|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 9, 2019 2:04:23 GMT
If I only had the choice of an all 3Ax or 4Ax army, I would choose the 4Ax army, so I would not recoil on ties against solid foot.
Since my army would be homogeneous, the slower movement of 2BW would not bother me so much, as I would know what my limitations are.
If I had the choice of 3Ax or 4Ax for some of the army composition, I would take 3Ax almost all the time, and pair the movement with other fast elements.
However, giving 4Ax +1CF against HI in non-bad going, would make me re-think this, as 4Ax in a non-homogeneous army would seem far more attractive.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 9, 2019 2:14:50 GMT
If I only had the choice of an all 3Ax or 4Ax army, I would choose the 4Ax army, so I would not recoil on ties against solid foot. It’s a good point, if I’m 12x4Ax vs 12x3Ax, then the win on ties makes quite a difference. But the 3BW even through bad going seems too good to pass up..... unless you’re playing a very defensive game... hmmm
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 9, 2019 10:56:24 GMT
You are quite right to drag us back on topic Greedo. But let us not forget that other great historical and play-balancing suggestion by Joe Collins... ...3Ax (plus Ps and 3Bw) can choose to recoil a base depth or ‘evade’ a full base width, just like mounted. Now the difference between 3Ax and 4Ax is not merely speed and equal combat scores... ...one can also break contact while the other can stand up to heavy foot, at least for a while. This widens the distinctiveness between the two types of auxiliaries, and makes selection much more subtle. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 9, 2019 10:58:22 GMT
But I would hope that if a player fielded an (Thracian) army circa 600BC with 9 elements of 4Ax then nobody would look down their glasses at them. After all, it is a legal army. I truly hope we don't go down the path of trying to micromanage players model collections. If wanted someone to look over my shoulder and comment on the colour I painted the metal fastener then I would do Napoleonics! Cheers Jim Ha! Whether the Ps, 3Ax, and 4Ax represents three different time periods, or they represent three different tribes, they are still three separate armies fighting in their own distinct styles...and as different as chalk is from cheese. So if you want all three types of Thracians Jim, then ya gonna ‘ave ta pay for ‘em (you cheapskate ). (And what about tight-wads like me that plonk 4Ax on the table and say “oh, those are acting as 3Ax for this battle”...?)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Ha! I've already got an all-option venerable Tin Soldier Thracian army. Not only that but I've put in an order for the new Tin Soldier release of Thracian javelinmen. But that's it! Finished! No more Thracians! ... but if they release naked stone-throwers... A positive of an all option Thracian army is that you can stage a an inter tribal battle. And they were some local coalitions like at the Battle of Drabescus. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 9, 2019 14:51:42 GMT
Actually, a number of the manufacturers have all option pre-made armies that provide enough figures to field both options.
And as stevie notes, with the addition of the 3AX breakoff and the +1 CV against heavies for the 4AX that gives some incentive to being able to field either option.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 9, 2019 20:08:20 GMT
Actually, a number of the manufacturers have all option pre-made armies that provide enough figures to field both options. And as stevie notes, with the addition of the 3AX breakoff and the +1 CV against heavies for the 4AX that gives some incentive to being able to field either option. I loved the Corvus Belli and Xyston DBA boxes. Of course they are for 2.2 but still worthwhile FOG armies are good too since they basically give you a triple army immediately.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 13, 2019 12:19:51 GMT
So I have a sneaking suspicion that everybody on this thread is convinced (or near convinced) for these few elements. Happily we don't have to create any new elements. So my next question is: What do we do to get more people on-board, in a collaborative, "this will make things even better for everyone and not break anything" way? I'm sure there'll be lots of other suggestions as to how to accomplish similar results, or even find game problems that we hadn't thought of, but that's the great thing about larger scale play testing. Is Joe Collins the *ahem* spearpoint here? Actually no. Not because I don't like the ideas, but because they don't really fit into a DBA 3.1. They will fit perhaps into a DBA 4.0. I am preparing presently for a 3.1, which is probably several years away. Don't however let this throw cold water on everyone discussing further ideas. The day for DBA 4 will come. Joe Collins Fear not everybody...things are moving forward. I’m currently working on a booklet along similar lines to the “Army List Corrections” file. It’s not finished yet, and I need to liaise more with Primuspilus about the details. And here is a snippet from the introduction:- “DBA 3.0 is a great set of Ancient Rules, being easy to learn, needing few actual figures so it’s not costly to build and paint an army, and is quick to play making it ideal for tournaments and competitions where time is limited. Regrettably, in order to make it simple and quick to play, certain historical factors and events had to be omitted, making some of the troop classes behave and perform contrary to their real-life counterparts.
It’s a pity that DBA 3.0 was not organised with the basic tournament rules in the front, the advanced historical rules at the back, and with a one page simple two-player set of campaign rules in-between. So this booklet is an unofficial player generated attempt to add those historical rules that DBA 3.0 has left out. Please note that these new historical rules do not alter the basic tournament rules in any way. Consider them as just an extra layer to be placed on top of the basic rules, for more historical realism.
To reinstate these missing historical rules we went back to the original accounts of the ancient battles to see just how troops way back then really did behave and perform. These were the “Lessons from History”. And when a discrepancy was discovered, a new rule had to be found to correct it.
Now we should point out that none of these rules are along the lines of “Oh, wouldn’t it be a good idea if....”. No, it was the compete opposite...these historical rules were in fact forced upon us by those ancient writings. Only when DBA was unable to replicate or simulate an historical event or behaviour was a new rule considered.”Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Mar 13, 2019 13:06:22 GMT
Capital idea. You could even call it DBA3.0+!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 13, 2019 13:26:00 GMT
Nope, that title has already been grabbed by "DBA Great Battles of History!" ... I'll duck and run now ... Sorry Joe! Think of this as a gathering and categorising, of many forum ideas that work really well, and putting them in a format you can take with you to game night! I find scrolling back through page after page to find something I really like and want to use and test is seriously difficult. Assuming I even recall which thread it was in!!!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 13, 2019 14:30:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 13, 2019 16:09:02 GMT
And that is why it's in the houserules section 😁.
Seriously, 2.2+ was an entirely rival version of 2.2 designed to take over the tournament scene. It was an entire end-to-end rewrite of the rules, including the movement measurement in 1/2 BWs.
Stevie's plan is to gather up those house rules that work well, result in MINIMAL changes to gameplay (so sorry, Arnopov, you won't see 1/2 BW increments for moves in these) that enhance balance and historical outcomes, and are stable over multiple games and groups. The threshold for inclusion is likely to be quite high for inclusion in the compendium, I would guess.
And they are for historical and campaign games for those players that like that sort of thing.
Could these morph into a Tom-style Ancients version of a Gane of Ice and Fire (Knights and Knaughties?) Well, one thing at a time, guys ...
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Mar 13, 2019 16:09:18 GMT
I also see the problem, that Aux solid arent good enough compared to Aux fast. Or say it in other words: what in history was a progress, to have 4AUx instead of 3Aux, is in DBA a backstep.
But i dont like the ideas discussed in this thread. And that is, because they bring something different, complex and foreign to the rule system of DBA. Having a bonus against some trooptypes, but not against other troops IMO is absolutely alien to the DBA combat system.
Maybe i havent noticed every argument in the discussion. And maybe i am thinking to much about greek peltasts, but what about: Solid Aux gets sidesupport from spear, blade, pike and solid aux. (That would make 4Aux like some weak part of the mainline.)
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 13, 2019 17:04:02 GMT
Nope, that title has already been grabbed by "DBA Great Battles of History!" ... I'll duck and run now ... Sorry Joe! Think of this as a gathering and categorising, of many forum ideas that work really well, and putting them in a format you can take with you to game night! I find scrolling back through page after page to find something I really like and want to use and test is seriously difficult. Assuming I even recall which thread it was in!!! Hey... any publicity is good publicity!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 13, 2019 17:47:35 GMT
I also see the problem, that Aux solid arent good enough compared to Aux fast. Or say it in other words: what in history was a progress, to have 4AUx instead of 3Aux, is in DBA a backstep. But i dont like the ideas discussed in this thread. And that is, because they bring something different, complex and foreign to the rule system of DBA. Having a bonus against some trooptypes, but not against other troops IMO is absolutely alien to the DBA combat system. Maybe i havent noticed every argument in the discussion. And maybe i am thinking to much about greek peltasts, but what about: Solid Aux gets sidesupport from spear, blade, pike and solid aux. (That would make 4Aux like some weak part of the mainline.) So Decebalus, since “you don’t like having a bonus against some troop types and not others”, can I assume that you also disapprove of having the following in DBA 3.0?:- Lb, Cb and Bd can kill Kn and Cm on an equal score...and only Kn and Cm... 3Kn can recoil 4Kn on an equal score...and only 4Kn on an equal score... WWg that score less against El and shooting Art are destroyed...and not by anyone else if they score less... Supported Pk get +1 against Kn, El, and SCh...but not against Cv, LH, or Cm... Supported Wb get +1 against foot in close combat...but not against mounted or Ps... Side support gives +1 against close combat foot...but not close combat mounted... ...or are these all ‘different’ somehow? As for Soild Aux getting side support, it has been suggested before, but is full of flaws. See the following: fanaticus.boards.net/post/19995/Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 14, 2019 0:46:04 GMT
I also see the problem, that Aux solid arent good enough compared to Aux fast. Or say it in other words: what in history was a progress, to have 4AUx instead of 3Aux, is in DBA a backstep. But i dont like the ideas discussed in this thread. And that is, because they bring something different, complex and foreign to the rule system of DBA. Having a bonus against some trooptypes, but not against other troops IMO is absolutely alien to the DBA combat system. Maybe i havent noticed every argument in the discussion. And maybe i am thinking to much about greek peltasts, but what about: Solid Aux gets sidesupport from spear, blade, pike and solid aux. (That would make 4Aux like some weak part of the mainline.) Welcome.decebalus! First off, have you had much experience playing with these fixes? You will find they play far better than other fixes. We tested ALL the others. These give the best overall results IF you are someone who wants to at least sometimes get a historical outcome. If you are happy with the way your games play, keeo doing what you are doing! But I urge us not to throw out an idea because it isn't canonical DBA. In these cases we have found canonical DBA cannot produce the results we want, whether by quirks of the d6 ratio-based system, or the recoil/kill results. It is my opinion that the BW movement, and the new element interactions for the most part created a fantastic game. It is a simple matter to twrak it slightly for those looking for slightly better history. By the way, people used to hate DBA v3 because it was such a radical, irreverent departure from canonical DBA. We find the system is highly robust. It'll never be perfect. But it is getting closer!
|
|