Fanaticus Forum  

Go Back   Fanaticus Forum > Rules > v2.2+

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-01-2015, 10:00 AM
Pavane's Avatar
Pavane Pavane is offline
Prefect
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Picton, ON Canada
Posts: 966
Default

The only reason we allowed 3.0 army lists in the 2.2+ tournaments at Hotlead was to encourage more participants. We don't want to turn away people who play 3.0 locally, own few armies, and don't have the elements to morph their 3.0 army into 2.2. We do not allow allies.

With that option, you will have some players that will min/max the two lists, seeking a tournament advantage. Those people will always do that, and they do it with exclusively 2.2 army list tournaments in their army choice. I can live with it.

Then there are those who compare the two lists an choose the one that they think is more historically accurate. Maybe it is, and maybe not, but that is their prerogative. As GM that is not for me to judge.
__________________
Will M.
Another Proud Supporter of DBA 2.2+
http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-01-2015, 10:02 AM
Tony Aguilar's Avatar
Tony Aguilar Tony Aguilar is offline
Augustus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 1,825
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavane View Post
The only reason we allowed 3.0 army lists in the 2.2+ tournaments at Hotlead was to encourage more participants. We don't want to turn away people who play 3.0 locally, own few armies, and don't have the elements to morph their 3.0 army into 2.2. We do not allow allies.

With that option, you will have some players that will min/max the two lists, seeking a tournament advantage. Those people will always do that, and they do it with exclusively 2.2 army list tournaments in their army choice. I can live with it.

Then there are those who compare the two lists an choose the one that they think is more historically accurate. Maybe it is, and maybe not, but that is their prerogative. As GM that is not for me to judge.
I like and agree with your reasons, Will.
__________________
The end times are fast approaching. Have you registered on the "new" site yet?
http://fanaticus.boards.net/forum

http://tonyaguilar.wordpress.com/
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FADBAG/
DBA-RRR Renaissance, Reformation and Restoration:http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...A-RRR%20Files/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-01-2015, 10:22 AM
dervel dervel is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david kuijt View Post
Sure, I play HotT all the time. I love "build your own army" games in HotT. But when I play historical games, I want the army lists to be ... historical.
David,
I was not suggesting a build your own army rule for historical games.... and I am making the assumption the 3.0 lists were made with some knowledge of historical armies (except maybe the 5 elephant option)....

and in the statement I made about fun and interesting the next line states the organizer can always specify for an event. Just like you do for the campaigns.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-01-2015, 10:32 AM
David Schlanger's Avatar
David Schlanger David Schlanger is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 1,016
Default

For NASAMW DBA events, the GM should be able to do anything they like in regards to this issue. I would encourage the GM to publicize whatever that is in advance of the event and stick with it.

DS
__________________
Triumph!
****************
Washington Grand Company
http://www.wgcwar.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-01-2015, 10:47 AM
dervel dervel is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,164
Default

And is somebody says they forgot their horde....

Simply hand them a blank base or piece of cardboard with Horde written on top of it
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-01-2015, 12:57 PM
Dangun Dangun is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david kuijt View Post
Even if I was to be convinced to allow 3.0 lists in a tournament I was running, I'd never allow a 3.0 list with 3.0 ally component. That's a min-maxer's dream, and a total kludge in terms of historical armies.
True. But its a problem with allies, some of the 3.0 lists do look more historical.
One could just ban allies.
__________________
Cheers

Dangun (Nicholas Spratt)
Hong Kong

Last edited by Dangun; 07-01-2015 at 01:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-01-2015, 04:11 PM
Redwilde's Avatar
Redwilde Redwilde is offline
Augustus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,793
Default

This conversation pops around occasionally. I'm always perfectly happy allowing lists from any version (although I'm in the 'no 3.0 allies' camp for non-3.0 games).

There are still vendors out there who never moved beyond 1st ed army packs. 1st ed armies, and 2nd, and now 3rd all show up on EBay. In the future, some vendors may not add 3rd ed armies, and some may not offer 2nd. From time to time, we have someone show up at the club with a 1st ed army that has been brought out of mothballs. They all work have worked perfectly fine plunking them into 2.2+ games!

As a Classics scholar, I am greatly underwhelmed by arguments that the gaming representation of the armies is any more or less historically accurate in any of the editions. Especially in the Chariot Age armies, the different distinctions in foot troop types were just outright made different from each other solely for the sake of game interest we have no particular idea how these armies' infantry may or may not have fought differently from each other. At best, we have pictorial evidence that shows differences in equipment, if that much information.

I'm planning on building some armies to 3.0 specs. Not out of a sense of better history (see above), but out of a sense of better gameplay. The 2nd ed armies were translated from the DBM army lists, and some were just horribly translated and do no come close to reflecting the choices available in DBM! Take Early Libyan c&d lists for example I'll be building mine to 3.0 and/or a better interp of DBM so that they are functionally useful in a Punic Wars campaign/theme-event.

I've always liked the houserule that an army could swap in 1 stand from a choice allowed in DBM that didn't make it into DBA.

If there was a willingness to adapt general army list changes, I'd be happy to put in grunt time working on draft lists that triangulate (quadrangulate?) between the 3 editions and DBM. Writing the lists in a different format, we could distribute them with no problem.
__________________
"Hasta la vista, Baby!"
Battlecry of the Velites
-----------
Goblinhall
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-01-2015, 06:49 PM
Diocletian's Avatar
Diocletian Diocletian is offline
Fanatici
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Erie, Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 74
Default

I am not an advocate of army lists for regular play. I can see the need for army lists in tournaments when the intent is to level the playing field to some degree for competitive play.

Ancient commanders did not battle with 12 element restrictions or a particular formula of troops. They took to the field what they had. I understand DBA is an abstract representation of an ancient battle and not everyone can research a particular army or battle. There is also some varying interpretations of ancient battles by historians. That is where army lists have use.

I am a Classics scholar also. My area of interest and study is the Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium period (Diocletian to Justinian). When I set up a particular battle on my own, I go back to the historical sources and try to set up an "army list" that matches the battle or at least a part of it I want to do. Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius are major sources. I interpret the battle and then build up the battle from there.

Take for example, my main DBA army II/78b Late Imperial Army -eastern. Facing the Sassanid Persian, I would go more heavy on the cataphracts (4Kn), but facing the Goths on the Danube would go more heavy on the legionaries (4Bd) or auxiliaries (4Ax). I say this based on my interpretation of the sources on Roman tactics I read when they faced both types of enemies.

Without all that being said, I am an advocate of allowance of some variation in army lists as long as they stay within a reasonable historical limitation.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-01-2015, 07:33 PM
Macbeth's Avatar
Macbeth Macbeth is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 1,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lee View Post
Oh dear, it doesn't sound as if I will be able to use Western Chou Chinese as allies of my North European Barbarians 2000 BC to 1401 BC after all. I had already sourced a model of a Police telephone box to use as Tardis.
Curse you Richard - you have stolen my joke.

When I was updating my Tournament Draw application to replace the lists of opponents with the DBA3 lists I discovered a plethora of anachronistic opponents.

I was deeply disappointed because I had spent one winter's junior basketball season edit checking the army lists and highlighted a number of timeline related issues. Front runner was the IV/3 Anglo Norman having IV/39a as an opponent - a Tardis related issue going all the way back to 2.0

Cheers
__________________
Because it has my troops all over it. That makes it MINE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-01-2015, 08:43 PM
Macbeth's Avatar
Macbeth Macbeth is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 1,322
Default

Here in Oz there are a couple of tournaments that are the Min/Max dream in that you get to choose your elements at deployment.

That is no bad thing in itself but it allowed me to come up with some truly evil tricks like

* Holding back a littoral landing with elements that have options and not deciding on this composition until the landing is deployed.

* Choosing a variegated army like the Northern Dynasties Chinese, Early Tang Chinese or the Blemmye (b list) and utilising the high aggression to ensure I see what I am up against before deploying.

If you allow both lists in a tournament in this format, could the minmaxer chop and change between the DBA3 and the DBA2.2 list?

We did have an issue in one tournament here where a player bluffed his opponent and used an extra Kn element instead of the Cv in the Medieval Scandinavian - his opponent didn't look at the lists until after the game.

If you have open slather on list books then competitors need to have access to both books (and the Hutchby and Clark WRG7th list books that had DBA armies included)

I am a firm believer in one source of lists to rule them all and that it should be compatible with the rulebook being used as that is the most likely source for the players

Cheers
__________________
Because it has my troops all over it. That makes it MINE!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.