DBM To DBA

[imported_The Paper General]

Wow, I know I'm new here, but has anyone looked at the DBM to DBA conversions of the armiy lists on the DBA resources page? What great stuff!
Makes me want to investigate DBM more.
No disrespect to those more learned, who developed DBA, but anyone want to adopt these conversions as the official DBA armies lists? ;) Seriously though, these lists seem way more authentic than v. 2.0 at least in book 1 that I've looked through so far.
I think I now have a few(dozens! ;) ) of army conversions to consider now.
Other than the army size's, how come there is such a difference in DBM & DBA army lists? Is this just one person's interpretation? I thought that the developers of DBM & DBA were the same people?
Anyone read these lists yet? What do you think,accurate, or just different?
Well back to the lists...hmmm,who should I start converting...Sumerians look like a good place to start. :D HH

[Ares]

Hi there -

The lists were worked on by the same people... the DBA 2.0 lists are in fact a distillation of the more current DBM lists (I forget which edition). The reason they are so drastically different is one of necessity - DBM armies are three to five times bigger than DBA armies (at least) and thus they allow for more detail in representation, whereas a DBA army is simply an "impressionistic" version of the DBM list; it is the same army, described in broader strokes, with less scope of detail - which is only natural when you have to reduce a DBM army to 12 elements.

Eric

[ August 29, 2003, 12:10: Message edited by: Ares ]

[imported_The Paper General]

Hi Ares, I understand what you are saying. It makes sense. Is it a 'heretical' thought, among the DBA community, to adopt or use these lists? They seem so much more 'realistic'if you will.
I mean use them, not just in our own little groups we play in, but in the wider sense at conventions and tourny's.
Maybe because they are new, or so different, the v. 2.0 lists seem 'dusty'.
Just a thought.
As always, I'm a Happy Hominid. :D

[imported_The Paper General]

Hi Ares, I understand what you are saying. It makes sense. Is it a 'heretical' thought, among the DBA community, to adopt or use these lists? They seem so much more 'realistic'if you will.
I mean use them, not just in our own little groups we play in, but in the wider sense at conventions and tourny's.
Maybe because they are new, or so different, the v. 2.0 lists seem 'dusty'.
Just a thought.
As always, I'm a Happy Hominid. :D

[ August 29, 2003, 13:09: Message edited by: Happy Hominid ]

[nick hux]

Hi HH,

I'm glad you're happy smile.gif . However :( - are you looking at the most recent DBM lists?
The 2nd edition of Book 1 I have (dated July 2000) doesn't resemble the convertions too closely - in fact the army names and numbers are quite different!
There are some convertions from the 2nd edition lists to DBA which don't seem quite right to me (and others!), but do check on this before you change too many armies ;) .

Nick