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

Re: [DBA] Gallic troop representation

Expand Messages
  • Robert Beattie
    Indeed, my reading of Caesar s Commentaries, in the original Latin, leads me to firmly believe that Gallic warbands should be classed as Fast. This is to say
    Message 1 of 78 , Oct 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Indeed, my reading of Caesar's Commentaries, in the original Latin, leads me to firmly believe that Gallic warbands should be classed as Fast. This is to say citatus or even rapidus, but not solidus.
      Bob




      On Oct 8, 2012, at 12:16 PM, scribblerm wrote:

      > I know that the problem of rebasing is a different matter from the historical accuracy of the troop types, but my reading of the Gallic Wars indicates Gauls often fought fairly stubbornly.
      >
      > I certainly can see some the justification for 4Wb as the default, but it seems to me that 3Wb should be an option.
      >
      > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Bob
      > >
      > > DBA 2.2 specifies 3Wb, the version of 3.0 that I have specifies Wb which infers either 3Wb/4WB.
      > >
      > > DBMM lists specify Wb(O) which is the equivalent of 4Wb and I know these were derived from the old DBM lists which specified all Wb(F) or all Wb(O).
      > >
      > > In the notes to the DBMM list it is specifically states that the Wb have been changed to WB(O){4Wb} in the light of recent research and interpretation.
      > >
      > > In other words the change from 3Wb to 4Wb was likely even before the introduction of the 'solid' and 'fast'
      > >
      > > Antigonas One Eye
      > >
      > > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
      > > From: beattie@...
      > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 19:00:54 -0400
      > > Subject: Re: [DBA] Prescriptions, was Alternative cinematic basing system endorsed by Phil
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > What drives the construction of armies. The rules or historical referents. The rules now require foot elements to be designated FAST or SOLID. Fast Warbands are 3 figures on a Psiloi size base, 20mm or 30mm deep, Solid Warbands are 4 figures on a Spear size base,15mm or 20mm deep. So prior to the New Version of DBA, it did not matter how I based my Warbands as they all operated the same, only recoils and pursuits mattered and these could be done to match the recommended base depth.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Now the rules prescribe that Fast Warband and Solid Warband move at different rates and have different possible outcomes. The Gallic army list now says that these Warband are Solid. In one message I wrote to Phil complaining about another basing problem, he said I should have based them correctly for DBA 2. Ok my 5 armies, each, of 15mm and 25mm are based for DBA 2, with 3 figures per element on a Ps size base.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > So where did this new research come from that makes Gallic warbands solid? Some new vase or fragment of a carving found or what that caused all historians of this period to agree that Gallic warbands are actually Solid and not Fast. Can someone cite me a scholarly article or pages in a book that says that the organization has changed? If the armies are to based on historical referents, what is that referent? So now I supposed to rebase 8 x 10 bases to fit this so-called revelation of Gaul organization. Note that is is not just the simple addition of a sabot under a narrow base to make it wider but a reduction in depth of a deep base. Plus the purchase of 80 new figures (40 15mm and 40 25mm -- they actually are 25mm, MiniFigs).
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Is everyone else with Gallic armies going to follow the new prescriptions to rebase their elements?\
      > >
      > > Bob
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Oct 6, 2012, at 6:12 PM, John Saunders wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Bob
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Your Gallic army problem is not really one of figures per base but a change in the concept of what the Gallic warbands are.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Comparing with DBMM 3 figs on a 20mm deep base equates to Wb(F) whilst 4 figs on a 15mm deep base equates to Wb(O/S)
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > If the warbands in the Gallic army have changed from one to the other then it is a function of the army list rather than a function of rule changes.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Antigonas One Eye
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > CC: DBA@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > > From: beattie@...
      > >
      > > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:23:09 -0400
      > >
      > > > Subject: [DBA] Prescriptions, was Alternative cinematic basing system endorsed by Phil
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > The rules are getting more prescriptive. Before numbers of figures on the bases really didn't matter. Now the heart of the game is tied up in how many figures you have on solid or fast base and how deep the base is. My Gallic army has always been ( from 1.0 to 2.2) three figures on a Psiloi deep bass. Now they are prescribed to be four figures on a spear size base.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > There is less freedom in 3.0 than in earlier versions. So just play the game and do what you're told :).
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Bob
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Dictated and sent from my iPad
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > On Oct 6, 2012, at 3:54 AM, renegade_dalek <timjmoore@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> John,
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> The HoTT community solved this issue long ago as we both well know from our tournament experiences:-)
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> Base depths in HoTT are taken as 'suggestions' by most of the HoTT players that we meet on our tournament circuit.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> Larger items often call for really deep bases, 60 or 80mm deep would not raise an eyebrow.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> This 'freedom' enshrined in the rules allows for some of the most creative armies I have ever seen and I believe is worth quoting here.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> 'Since figure designers are if anything a little less predictable than the Lords of Chaos the bases depths specified are recommended minima. Deeper bases may be required for larger figures, especially for aerials, heroes on aerial mounts and behemoths'.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> The issue of numbers of figures per base is also left open by the following 'freedom'.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> 'Figure numbers are those that we feel give the right visual effect, but are only recommendations. It may be necessary to reduce the numbers per base to accommodate larger figures.'
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> I use the words 'freedoms' rather than 'rules' because of the liberating effect on our army design.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> I wonder when the DBA rules will finally release players from the tyranny of prescriptive rules and move to permissive rules like those above?
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> I would like to make clear that I also enjoy DBA tournaments, PAWS last week was another excellent day, thanks guys.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> Tim Moore
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >> --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, John Saunders <jtstigley@> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> I suppose the other alternative is to base the 18mm on 60mm bases and play on 36" sq tables.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Incidently I still base my "Principles of War" 15mm? figures on 30mm wide bases with 4 to a base.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Also the 40mm wide base was introduced to allow for the 18mm figures.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Antigonas One Eye
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> From: beattie@
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:34:44 -0400
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Subject: Re: [DBA] Alternative cinematic basing system endorsed by Phil
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> "All figures must be combined into elements of several figures, or an elephant, vehicle or artillery model, fixed to a thin rectangular base.Base width is critical and must not be changed. It is 60mm for the larger scale and 40mm for the smaller (see P.2). Players should keep as closely as possible to the depths recommended below. However, they may extend them slightly if they have been sold over-large figures that cannot be modified to fit on bases."
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Note the continued disparaging remarks about contemporary sized figures. Extend slightly?
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Bob
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> Dictated and sent from my iPad
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Robert Beattie <beattie@> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>>> I don't think you'll find Phil very amenable to changing in the basing. He feels that all manufacturers should continue making figures the size they were in the mid-80s.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> They still do, they just call the 15mm tall ones "10mm" and the 25mm
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> ones "20mm".
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> Note, BTW, that the "July" public draft explicitly allows bases to be
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> deeper than specified to accomodate larger figures.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> --
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> Andreas Johansson
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>> Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >>
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mike Leese
      I ve got mount card in red, blue, dark blue & green. To make movement planing cards. To plan game moves for Napoleonics. The figures distract from the plan,
      Message 78 of 78 , Oct 15, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I've got mount card in red, blue, dark blue & green. To make movement planing cards.

        To plan game moves for Napoleonics.

        The figures distract from the plan, and you can leave them on the table as they're not breakable.

        I should try the same with DBA as I'm not familiar with all the movement yet.
        And save the figures for a real game.

        Mike

        Sent from my iPhone

        On 15 Oct 2012, at 07:38, brian.fritz1@... wrote:

        >
        > Mike,
        >
        > Ah, I see now what you were getting at. Sorry if I came across as
        > impatient.
        >
        > I'll be doing the same things generally as you to re-base where needed.
        > Fortunately I base on matt board (a kind of heavy card used by framing
        > shops) with white glue, so re-basing isn't as difficult or expensive for
        > me as for some others. I don't use balsa wood, basswood, plastic card,
        > metal or magnetic sheet. For basing figures I highly recommend matt
        > board, it's inexpensive, durable, lighter than metal or magnetic sheet,
        > can be cut with a decent pair of scissors, and is no major loss if you
        > want to re-base later for a new edition of the rules or for a different
        > rules system.
        >
        > It's nice to find someone else favors the simplicity of just basing and
        > playing by the rules as written. Thanks and hope your re-basing goes as
        > smoothly as possible.
        >
        > Brian
        >
        > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leese <mike.leese@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > No I wasn't complaining, I was just asking about LAP, as I've just
        > bought them as a pro painted army.
        > >
        > > My ancient Brits. I am assuming, yes.
        > > My Xyston Alexandrian. army I've not based yet.
        > >
        > > I'm just painting old lead.
        > > I can't paint as well as I used to.
        > >
        > > I was looking at my old Oranje Nassau Regt.
        > > I painted knots on the trousers, now I can't tell if they're wearing
        > any.
        > >
        > > I need to plan time or get someone else to rebase for me.
        > >
        > > I don't like house rules.
        > > I just want to play as printed then I know where I stand.
        > >
        > > As a work around I will either use thin card or add a magnet of the
        > larger size
        > > Or use a razor saw or scalpel to reduce size.
        > >
        > > I'll compare with dbmm base sizes to see if I need to double up on
        > figures or sabots.
        > >
        > > I agree with you base it and play it as written.
        > >
        > > Mike
        > >
        > > Sent from my iPhone
        > >
        > > On 14 Oct 2012, at 06:02, brian.fritz1@... wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > > Mike,
        > > >
        > > > What about them? Re-basing happens. If the most up-to-date army list
        > > > now indicates that some elements from its previous incarnation have
        > to
        > > > be re-based, then I guess you bite the bullet and re-base 'em -- but
        > > > only if having your figures (including their base sizes) accurately
        > > > represent the most current historical evidence, as the author of
        > your
        > > > chosen rules set has chosen to interpret it, means anything to you.
        > If
        > > > that doesn't make any difference to you, then you're playing HoTT,
        > not
        > > > DBx.
        > > >
        > > > I have plenty of figures to re-base. But having figures, and their
        > > > basing, which accurately represent their historical counterparts to
        > the
        > > > best current available knowledge, as the rules author has chosen to
        > > > interpret it currently, is a point of personal pride with me.
        > > >
        > > > Brian
        > > >
        > > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leese mike.leese@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Brian,
        > > > > What about LAP?
        > > > > With baited breath.
        > > > >
        > > > > Mike
        > > > >
        > > > > Sent from my iPhone
        > > > >
        > > > > On 11 Oct 2012, at 21:52, brian.fritz1@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Denis,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I'm afraid we poor unfortunate owners of Later Carthaginian
        > armies
        > > > (I
        > > > > > have a large one for DBM in 25mm which I am converting to DBMM,
        > so
        > > > lots
        > > > > > of Gauls) must bite the bullet and re-base. At least that's what
        > I'm
        > > > > > going to do.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Eh. Re-basing happens.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Brian
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Denis Grey denisgrey@ wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Brian
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Any similar words of consolation for those of us who have
        > Gallic
        > > > Wb in
        > > > > > our Late Carthaginian armies? (Other than that its only 3
        > element
        > > > that
        > > > > > we will need to rebase or replace?)
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Denis
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > From: "brian.fritz1@" brian.fritz1@
        > > > > > > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 0:57
        > > > > > > Subject: [DBA] Re: Prescriptions, was Alternative cinematic
        > basing
        > > > > > system endorsed by Phil
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Bob,
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > If the upcoming DBA 3.0 Gallic list is brought into line with
        > the
        > > > > > > current corresponding DBMM list, then it may include an option
        > to
        > > > > > switch
        > > > > > > all Gallic Wb to Ax3 after 100 BC. Ax3 elements are based
        > > > identically
        > > > > > > to Wb3, so if that option is incorporated into the DBA 3.0
        > Gallic
        > > > list
        > > > > > > then you can use your existing Gallic Wb3 as Ax3 without
        > change
        > > > and
        > > > > > you
        > > > > > > wouldn't have to re-base your Gallic Wb or add any extra
        > figures
        > > > at
        > > > > > all.
        > > > > > > Problem solved.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Brian
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.