Biblical warfare? Medieval warfare? Do you feel an affinity with any army in particular? Admire any general in particular? Or even just want to see as many elephants , chariots bold knigts on the tabletop as you can then this too will also influence your army choice. Always, always, choose an army that you want to own, regardless of its performance on the tabletop.
This is because you will usually be buying unless you are very wealthy a heap of unpainted white metal, and to get you motivated to paint it will require enthusiasm engendered by a real interest in the army. Book 2 covers well-known ancient heroes like Alexander the Great and well-known states like Rome and her enemies.
Book 4 covers the medieval period including well-known wars like the Years War and the War of the Roses. You should find it easy to find an opponent if you choose an army from one of these books , especially Book 2. Some of the armies only existed for very short periods of time, and this can make it difficult to find historic opponents to fight. You will find more opponents with matching dates with the Sinhalese than the Palmyrans.
The other thing to look for in longevity is stability. Do the troop choices change much during the period covered by the Army List? Forget Power Rangers, the ultimate morphing is using your wargames figures in more than one army. My Slav javelinmen irregular auxilia in non-descript tunics, trousers and hats have done sterling service as Welsh auxilia Blasphemy!
Add a few cataphracts and you have a Graeco-Bactrian army variant of Book 2 List All three armies are very different, but contain many common figures. Some people like using armies heavily slanted towards mounted troops; others prefer using solid blocks of infantry. Some people like to take the offensive, and enjoy using knights and warband armies, whilst others like to sit back with fortifications and bowmen and watch the enemy bounce off.
Others like to play cat-and-mouse, darting around the tabletop with Light Horse armies. Find out which playing style suits you best. However, most armies have quite a few troops types, and it is usually possible to mix and match different troops types for an all round force.
Follow that? Regular or irregular? Fair enough. Except that you can only swop PIP dice if both the CinC and sub-generals are regular — any other combination regular CinC with irregular sub-generals, or irregular CinC with regular sub-generals, or regular CinC with ally-generals etc means that you pay through the nose for regular generals despite the fact that you cannot use the facility you are paying for!
This is one of the silliest rules in DBM. So the best advice is: go for an army with all regular CinC and sub-generals or go for one with all irregular generals — otherwise you are throwing away AP. Note that this does not apply to allied contingents — they cannot swop PIP dice anyway — so the best combination for an army with an allied contingent is to have a cheap irregular ally-general leading the allies. Most regular troops cost more than irregular ones.
The extra cost in AP is to pay for the greater manoeuvrability of the regular troops, but the advantage varies a lot between troop types and is not always worth the extra cost. For example, auxilia Ax and cavalry Cv have special rules for manoeuvre, and gain virtually no benefit from the additional cost of being regular. The benefit is that it costs less to move for a third and subsequent time, and less to hold when you have broken the enemy.
Consequently, in my opinion, you should always choose irregular cavalry and irregular auxilia where you have the choice.
Left to their own devices these troops will hare off all over the battlefield, and cost valuable PIPs to contain. Conversely, when they get into combat they do not need PIPs to be spent on them to advance to contact, so their impetuosity can be an advantage. The rationale for the Knights is that if there are a lot of them they are probably your assault force, so going forwards on their own is not a problem — they will have their mates with them to back them up!
Troop types such as blades, bow and spear do benefit from greater manoeuvrability if regular, but they only have a movement of 50 Paces paces except Bd F — see above , which means that it is not advisable to attempt grand manoeuvres with them on the table anyway — unless its straight forward.
In my humble opinion, neither bow or blades are worth the extra AP for being regular, so always take irregular blades and bow if you have the option. Spear are a more difficult choice, because irregular Spear suffer the strange indignity of being subject to the stupidest rule in DBM — namely that they must follow-up defeated opponents, thus exposing their flanks to two overlaps. Consequently regular spear can be worth the extra AP, but not superior spear, which cost a staggering 7 AP each!
However, Psiloi, Light Horse and Pike cost the same for regular elements as irregular elements. It stands to reason, therefore, to take regular Light Horse, Psiloi and Pike if you have the option. You will notice that I have missed out lots of troops types here, and for a good reason. The others I have missed are Boats and War Wagons, and it is very rare for you to get the option in the Army Lists to choose between regular or irregular with these.
Different troops have widely different applications, effectiveness and cost in AP. Here is a brief guide to the troop types that may make up significant proportions of your army. Knights are universally popular, being mobile and hard hitting and expensive in AP. In going they count as good they run down a staggering variety of opponents just by beating them on combat score. They do, however, always follow up except KN Kn X , so use them in bulk or protect their flanks. Cavalry are more manoeuvrable than knights and cost less, but are less hard-hitting, needing to double most opponents before they kill them.
Cavalry have a good survival rate against foot — they flee, for example, from Pikes and Spears and Auxilia X — and are very good on the flanks where their manoeuvrability and relative low cost make them an attractive flank option. They are, however, the least hard hitting mounted arm, but cannot be killed by most infantry.
A universally useful troop type, but see the earlier examples for the relative effectiveness of superior vs fast Ligh t Horse for their cost in AP. Cavalry S used to be the most popular troop type around, but Version 3 of the rules have reduced the effectiveness of all superior troops have put Knights in the first place as the most popular mounted arm for the AP.
The best anti-mounted troops who are themselves mounted are Camelry and Elephants. Camels are very cheap — Cm O are just 6AP — and are very good against all mounted. However, they are very weak against foot and tend to die in droves, so are best used exclusively against mounted troops. They are typically used against Knights or in support of slow moving infantry blocks.
I know another list someone is Lh s in there own home list but is only Lh o in others where they are acting as mercs,. I too would be highly interested to see the changes. Apparently the Welsh list in Book 3 the bowmen are now Bw s for some unknown reason, how they are as good as English long bowmen no one knows why. Will let you guys know what the changes are, but as I said from what they have been saying on the MM yahoo list it isn't much at all which has got some a trifle unhappy over there.
The latest rules have differentiated the combat outcomes for irregular BwS and regular BwS. The cost differential has changed so the regulars are more expensive now. It's the one with the puzzled Viking on the cover, and the DBA cover Roman on the inside front cover. The cover says for use with the rules BC to A. From the text in the introduction it seems clear these were the first ones that Phil produced. The army lists in the book pictured above by Arnold Hendrix was prepared, I believe, for his own rules.
Read about them here. I have a copy. I used them when I played WRG 6th. Looking back they are somewhat dated, but then you can say that about any set of army lists that haven't come out in the recent decade. I also have a copy of Mr Hendrix's Ancient Warfare. These actually have the army lists at the back of the rules, including Middle Earth lists. I'll also say that I still hold the same opinion that I wrote in Bob's link.
Were I inclined to go back to a unit based set of rules like 6th edition, I've be seriously thinking of using Ancient Warfare instead. It was far ahead of it's time with the mechanisms it used. Haven't read the rules in a very long time, not since they first came out. But I do find it interesting that some MM players are talking about ignoring one of Barkers new troop types, namely the bow X in front with Bw I behind that. It made the old Bw S Samuri too powerful as they were "cheap" Irrg but shot just as well as massed disciplined Bow units.
Not sure though that DBMM can withstand any more complexity did Phil also at last cut some fat out of other areas of the rules? Maverick here's a link to the MM yahoo page thread where Duncan Head who is a very knowledgeable and respected person in the ancient gaming community as well as the MM crowd , is doing a list of errors and changes, only has book one done so far, haven't read the errors and changes myself yet.
The impetuous movement rules are generally considered much simpler. Yes it is. Don't get me wrong, DBMM is not a "simple" set of rules at all. I would never recommend DBMM to someone who only intends to play a handful of ancients games a year. I like the complexity.
It allows both a "set up and smash troops together" type of game, and one with sneakiness and skullduggery for example you deploy with two commands on the table. Your opponent believes you are flank marching and re-deploys a command to face the on-coming flank march. But you have instead used a "delayed" command and your command comes on your own side and you quick march up and take him on the flank.
But there was so much noise on the DBMM "playtest" list that it was hard to get heard. The smaller group used for DBA3. But honestly feel that DBA3. There are very few mistakes, but Duncan lists everything. The main purpose of what Duncan is doing is to give the differences in the old lists, vs the newly released ones. People, here are a list of a ' few' more errors in book one so far link I'm not opposed to MM Drusilla unless you can show me where I've done so in this thread, as I've said constantly in the past I don't care who plays what it's just the 'well this is far superior to other ancient games as it flows much better as its so elegant compared to others' comments from MM players.
Even you have to admit the list books still contain errors from the first editions? Drusilla I have never made personal negative comments about anyone or what they play , and that sir is unsporting of you. Also remind me again who asked the convention staff to return the tables you were going to use for your MM games at Lancaster and told you who had them please? Book three errors and changes, I also find it interesting that Duncan himself says some of the changes seem dubious.
Joe, I think some people forget all we are doing is pushing little dollies around on a table, it's not world breaking. No rule set is perfect or we'd all be playing it. And I'm well aware DBM isn't perfect, it has issues and don't mind when others say so. We all have different tastes but apparently with some you are not allowed to say if and why you don't like something or even have an public opinion.
I'm having an issue with Yahoo. I'm mostly interested in book 3 and Baltic armies in book 4. Is it worth getting the new lists or not?
Any help appreciated. I'm in the same situation. From what I've seen so far I don't think it's worth buying the new lists if you have the old ones. The real changes I'm looking for are in book 4 which I don't think anyone has compared yet. I'll be highly disappointed if the Scots Common pike aren't classified as regular after I don't think it's worth it, Duncan head is compiling a list of changes, errors and problems , book 4 should be soon, he has done the first 3.
Did you have any specific lists in mind as I can have a quick look for you and let you know. Maverick I will take a quick look at the scots list later and let you know. Maverick, The scotts common only has one change that I can find, the feudal archers:on ponies Irr mtd Bw o or on foot Bw o , gets moved down the page to after and the amount changes to per Kn o.
I'm going to be making up an errata list of changes from Duncan's for my guys here to put in their old MM lists, as the errors and changes aren't that different.
The written paragraph looks the same but didn't look through it closely. Anything else you need me to look at?
0コメント