|
|
Post by tiger6 on Jan 14, 2019 0:28:34 GMT
How many people play DBA 3.0 rules, but still use 2.2 armies?
|
|
|
|
Post by cleopatra2 on Jan 14, 2019 1:55:26 GMT
According to Phil, all armies that were valid for 2.2 can be used for 3.0.
|
|
|
|
Post by tiger6 on Jan 14, 2019 2:02:53 GMT
Cleopatra
Thanks very much for your help. That’s fantastic, my eyes aren’t what they used to be. I have too many that have changed from 2.2 to 3.0. That was the basic reason I quit playing. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Jan 14, 2019 2:06:03 GMT
According to Phil, all armies that were valid for 2.2 can be used for 3.0. That might be OK for friendly games , but i would check with the TO for comps . |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jan 14, 2019 4:32:19 GMT
According to Phil, all armies that were valid for 2.2 can be used for 3.0. That might be OK for friendly games , but i would check with the TO for comps . I looked at a small sample of DBA Armies - just over 100 and the sample was heavily biased towards books 3 & 4 but nonetheless
Only 6 of these were unchanged, and a further 5 were brought up to code simply by removing elements (example - III/20c Early Tang become 3.0 compliant by the removal of the 1x3/4Kn and 3xSp).
Around 35 of the armies required new elements in order to field a legal force - (example the Norse Irish require the addition of 2x4Ax and either 1x4Ax or CP as general, which did not exist in the previous list but are now compulsory)
The remainder were compatible - you can field a legal army but will still have to add in extra elements to make up all the new options.
As a Tournament Organiser I would not allow a 2.2 list to be used where it differs from the legal 3.0 list - I would rather see a couple of borrowed Peltast Elements making up the 4Ax in the Norse Irish while the new elements are being painted rather than having a pre 3.0 Norse Irish in the mix - allowing the use of older lists leads to several problelms
1) Doubling the amount of work for checking lists 2) People like me asking if it is alright to use my (much more balanced) 2.2 Tang because I haven't gotten round to converting them yet (that is I haven't taken the Kn or Sp out of the box  ) 3) Most of the Late Medieval European armies have changed from Kn//Bd to Kn/Bd which slightly restricts the use of this super troop. If someone said that they wanted to used their 2.2 version of an army (which might be effectively unchanged but for the conversion of the dismounting mechanism) I would frown.
When we are arguing the toss over how some armies or elements have changed in the transition from 1 through 2 to 3 we often cite new research. These lists are based on the most up to date research so should be used in preference.
On a personal note - since the publication of DBA3 I have been working to bring my stable of armies up to code - as of this week I have 92 armies made up for DBA3 with all options available. This includes 6 Armies with no change 5 Armies converted by removing elements 2 Armies Rebuilt with a high proportion of new figures 19 Armies Newly built since the process began (I haven't stopped painting new figures whilst trying to meet the new requirements) 60 Armies with the additional figures required to meet the new lists.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 14, 2019 9:06:07 GMT
I’ve always wondered why so many army lists changed so substantially between 2.2 and 3.0. It seems that the number of Army list changes is disproportionate given that the basic rules changed little. It would seem that there are a number of reasons to change an army list:
New troop types or definitions under 3.0 forced redefinition of an army list. This is understandable change but fairly minor given the relatively few changes.
Ironing out rule wrinkles from earlier versions - such as 3Kn//4Bd vs 3Kn/4Bd. Again fairly minor.
Routine editing and revisions - this should only be fairly minor stuff.
New historical evidence or modern interpretations of ancient/medieval armies. Again, given the extreme attention to detail Phil and the gang put into earlier versions and the relatively slow change in this domain vs the relatively short time between 2.2 and 3.0! I would guess that this to is fairly minor.
So all in all the extent of Army list revision between the two versions seems disproportionate to the reasons for change. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 14, 2019 11:19:38 GMT
New historical evidence or modern interpretations of ancient/medieval armies. Again, given the extreme attention to detail Phil and the gang put into earlier versions and the relatively slow change in this domain vs the relatively short time between 2.2 and 3.0! I would guess that this to is fairly minor. So all in all the extent of Army list revision between the two versions seems disproportionate to the reasons for change. Am I missing something?
Totally agree that there is not that much new research. Also, most of what there is does not translate into anything that wargamers are interested in. Pre-modern army lists are mostly guess-work anyway, especially in a rather abstract game such as DBA, where there are no exact numbers for troop strength in a given unit etc.
I assume that the reason for the change in the army lists is: a) The transition from DBM to DBMM and the list changes done in that process for those games. b) More enjoyable ("fun") army lists. DBA 3 lists are much more colourful. c) Balance (between historical opponents) - reducing the Kn//Bd options seems obvious. Making Light Horse better was another one apparently (I remember someone quoting Phil on that).
While I agree that fixed army lists are needed for tournaments, I am not interested in tournaments myself anyway. For friendly play (which is the only kind of play I like), army lists should be treated with some flexibility. For most armies, we have no exact idea of their composition anyway. And even if we have that, it would differ for given battles. For fictional battles (which is what 90% or more of DBA games is about), army composition does not matter.
So, please do not stress yourself about getting your armies DBA 3 legal. If you want to play in a tournament with a DBA 3 list, it should be possible to find a loaner army. The important part is that you keep enjoying the game and keep enjoying what you already have.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jan 14, 2019 11:41:26 GMT
Almost certainly a change due to DBMM lists changing from the original DBM ones, as suggested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 14, 2019 13:45:09 GMT
We will continue to allow players to use 2.2 list for 3.0 games in any tournaments we run.
I personally am not very interested in playing with my 2.2 armies and have started revising them to 3.0 standard, but I do not want to turn anyone away who does not choose to do so since it is can be a costly endeavor.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 14, 2019 18:08:13 GMT
We will continue to allow players to use 2.2 list for 3.0 games in any tournaments we run. I personally am not very interested in playing with my 2.2 armies and have started revising them to 3.0 standard, but I do not want to turn anyone away who does not choose to do so since it is can be a costly endeavor. The same with the tournaments I run. I just require that the players clear it with me first. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Jan 14, 2019 18:25:35 GMT
I am in agreement with Tony, felixs and paddy649. With so many armies there are bound to be changes and corrections going into the future.
Using the rules for historical battles, I've found older scenarios with guidance for DBA and Big Battle DBA sized versions to still be very helpful.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 14, 2019 18:29:51 GMT
Lots of good comments on this topic. It does trouble me that people differentiate types of play as "tournament" and "friendly." I have never run or played in a tournament that was not friendly:) I will try to use the terms tournament (public) and private games.
Regarding armies to use, I am with MacBeth. Armies to be 3.0 compliant. If a player has an army that does not fit the 3.0 list, I would loan him the elements he would need. Next we hear, can I use my 1.1 Army, or my Fields of Glory army.
When DBA 3 first came out, there was the up-dating issue. Below is what I did for tournaments then. It is now 4 years on, so should not be such a problem. Note that just saying ok to use earlier armies is not sufficient as I tried to cover in the details.
=======
Players are encouraged to use new 3.0 army lists, however 2.2 army lists are still permitted. If a 2.2 army list is used, the army information (for example: Aggression) from the corresponding 3.0 listing applies, as do the dismounting limitations for equivalent element types. Finally, players with 2.2 armies may not use 3.0 ally rules.
Just a further clarification on this. It should be obvious but needs to be stated that if you do use a version 2.2 list, any elements must be played as the version 3 equivalent. For example, any elements shown as 3Sp must be played as 3Pk ("fast" Pike) and any elements shown as 5Wb must be played as 5Hd ("fast" Hordes). Litters will all be played as version 3 Lit (a type of Blade), not as a type of War-Wagons as in version 2.2.
========
|
|
|
|
Post by tiger6 on Jan 14, 2019 18:50:15 GMT
Hi Everyone
Thanks very much for your replies. The armies that l can change, I’m in the process of changing . But I have some that were professionally done and there isn’t anyway for me to get them redone, since that painter has passed away. Being on fixed retirement income, I just can’t go about spending on DBA, like I once did.
I just want to enjoy the game again.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
Post by cleopatra2 on Jan 15, 2019 3:50:22 GMT
Just out of curiosity, what are the armies that you have from Second edition that we’re done by the professional painter. Helps others could give you a long-term lease on some elements to complete those armies, Close to the quality that they currently are.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark leslie on Jan 16, 2019 3:38:43 GMT
I just want to enjoy the game again. Thanks again An admirable ambition I'm sure we all share. If you do find yourself short a few warband, I for one, would be happy to lend you a few serviceable stand ins.   |
|
)
