Using DBM double elments

[yettie]

Am I required to use DBM style double elments when they are on the army list? Like the 6Kn in III/64

I understand that the list is designed to make DBA armies compatitable with DBM, but elements like 6Cav or 8Bow have serious disadvantages over the standard 3Cav or 4Bow (like taking up twice as much space on the crowded deployment area or doubling recoil distances)

[Paul A. Hannah]

First of all, welcome to this forum, "Yettie". Chime in often. smile.gif

As for those double-deep elements you asked about, you're free, of course, to base your armies and to play DBA in any manner that you and your opponents choose. There are a number here who base their armies using a variety of alternative methods, e.g. all elements on 40mm square bases.

I rather like the rule as it is, and I've never even played DBM. Be advised, in tournament play, there might be those who would object. Hopefully, they would just politely ask you to recoil them as if they were on double-deep bases.

Really, only a relative handful of armies call for them. I like the look of all those massed bowmen in my Early Achaemenid Persians. (One opponent said he even felt intimidated by them all. :D ) That they are slightly more unweildy, also seems right.

Sometimes, I do wish there were a slight benefit to their being double-deep, off-setting the disadvantages of their greater mass, but then I remember that I am like sheep: I just play DBA as written, meekly accepting all its many strengths and foibles.

[ May 26, 2004, 09:38: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[John Meunier]

Baaaaa ....

As Paul points out, the issue comes down to whether you intend to take your army out to tournaments. If you do, it is up to your friendly neighborhood tournament organizer.

One way to cover yourself would be to have a second element of 3Kn. If you have to play the 6Kn option you could just place the two elements front to back and move them as if they were a single element.

[xeswop]

Great to have a newbie with us. I echo Paul's welcome. Yettie, where are you located? Do you have a local group to play with.

I also echo Paul's comments about the interesting aspect of the double deep elements. They add some more variety to the game. John has one good solution to the size issue. Another solution is to jus have a piece of cardboard cut to the correct double deep size and put it under the standard element to achive the needed depth.

By the way, do note that no element recoils or pursues more than a base width. This applies to double deep elements in any scale and to Elephants and Chariots in 25mm scale.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by yettie:
Am I required to use DBM style double elments when they are on the army list? Like the 6Kn in III/64

I understand that the list is designed to make DBA armies compatitable with DBM, but elements like 6Cav or 8Bow have serious disadvantages over the standard 3Cav or 4Bow (like taking up twice as much space on the crowded deployment area or doubling recoil distances) For me, their disadvantages in play are more than made up for by their excellent appearance. 6Kn and 8Bw look really cool. And the disadvantage is minor.

If you really don't want to use them, I think that it would be better to choose an army that doesn't have them, rather than deploy an army incorrectly.

- Jack

[ May 26, 2004, 11:55: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[Ivan]

I think Paul is right. People are usually pretty easy-going about these things. I've used blades and pikes that were based 20mm instead of 15mm deep, and no one seemed to mind.

However, now that you have to measure from all 4 corners when moving, double-based elements are seriously disadvantaged, much more so than they were before. I really think they should be made officially optional.

[Dave Crowell]

Like outdated 25mm basing standards that do not fit modern 28mm figures the double deep DBA elements arise from Phil Barker's publicly stated refusal to rebase anything.

That DBAS must be held beholden to DBM is a sad state of affairs as no other part of the rules is to be considered as apllying to both games.

As long as your oponent doesn't object thogh, base any way you like. The basing standards are not actually "rules" but suggestions.

[David Schlanger]

I agree with Jack on this one. The deep based elements look really cool, and provide nice variety. I'm amazed that there are so many continuing complaints about this aspect of the game. Long live deep based elements!

If I am running a tournament, participants should expect to need to meet the basing requirements as presented in the rules. There are plenty of armies available to choose from that don't call for deep basing or "double elements" from DBM.

DS

[imported_JamesLDIII]

I really like my double based EA Persian 8Bws. (You can see them on the Fanaticus Resource page Armies of the Fanatici)

http://fanaticus.org/DBA/armiesofthefanatici/JimDoty/AchPersians/index.html

That said, I also incorporate special rules to give the double based elements some advantages to make up for their disadvantaged movement, especially with the new movement rules. So 8Bw are treated as if one bow element is supporting the firing bow element (automatically earning a -1 for tactical support factors when an 8Bw fires at a target), and when in contact with foot elements (+1 to combat factor reflecting the spear armed troops in front).

I would even politic for 8Pk elements if they would get the benefits of the supporting element as well (+3 in close combat vs...) so that pike armies aren't chronically short on the battle line like they are now.

The look of the larger bases has some appeal, and the challenge of generalship with them means I'll still use armies with double based elements, but their more limited tactical mobility is a bummer at times. Then again I'm not playing DBA to design a killer army like I would in some other unnamed Fantasy/Sci-Fi miniature game.

[xeswop]

Dave S, you are a really hard nosed guy smile.gif Wouldn't you let a peson put a single deep element on a double deep underbase. Can we have half the elements on a permanent double deep base. The crucial aspect is not the number of figures but the depth of the base. This is what makes the armies different and interesting.

[Dave Crowell]

I think Persian 8Bw are almost enough to have deep elements by themselves.

I agree with Bob that the different base depths are part of what makes DBA different and fun. I have played other games with my DBA elements and find that I miss having base depth matter for recoils and such.

[yettie]

Thanks for the responses, I'm in the San Francsico Bay area and I have my e-mail avaliable through my profile (I think) if anybody is in the area also feel free to contact me.

I have a buddy I play with (San Jose) and he and I are going to Kublacon this weekend

Again thanks for the responses and the warm welcome

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Ivan:
However, now that you have to measure from all 4 corners when moving, double-based elements are seriously disadvantaged, much more so than they were before. I really think they should be made officially optional. I haven't got a copy of the new (2.2) rulebook yet, but I believe that this has reverted back to the old rule...only measure the front corners. (Hurray! :D )

- Jack

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Dave S, you are a really hard nosed guy smile.gif Wouldn't you let a peson put a single deep element on a double deep underbase. Can we have half the elements on a permanent double deep base. The crucial aspect is not the number of figures but the depth of the base. This is what makes the armies different and interesting. I strive to follow the Robustness Principle in this ...

"Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."

- Jack

And Dave S. is a hardnosed guy. smile.gif

[David Schlanger]

Hard nosed? I dunno, maybe big nosed!

If a player wanted to place a 30mm deep knight element on a 60mm deep underbase for example - that would be fine. I'd probably think it looked really stupid, but would live with it. As long as the element behaved as an element of the appropriate depth. However, I would have a problem with a player not trying to accomodate the correct base depth for the 6Kn element.

DS

[konstantinius]

Deep-based elements are a lot of fun to create. I'm realing this now that I'm finally getting my Fatimids updated to 2.2 with the mandatory 5x8Bw which I've chosen to represent as four pikemen and four archers per element with small pavises up front; it looks like a small diorama scene.
As for gameplay I'll have to wait and see...I usually measure movement from the front corners anyway.

[konstantinius]

yettie, I'm also in SF along with a couple of other good folks whom I haven't seen in a while. I'll email you.

[konstantinius]

Hey, since when did I become a centurion?

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by konstantinius:
Hey, since when did I become a centurion? Probably since just after you started shamelessly triple-posting to bump your message count up...

[Roland Fricke]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ivan:
However, now that you have to measure from all 4 corners when moving, double-based elements are seriously disadvantaged, much more so than they were before. I really think they should be made officially optional. I haven't got a copy of the new (2.2) rulebook yet, but I believe that this has reverted back to the old rule...only measure the front corners. (Hurray! :D )

- Jack </font>[/QUOTE]I noticed that as well on Bob's 2.2 changes posting - Can anybody with a copy of 2.2 confirm this?

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Roland Fricke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by El' Jocko:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ivan:
However, now that you have to measure from all 4 corners when moving, double-based elements are seriously disadvantaged, much more so than they were before. I really think they should be made officially optional. I haven't got a copy of the new (2.2) rulebook yet, but I believe that this has reverted back to the old rule...only measure the front corners. (Hurray! )

- Jack </font>[/QUOTE]I noticed that as well on Bob's 2.2 changes posting - Can anybody with a copy of 2.2 confirm this? </font>[/QUOTE]I looked for this specifically a couple of weeks ago in a copy of 2.2 that Chris Brantley had and, unless I missed something, the measurement rules are still the same crappy ones used in 2.1 (i.e. measure furthest corner, NOT furthest front corner). :confused: :mad: :( :rolleyes:

Maybe we can all agree (as the DBA community) to measure the furthest front corner. :D

Stupid Martian Flip! Thanks alot Marty. ;)

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by David Schlanger:
Hard nosed? I dunno, maybe big nosed!

If a player wanted to place a 30mm deep knight element on a 60mm deep underbase for example - that would be fine. I'd probably think it looked really stupid, but would live with it.... any sidelong commentary about how stupid the basing looked would be entirely as a service to the community, exerting friendly social pressure on the miscreant...

[xeswop]

This is what 2.2 says about measurement

"Otherwise the maximum distance between the starting point of any base corner of a single element or any element of a group and that corner's final position is:"

I cannot find what Roland said in the Commentaries? If someone can point to it, I will fix.

I agree about the Martian Flip. But we must live with the whims of the Man. He giveth and he taketh away. We went 10 years with the furthest corner measurement. Then a brief couple of years of front corner and now back to furthest smile.gif We can lobby for a return in 3.0, in 2 years. Figure out what to do with WWg in general to make them fit the rules better.

[Roland Fricke]

Bob,
not the commentaries but here - this is what sounded like it was back to 2.0: http://www.fanaticus.org/boards/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000550

[ May 27, 2004, 16:54: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[David Schlanger]

Bob,

Roland's link is for the thread that I sent you in a email a couple of weeks ago. This caused me a great deal of confusion.

DS

[xeswop]

Yes, indeed there WAS a typo there, but like Winston Smith, I went back and rewrote history smile.gif

[dicemanrick]

One "beneficial" side effect we noted in a game is that the double based archer stands had a longer footprint to stay in bad terrain....that outer far corner is a long way out from the woods!