept. An errata sheet or appendix to the rules for BBDBA lists would probably be less than two pages and easily done. If Phil is worried about the size of the book or number of pages, lets look at the money spent on DBM books or the old WRG Ancients rules books. Size would only matter if they didn't sell. I don't think a few dollar price increase will turn people away from the game or have us refusing to buy it. HOTT went to an expanded format with diagrams and clearer explanations, and I'd say most of us bought it, and liked it.

Mike S.

A side note here is that when I use accurate I mean in two ways. Consistant within all the sets of rules and fairly close to the real proportions of that army. I understand that some units should not be included in some lists, they are for flavor, that is fine as long as they are adjusted to keep them as close as possible to the real. I still want the Ark back for the Early Hebrews, and it fits better in BBDBA than DBA. smile.gif

[Grahamthemole]

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
[QB] Graham wrote:

[QUOTE] I doubt if this army is the only one with this sort of annomoly- still we wargamers can sort this sort of thing out without having to have "official" ammendments can't we boys? Nope....I can't say that we can. Look at all the debates we're having about rules and interpretations of the rules on this site. Why would this situation be any different? This kind of stuff needs to be spelled out in the rules.

Okay I am sorry...I was only being somewhat ironic with my hopes that common sense might prevail amongst us all. I agree it needs sorted out by Phil for the next printed addition and I was very surprised to see such an annomoly in the first place. It leads to a suspicion that BBDBA was rather an afterthought stuck onto the main rules..still it remains my prefered set of ancients rules in this format.

Cheers, Graham.

[xeswop]

Phil plans to wrap up this amendment process soon, so send him your objections to BB army anomolies ASAP! David K has gone to Sweden so may not be in a good position to do this. Everyone just send on your own. Don't give a long historical discussion, just cite the element that you think should not be trippled and a short statment why. For example:

The Anglo Norman army had only one War Wagon, there should not be 3 allowed for a Big Battle army.