And another dumb question

[winterbadger]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by winterbadger

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by winterbadger

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.