Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DBA] Gauls, Celts

Expand Messages
  • Jan W. S. Spoor
    ... Yes, good catch. I had forgotten the Galic list was one of those previewed. It shows as 11. Gallic. 400BC-50BC. Before 224BC Arable. Ag: 3. After 225BC Ag:
    Message 1 of 17 , Nov 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:01 AM 11/1/00 +0100, Arnstein Orten wrote:

      >The forthcoming lists for Gauls are also at the DBA resource page:
      >http://fanaticus.jiffynet.net/DBA/dba2samplelists.html

      Yes, good catch. I had forgotten the Galic list was one of those previewed.
      It shows as

      11. Gallic. 400BC-50BC. Before 224BC Arable. Ag: 3. After 225BC Ag: 0.
      E = I/48, I/55, I/57, 10, 11, 13, 32, 33, 39, 47, 49. Ref: AMPW, AEIR.
      1x3/4Wb or LCh (Gen), 2xLCh or 3Cv, 8x3Wb, 1x2Ps.

      Ouch. This makes the Gauls even more one-dimensional than they were before,
      by taking one LCh/Cv and one Ps away to make more Wb. And when the
      Sub-Roman British (aka the King Arthur list) have, preposterously, four
      sublists (some of which cover as little as 20 years in a list that spans
      over 500 years), and when the Hellenistic Greeks have 11 sublists, the
      Gauls have one (1) list to cover a period of 350 years and a culture
      probably as influential as that of the Greeks. I guess they didn't write
      enough plays.

      This further suggests (along with the BUA b.s. and the riverine commando
      rules) that DBA 2.0 may be a big step backwards in many ways.

      JMO, YMMV

      Jan

      ************************************************************
      Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
      <http://www.pobox.com/~jspoor> * ICQ: 10525252
      Help someone today! <http://www.jtsa.edu/melton/tzedakah/>
      Go DC United! Three-time MLS Champions!
      <www.dcunited.com> * <www.screaming-eagles.com>
      ************************************************************
    • David KUIJT
      ... Well, you re certainly entitled to your own opinion. But personally, I disagree completely with your intimation that the new army lists are a bad thing.
      Message 2 of 17 , Nov 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Jan W. S. Spoor wrote:

        > Gauls have one (1) list to cover a period of 350 years and a culture
        > probably as influential as that of the Greeks. I guess they didn't write
        > enough plays.
        >
        > This further suggests (along with the BUA b.s. and the riverine commando
        > rules) that DBA 2.0 may be a big step backwards in many ways.

        Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. But personally, I
        disagree completely with your intimation that the new army lists are a bad
        thing. Further, the last time I checked Chris Brantley's DBA Fanaticus
        website's most recent "quizlet", about 50% of the votes for the FAVORITE
        thing in DBA 2.0 were the new army lists, so I'm not the only one who
        disagrees with you.

        The army list modifications are based upon research. While that research
        isn't perfect, it IS continually improving -- the 2.0 army lists are much
        more detailed and much more historical than the 1.1 army lists.

        A lot of people are unhappy that their personal favorite lists were
        modified; I'm sorry you feel that way about the Gauls. However, your
        point about their "not writing enough plays" deserves re-emphasis. If the
        various Gallic tribes had left more detailed information about their
        military, there would probably be more sublists for them in the 2.0 army
        lists. Well, they didn't. That's too bad, but that's not really the
        fault of the authors. And if you have information about the Gallic War
        Machine that you think the authors haven't considered enough, you should
        write to them or their commentators (of whom Duncan Head is one). After
        all, that sort of feedback is the way that much of the new research (and
        subsequent alterations in the army lists, down the road) comes to light!

        Sincerely,

        David Kuijt
      • Ruarigh Dale FAU Proj. Off. ES
        ... research. While that research ... 2.0 army lists are much ... 1.1 army lists. Does this mean that there will be no more berserkers in the Viking list?
        Message 3 of 17 , Nov 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          David KUIJT wrote:

          > The army list modifications are based upon
          research. While that research
          > isn't perfect, it IS continually improving -- the
          2.0 army lists are much
          > more detailed and much more historical than the
          1.1 army lists.

          Does this mean that there will be no more berserkers
          in the Viking list? It's a bit of a bugbear of mine :-), but I feel quite
          strongly that units of berserkers belong firmly in my HOTT armies, not in
          historical armies.

          On a slightly more constructive note, where can I
          find the DBA 2.0 lists on the net, and where would I contact the authors if
          I have any comments?

          Regards,
          Ruarigh
        • Jan W. S. Spoor
          ... If I had said that *all* the new army lists were a bad thing, or that *all* of the innovations about the lists were bad, I would agree with you. But that
          Message 4 of 17 , Nov 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            At 08:32 AM 11/1/00 -0500, David KUIJT wrote:

            >Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. But personally, I
            >disagree completely with your intimation that the new army lists are a bad
            >thing.

            If I had said that *all* the new army lists were a bad thing, or that *all*
            of the innovations about the lists were bad, I would agree with you. But
            that wasn't what I said.

            >Further, the last time I checked Chris Brantley's DBA Fanaticus
            >website's most recent "quizlet", about 50% of the votes for the FAVORITE
            >thing in DBA 2.0 were the new army lists, so I'm not the only one who
            >disagrees with you.

            I'm sure that many of the improvements in the new army lists are very
            popular. Myself, I welcome the stipulation of what troop type the army
            commander should historically be. I think introducing aggression and
            terrain factors a la DBM are a good idea (although I sometimes worry about
            DBA turning into DBM; they're both good, but combining them into a single
            system would lose some of what makes each of them separately appealing). I
            don't think that creating more one-note armies falls into the category of
            good ideas, though, and I see the changes to the Gallic list as being a
            case of that. A list with some diversity is having its diversity
            considerably reduced.

            I realize that it is desirable to make lists bear a resemblance to the
            historical armies they represent. But this can be taken to an unreasonable
            extreme, especially in an "army" of 12 elements. DBA armies have
            traditionally been a little more abstract in their proportions, and I think
            most players have thought that was a good thing. Are there any players that
            go out, first thing after they have got the rules, and build Early Libyan
            armies, so they can have that exciting 1 Wb and 11 Ps? Not that I've
            encountered. Were a quarter of Easrly Indian armies really elephants?
            Probably not, but having 3 El reflects the character of the army very well.

            Moreover, what I was specifically commenting on was that the Gallic list
            (which is not a particular favourite of mine, FWIW) was not only being
            dulled down, but was being given no diversity, when other lists (and I
            specifically cited the Sub-Romans) are being ridiculously over-detailed
            (what should we expect next for the SRs, a special "super-Kn" for Gawain,
            with the strength of ten, but only if the player's heart is pure or its the
            middle of the day? Let's leave King Arthur to the HOTT lists...) It's been
            a long time since I read De Bellis Gallicis in high school Latin class, but
            I seem to recall plenty of differentiation described between the fighting
            traits of the different Gallic tribes, and that's just one biased secondary
            source ;-) Meanwhile the Greeks from 450 BCE to 146 BCE really rate 19
            sublists, varying mostly in the minute rearrangement of whether 1 Sp is
            traded for a Cv or an Aux? Somebody's riding a hobby horse...

            ************************************************************
            Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
            <http://www.pobox.com/~jspoor> * ICQ: 10525252
            Help someone today! <http://www.jtsa.edu/melton/tzedakah/>
            Go DC United! Three-time MLS Champions!
            <www.dcunited.com> * <www.screaming-eagles.com>
            ************************************************************
          • Arnstein Orten
            ... As I said in my post as of yesterday -- snip -- ... -- /snip -- ;) About comments, I suppose you could do wore than fanaticus forum:
            Message 5 of 17 , Nov 1, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Ruarigh Dale FAU Proj. Off. ES wrote:

              > On a slightly more constructive note, where can I
              > find the DBA 2.0 lists on the net, and where would I contact the authors if
              > I have any comments?

              As I said in my post as of yesterday

              -- snip --
              >The forthcoming lists for Gauls are also at the DBA resource page:
              >http://fanaticus.jiffynet.net/DBA/dba2samplelists.html
              -- /snip --

              ;)

              About comments, I suppose you could do wore than fanaticus forum:
              http://fanaticus.jiffynet.net/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro

              They have quite an extensive thread on DBA 2.0.

              Regards,
              --
              Arnstein
              IT-gruppa MatNat
            • Arnstein Orten
              ... I don t really have a strong opinion about the Gallic list. I absolutely don t like the new BUA rules either. BUT, I m into vikings. Here follows a short
              Message 6 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Jan W. S. Spoor wrote:

                > This further suggests (along with the BUA b.s. and the riverine commando
                > rules) that DBA 2.0 may be a big step backwards in many ways.

                I don't really have a strong opinion about the Gallic list.
                I absolutely don't like the new BUA rules either.

                BUT, I'm into vikings.

                Here follows a short exerpt from the Icelandic historian Snorre
                Sturlasson's ("Snorri" in English) Saga of Harald Hardråde (Hardrada). And
                I'm pretty confident just this battle could be very well refought with
                the DBA 2.0 littorial rules:

                ---
                54. FALL OF KALF ARNASON.

                The summer following (A.D. 1050) King Harald ordered out a levy,
                and went to Denmark, where he plundered during the summer; but
                when he came south to Fyen he found a great force assembled
                against him. Then the king prepared to land his men from the
                ships and to engage in a land-fight. He drew up his men on board
                in order of battle; set Kalf Arnason at the head of one division;
                ordered him to make the first attack, and told him where they
                should direct their assault, promising that he would soon make a
                landing with the others, and come to their assistance. When Kalf
                came to the land with his men a force came down immediately to
                oppose them, and Kalf without delay engaged in battle, which,
                however, did not last long; for Kalf was immediately overpowered
                by numbers, and betook himself to flight with his men. The Danes
                pursued them vigorously, and many of the Northmen fell, and among
                them Kalf Arnason. Now King Harald landed with his array; and
                they soon came on their way to the field of battle, where they
                found Kalf's body, and bore it down to the ships. But the king
                penetrated into the country, killing many people and destroying
                much. So says Arnor: --

                "His shining sword with blood he stains,
                Upon Fyona's grassy plains;
                And in the midst of fire and smoke,
                The king Fyona's forces broke."
                ---
                (Source of English translation:
                http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla/hardrade2.html)

                Now, it turned out that the king bore a grudge against Kalv Arnason, and
                had him killed off in this way.

                Snorre isn't known to be especially reliable; he sometimes mixes
                accounts of different battles. But he didn't *make up* all this stuff, and
                he is our chief written source on Norwegian viking history.

                So why is everyone complaining about the littorial rules? Of course they
                aren't historically correct for all armies, and that's the point - they're
                only included in a few armies, notably Vikings.

                --
                Arnstein
                IT-gruppa MatNat
              • Jan W. S. Spoor
                ... Thanks for that quote. King Hereafter, which has a very unflattering portrait of Kalf (or Kalv) Arnason (and of Arnor Jarlaskald, for the matter of that)
                Message 7 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 09:18 AM 11/2/00 +0100, Arnstein Orten wrote:

                  >I don't really have a strong opinion about the Gallic list.
                  >I absolutely don't like the new BUA rules either.
                  >
                  >BUT, I'm into vikings.
                  >
                  >Here follows a short exerpt from the Icelandic historian Snorre
                  >Sturlasson's ("Snorri" in English) Saga of Harald Hardråde (Hardrada). And
                  >I'm pretty confident just this battle could be very well refought with
                  >the DBA 2.0 littorial rules:

                  Thanks for that quote. "King Hereafter," which has a very unflattering
                  portrait of Kalf (or Kalv) Arnason (and of Arnor Jarlaskald, for the matter
                  of that) is one of my favourite historical novels. That author's take was
                  that Harald found Kalf expecting him to be grateful for Kalf's support in
                  regaining his throne a little too often and hung him out to dry.

                  I agree that these sort of rules make a great deal of sense for sea-raider
                  armies like the Vikings. But my impression was that armies were going to
                  get to use them that didn't fit that description.

                  >So why is everyone complaining about the littorial rules? Of course they
                  >aren't historically correct for all armies, and that's the point - they're
                  >only included in a few armies, notably Vikings.

                  If you know that (i.e., that they will be included with only a few armies),
                  you know more than I do; have a greater sample of the new army lists been
                  posted somewhere? Was this a common Athenian tactic? The LHG Athenians are
                  listed as Littoral in the sample lists on the DBARP.

                  I wish I could refer you to the extensive discussion on the Fanaticus Forum
                  over the littoral rules, but the folder on deployment has disappeared. :-(

                  Jan

                  ************************************************************
                  Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
                  <http://www.pobox.com/~jspoor> * ICQ: 10525252
                  Help someone today! <http://www.jtsa.edu/melton/tzedakah/>
                  Go DC United! Three-time MLS Champions!
                  <www.dcunited.com> * <www.screaming-eagles.com>
                  ************************************************************
                • Laffez Philippe
                  There is no list in the french translation of the rules I own. The two you proposed can interrest me Thanks Dr Philippe LAFFEZ GT LABS 26 rue d Oradour sur
                  Message 8 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    There is no list in the french translation of the rules I own.
                    The two you proposed can interrest me

                    Thanks

                    Dr Philippe LAFFEZ
                    GT LABS
                    26 rue d'Oradour sur Glane
                    75015 Paris
                    Tel 01 44 25 37 75
                    Fax 01 45 54 50 14 / 78 25


                    >-----Message d'origine-----
                    >De : Jan W. S. Spoor [mailto:jspoor@...]
                    >Envoyé : mercredi 1 novembre 2000 01:53
                    >À : DBA@egroups.com
                    >Objet : Re: [DBA] Gauls, Celts
                    >
                    >
                    >At 02:42 PM 10/31/00 +0100, Laffez Philippe wrote:
                    >>does somebody have a list for gauls or Celts ?
                    >
                    >Other than the regular army list (#35)? Or were you looking
                    >for a new list
                    >for the forthcoming DBA 2.0?
                    >
                    >Just as a reminder, the standard Gallic list (400 BCE to 50
                    >BCE) is 2 x LCh
                    >or 3Cv, 2 x 3Cv, 6 x 3Wb, and 2 x 2Ps. The listed enemies are
                    >Illyrians,
                    >the Italian peoples (Etruscans, Samnites, Campanians, etc.), Later
                    >Carthaginians, other Gauls, Camillan, Polybian, and Marian
                    >Romans, Ancient
                    >Spanish, and Early Germans. The equivalent DBM list indicates
                    >that it is
                    >intended to cover "the western Celts of Gaul and North Italy
                    >from the rise
                    >of the La Tene culture until the completion of Caesar's
                    >conquest of Gaul."
                    >Cavalry replace chariots in that list from 225 BCE to 100BCE, when all
                    >chariots are gone. There're also the Ancient British (#60),
                    >Scots-Irish
                    >(61), and Caledonian (67) lists that have some Gallic/Celtic
                    >connection.
                    >
                    >There's a page on the Gallic list at the DBA Resource page,
                    >but the link is
                    >broken. :-(
                    >
                    >Jan Spoor
                    >
                    >************************************************************
                    > Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
                    > <http://www.pobox.com/~jspoor> * ICQ: 10525252
                    > Help someone today! <http://www.jtsa.edu/melton/tzedakah/>
                    > Go DC United! Three-time MLS Champions!
                    > <www.dcunited.com> * <www.screaming-eagles.com>
                    >************************************************************
                    >
                    >
                    >-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
                    >-------------------------~-~>
                    >eLerts
                    >It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
                    >http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/8199/_/973039935/
                    >---------------------------------------------------------------
                    >------_->
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Laffez Philippe
                    thanks Dr Philippe LAFFEZ GT LABS 26 rue d Oradour sur Glane 75015 Paris Tel 01 44 25 37 75 Fax 01 45 54 50 14 / 78 25
                    Message 9 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      thanks

                      Dr Philippe LAFFEZ
                      GT LABS
                      26 rue d'Oradour sur Glane
                      75015 Paris
                      Tel 01 44 25 37 75
                      Fax 01 45 54 50 14 / 78 25


                      >-----Message d'origine-----
                      >De : Jan W. S. Spoor [mailto:jspoor@...]
                      >Envoyé : mercredi 1 novembre 2000 12:57
                      >À : DBA@egroups.com
                      >Objet : Re: [DBA] Gauls, Celts
                      >
                      >
                      >At 08:01 AM 11/1/00 +0100, Arnstein Orten wrote:
                      >
                      >>The forthcoming lists for Gauls are also at the DBA resource page:
                      >>http://fanaticus.jiffynet.net/DBA/dba2samplelists.html
                      >
                      >Yes, good catch. I had forgotten the Galic list was one of
                      >those previewed.
                      >It shows as
                      >
                      >11. Gallic. 400BC-50BC. Before 224BC Arable. Ag: 3. After 225BC Ag: 0.
                      > E = I/48, I/55, I/57, 10, 11, 13, 32, 33, 39, 47, 49.
                      >Ref: AMPW, AEIR.
                      > 1x3/4Wb or LCh (Gen), 2xLCh or 3Cv, 8x3Wb, 1x2Ps.
                      >
                      >Ouch. This makes the Gauls even more one-dimensional than they
                      >were before,
                      >by taking one LCh/Cv and one Ps away to make more Wb. And when the
                      >Sub-Roman British (aka the King Arthur list) have,
                      >preposterously, four
                      >sublists (some of which cover as little as 20 years in a list
                      >that spans
                      >over 500 years), and when the Hellenistic Greeks have 11 sublists, the
                      >Gauls have one (1) list to cover a period of 350 years and a culture
                      >probably as influential as that of the Greeks. I guess they
                      >didn't write
                      >enough plays.
                      >
                      >This further suggests (along with the BUA b.s. and the
                      >riverine commando
                      >rules) that DBA 2.0 may be a big step backwards in many ways.
                      >
                      >JMO, YMMV
                      >
                      >Jan
                      >
                      >************************************************************
                      > Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
                      > <http://www.pobox.com/~jspoor> * ICQ: 10525252
                      > Help someone today! <http://www.jtsa.edu/melton/tzedakah/>
                      > Go DC United! Three-time MLS Champions!
                      > <www.dcunited.com> * <www.screaming-eagles.com>
                      >************************************************************
                      >
                      >
                      >-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
                      >-------------------------~-~>
                      >eGroups eLerts
                      >It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
                      >http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/8199/_/973079820/
                      >---------------------------------------------------------------
                      >------_->
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Arnstein Orten
                      ... Guess I should read that! ... Your points are good. However, I find consolation in the fact that only one sub-list out of a total of 60 sub-lists posted
                      Message 10 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Jan W. S. Spoor wrote:

                        > Thanks for that quote. "King Hereafter," which has a very unflattering
                        > portrait of Kalf (or Kalv) Arnason (and of Arnor Jarlaskald, for the matter
                        > of that) is one of my favourite historical novels. That author's take was
                        > that Harald found Kalf expecting him to be grateful for Kalf's support in
                        > regaining his throne a little too often and hung him out to dry.

                        Guess I should read that!

                        > If you know that (i.e., that they will be included with only a few armies),
                        > you know more than I do; have a greater sample of the new army lists been
                        > posted somewhere? Was this a common Athenian tactic? The LHG Athenians are
                        > listed as Littoral in the sample lists on the DBARP.

                        Your points are good. However, I find consolation in the fact that only
                        one sub-list out of a total of 60 sub-lists posted are listed as
                        littoral. Athenian didn't immediately strike me as an obvious candidate,
                        but then Athenian history isn't really my strength - I suspect P&R and
                        their pals know more about this than me.

                        We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose.
                        --
                        Arnstein
                        IT-gruppa MatNat
                      • John Hills
                        On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:25:03 +0100 (MET) Arnstein Orten ... Well Athens was famous for its navy, so I suppose they COULD have acted in this way. I don t know
                        Message 11 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:25:03 +0100 (MET) Arnstein Orten
                          <arnsteio@...> wrote:

                          > Athenian didn't immediately strike me as an obvious candidate,
                          > but then Athenian history isn't really my strength - I suspect P&R and
                          > their pals know more about this than me.

                          Well Athens was famous for its navy, so I suppose they COULD have acted
                          in this way. I don't know if they ever did, though. I guess it is a
                          nice twist to make them stand out from the other Greeks.

                          I suppose the other question is how often will players actually use
                          this option. I can see players chuckling happily as their opponent's
                          'commandoes' recoil back into the sea...

                          John

                          ----------------------
                          John Hills
                          j.r.hills@...
                          http://freespace.virgin.net/johnr.hills/default.html

                          Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in-fa-me!
                        • Arnstein Orten
                          ... ...recreating nicely the fall of Kalv Arnason ;) On the other hand, I think the Vandals will probably go littoral, and I m not sure how to nicely recoil
                          Message 12 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, John Hills wrote:

                            > I suppose the other question is how often will players actually use
                            > this option. I can see players chuckling happily as their opponent's
                            > 'commandoes' recoil back into the sea...

                            ...recreating nicely the fall of Kalv Arnason ;)

                            On the other hand, I think the Vandals will probably go littoral, and I'm
                            not sure how to nicely recoil their mix of Kn and Wb... :)

                            Might make for some interesting games, I think!
                            --
                            Arnstein
                            IT-gruppa MatNat
                          • Jan W. S. Spoor
                            ... It s a very good book, though some folks find the first few chapters hard going. It s one writer s take on the story of MacBeth. The writer is Lady Dorothy
                            Message 13 of 17 , Nov 2, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 02:25 PM 11/2/00 +0100, Arnstein Orten wrote:

                              > > Thanks for that quote. "King Hereafter," which has a very unflattering
                              > > portrait of Kalf (or Kalv) Arnason (and of Arnor Jarlaskald, for the
                              > matter
                              > > of that) is one of my favourite historical novels. That author's take was
                              > > that Harald found Kalf expecting him to be grateful for Kalf's support in
                              > > regaining his throne a little too often and hung him out to dry.
                              >
                              >Guess I should read that!

                              It's a very good book, though some folks find the first few chapters hard
                              going. It's one writer's take on the story of MacBeth. The writer is Lady
                              Dorothy Dunnett, and finer historical writer (IMO) never put pen to paper.
                              She does more primary-source historical research for her novels than many
                              professional historians do for their published works. She is a stickler for
                              authentic detail, and she is a masterful writer as well. If you want a good
                              introduction to the warfare, politics, economics, and religion of 11th
                              century northwest Europe, you could do a lot worse than to read this book.
                              She suggests a new interpretation of the historical character and nature of
                              Macbeth, one that has been taken seriously by scholars of early Scotland
                              and the Orkneys. And her ability to make the reader feel the rigours of
                              life at the time while at the same time weaving an intricate plot and
                              telling a tale that everyone knows the outcome to with suspense and
                              excitement... OK, I'll shut up now, I'm gushing. But it's a damn good book.
                              And available in paperback ;-)

                              As for the littoral armies, we'll just have to wait and see; some of the
                              armies that Bob Beattie identifies make sense, others just make me scratch
                              my head. And I'm quite in agreement with Mike Flach; there are things about
                              these rules that I am really looking forward to, and there are things that
                              I will never play as written. No loss for me, since I would never play in a
                              tournament. I'll certainly be at the shop with cash in hand when they come in.

                              Jan

                              ************************************************************
                              Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
                              <http://www.pobox.com/~jspoor> * ICQ: 10525252
                              Help someone today! <http://www.jtsa.edu/melton/tzedakah/>
                              Go DC United! Three-time MLS Champions!
                              <www.dcunited.com> * <www.screaming-eagles.com>
                              ************************************************************
                            • John Hills
                              ... like. ... sounds almost like you can do that in the middile of a battle. I hope ... in front of your poor bows is a big problem in DBM IMHO. Ken, I
                              Message 14 of 17 , Nov 3, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, John Hills wrote:
                                >
                                >> I really can't say I have seen any new suggestions that I don't
                                like. >
                                >I'm worried about that bit about substituting blades for knights. >It
                                sounds almost like you can do that in the middile of a battle. I hope
                                >this isn't true, becasue knights that suddenly turn into blades right
                                in >front of your poor bows is a big problem in DBM IMHO.

                                Ken, I think it is only elements with a double slash that dismount in
                                mid-battle. I think the only ones I have seen so far are some mounted
                                bows and crossbows, which seem to be classed as Cv//Bw. Kn/Bd remain
                                as in the old rules, as far as I know.

                                John

                                ----------------------
                                John Hills
                                j.r.hills@...
                                http://freespace.virgin.net/johnr.hills/default.html

                                Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in-fa-me!
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.