|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 26, 2022 16:24:43 GMT
Oh,
Don't forget to use the 7x Hd for the Fyrd on the English side!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 26, 2022 16:22:29 GMT
Some suggestions: Require 2 Allies for the Vikings. Tostig would be one, an additional Viking contingent, the other.
This will produce command problems for the Vikings (which they most certainly suffered) and a better game.
Farther afield would be to use the early Viking list (40a) as this army was an invading littoral army. I would suggest... 1x 4Bd General, 6x 3Bd Vikings, 1x 3Wb- Ally 1: 1x 4Bd, 1x 4Sp- Ally 2: 1x 4Bd, 1x 3Bd For a Standard game.
This will be a fun game. I assure you. The command issues for the Vikings will need careful management. The 3Bd vs 4Sp matchup is also tense, but the Vikings will have the upper hand...
For Big battle, I disagree with 3 commands on each side. 2 is better. Here the Vikings should have a 3 element allied contingent in each command.
Have fun with this!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 26, 2022 15:57:04 GMT
Hey Dpd.
Your thinking is on target. Version 3 has done this in many cases. I have noticed this most in the Greek Hoplite era lists. Much of the Ax has been reclassified as Ps. This of course has left me with too many Ax for those armies!
3Ax has been reserved for Hill Tribe warriors in loose formation. 4Ax is now for Thureophoroi, Hannibal's infantry, Roman Ax, and other Tribal infantry that doesn't warrant Wb status... (ie. Irish Nobility, Spanish, and others).
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 28, 2022 3:51:30 GMT
Brian:
I would suggest you find my article in Slingshot... The quick answer is, "no, it is not better".
Now, Blades pursuing is much better... the same for Pikes...They just should not be able to maintain contact with Ax. The article goes into great detail.
Jim:
To answer the original issue.
I competed in several major US Tournaments with infantry mounted on 15mm that should have been on 20mm. Only one person noticed. These were large tournaments.
In the end. It really doesn't matter much.
This is true for the Bd differences.
Where you will see it most I think is with HYW armies. Here you will see dismounted knights rebased to 20mm to allow proper recoil distances. Again, this is a small change in combat value, but one that has some meaning.
In the end though, I don't think it matters. There has not been much complaint from the tournament scene. On the club or personal level... it doesn't matter.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 27, 2022 14:06:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 20, 2022 14:41:20 GMT
Some quick thoughts.
WRG consists of more than just Phil. There are other partners. They will in the future either continue the project or sell it. I highly doubt such a franchise will be allowed to languish till the proscribed 70 year period expires.
I do believe that their will be a DBA 3.1 and perhaps a 4.0. The game has some more room to growth and be perfected. I hope to be a part in both.
In the meantime, we have Knights & Knaves, and other sets to enjoy. We can also playtest rule changes and ideas (Stevie rejoices!).
I do find it frustrating that we can't do a 3.1 update anytime soon. I think it would reinvigorate the community (especially in the US... it needs it here). The time however is not right.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 4, 2022 23:14:56 GMT
Here is a document I prepared for folks making the transition from 2.2 to 3...
DBA 2.2 to 3.0 Important Safety Tips:
Terrain Placement: The board is divided into quarters... Defender picks terrain and places compulsory first. 1-4 Place on that board quarter. 5 Defender picks, 6 Attacker picks. 1 BW from another terrain piece and 1BW from board edge. Gentle hills may cross one boundary. Plough must.
Terrain: Good going, bad going, and rough. Rough is not good going. No combat penalty, but no rear or side support. Watch out for combat outcomes.
Setup: At least 3 BW from the center. LH, Cav, Ps, Ax, Mtd-Inf must be at least 2 BW from a side edge. Other must be 4 BW.
Start: No swaps. Defender moves 1st. On a "1" Plough changes from "Good Going" to "Rough Going".
Movement: Measure from the front corners. Psiloi can make 2 moves on turn one and any turn that the first move starts in good going and the second move ends in bad going. LH can move 3 times. Any on road may make any number of moves. Must be a full move. 1st is free.
Conforming: Single elements conform to groups. Non-bounding player's conform is automatic and free.
Turning to face: Elements turn to face flank contact unless also contacted to the front. Second rank elements follow the front elements. If the front rank doesn't turn, the second doesn't.
Distance Combat: Bows fire 3 BW. Arc is 1BW to each side. Target must present .5BW or complete element edge (think flank). Bow may not fire if they moved over 1BW.
Support: Pikes, Warband, and LH get rear support. Spear gets side support from spear and blade. (Solid only) Bows get side support from Blades. (only if both Solid) LH gets rear support from LH (Watch the flee move!)
Special Factors: Ps are not counted as overlapped by corner to corner contact.
Close Combat: Fast recoil from Solid on ties. Lb & Cb kill Knights on ties. Bd kill knights on ties. 4Kn recoils from 3Kn on ties.
Recoils: Elements flanked that suffer recoils are killed instead. Elements that can't start their recoil die. Others recoil until stopped.
Pursuit: Blades, Pikes, Warband pursue foot except Ps 1/2 BW. Units do not pursue if they would enter Bad Going. Please note..."Enter". 3Kn, Hd, Scythed Chariots pursue 1 BW vs all. Units do not pursue if they would enter Bad Going. Please note..."Enter". Double Based Elements: Double based units... If in good going +1 in close combat vs foot. 1st one destroyed counts as 2 elements dead.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 4, 2022 23:10:14 GMT
Wow... yes, but this is "ancient history".... I will look for it. I had a document about 6 or 7 years ago...
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 8, 2022 4:04:36 GMT
I've definitely got Brian Boru!
Though he only shows during Big Battle games.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 5, 2022 19:06:21 GMT
As always, you can decide whether and/or how you use the FAQ.
As a matter of policy we don't discuss our entries or the reasoning behind them. These entries were made with the full consensus of the team... This being said, I think a small amount more of thought will derive the reasons for this entry.
In play it makes only a very small difference... that might be a clue!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 3, 2022 17:23:11 GMT
Unfortunately both Baldie and I are forbidden from responding to this thread...
and for good reason!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 31, 2022 20:00:39 GMT
Well, sort of...
The problem of exceptions arises. The most common is of course the wheel to contact when a hole is opened in the center of an enemy line.
Your back corner moves through the enemy threat zone... and in fact your back corner moves through the enemy element! This if course is covered by a special case in the rules (though it has issues which I will not voice. I have faith Stevie will suss them out!)
There can I think also be weird cases where movement will be prevented when it shouldn't. An example would be a legitimate retreat that crosses another zone...
The front edge bit is an artifact I believe of some thinking the came from Phil's inner group that was found problematic, but parts were never removed.
My preference would be to have any entry to a threat zone trigger a response (with of course the wheel to contact exception listed above).
I just don't see the odd backwards move being used in games to any advantage. The only troops that could take advantage on a regular basis would be CV and LH.
We consider them radically mobile anyway.
Perhaps the remedy is worse here than the malady.
Joe Collins
Thanks for that Joe. Good to see that I haven’t missed anything. Soooo then…and I may be jumping the gun here…taking into account all that has been said previously by MedievalThomas, Joe Collins, and others, can I assume that the following is how we should be interpreting the current Threat Zone rule?:- New Interpretation of the Threat Zone RuleAn element or group which starts at least partly within or whose front edge only enters an enemy TZ (other edges cannot voluntarily enter a TZ on their own) or touches its far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy, or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. TZs do not affect outcome moves. Will this prevent 'backward Moonwalking' through Threat Zones? An alternative wording could be:- New Interpretation of the Threat Zone RuleAn element or group which starts at least partly within or whose front edge is the first edge to voluntarily enter an enemy TZ or if the element touches an enemy TZ far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy, or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. TZs do not affect outcome moves.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 31, 2022 2:18:02 GMT
Late Medieval and early Renaissance in 25s.... 1066 (and Clontarf) as well.
Greek/Persians, Alexander, Punic in 15s... Late Rome and Crusades in 15s.
All HotT in 25s
Hey... at least I am not consistent.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 29, 2022 21:36:39 GMT
Stevie:
My recollection was off a month. It was the Sept./Oct 2013 version.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 26, 2022 16:01:05 GMT
Like many sections of the rules, the "threat zone" section generated quite a bit of discussion and many, many revisions. We had many of the same observations that are voiced here. I personally like the version that was put forth November of 2013. That however was replaced twice... once with an version that only considered the front edge of an element. This was generated by some of Phil's personal confidants that were not on the discussion group. At that time, Phil dropped out of the discussion due to some health issues. Upon his return we convinced him to change things back... but he kept the mention of the front edge.
If fading memory serves... we decided that the backing into a threat zone to rush across it next turn was silly... but not worth the extra rules to prevent. If the bounding player wants to avoid it... then don't move to generate the situation. If the bounding player wants the produce it... his opponent can move to prevent it... either by contact or by moving such to limit the move.
Such situations rarely occur during games. I have yet to see it used to generate an advantage. DBA3 is harsh on players that use non-linear formations... and this was done on purpose.
Until I see this start being used for advantage, I don't think it needs addressing. There are more vexing threat zone interpretations that can be used for advantage... and these have been discussed at length on this board.
Joe Collins
|
|