On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, michael_fis_de wrote:

> Yes, in 2.0 it's "Enemy contacted on their rear edge by the recoiling
> element's rear edge or rear corner, or contacted on a side edge by its
> rear corner only are also destroyed." He changed it in 2.1 (inserting
> "or pushed-back" between "recoiling" and "element's" and deleting the
> "only", and inserting ", or on a rear corner by its rear edge").

Yup.  He had forgotten the case of a column colliding with the blocking
element, and the case where the initial contact was with a flat edge on a
blocking corner.  As I said, I think he deleted the "only" for his usual
odd reason of literary parsimony.

> Hmm. It seems odd that you're destroyed when at a flat angle the enemy
> element hits the last backward millimetre of your side edge, but not if
> the whole of the enemy element is driven sidewards into your element -

What do you mean by "flat angle?"

If (as it seems to me reading it) you mean 90 degrees, there is no way for
an element exactly 90 degrees turned to your element to cause you to
die by its recoil into you.

Mathematically, a corner is a point.  It has no dimension.  For one
element (at 90 degrees) recoiling to collide with a blocking element,
there must be some overlap (some edge to edge collision) -- it is not
possible to have a corner-to-corner collision with no edge contact if the
two elements are 90 degrees to one another.

But perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "flat angle"

> but you have convinced me that this is what the rules intend (while
> we're normally are assuming that when Phil Barker deletes a word it
> should have a meaning).

In a perfect world, every word written or deleted would be so with
semantic (rules) meaning.  Sadly, Phil sometimes deletes just to save
space, which is why DBA is such a motherlode of commas and subordinate
clauses.

DK

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, David Kuijt <kuijt@...> wrote:
>
>
> Was this the best way the author could have expressed himself?  No.  This
> is another case where he is an engineer, and doesn't use mathematically
> precise terminology.  He is also a parsimonious writer, dropping any word
> he thinks he can avoid, which creates pseudo precision -- in this case,
> the 2.0 rule had the word "only" to describe the rule you mentioned (hit
> on a side edge by its rear corner "only", and he dropped it in 2.0 -- not
> because he wanted to change the rule, but because he thought it was
> obvious and therefore he could take out "only" and save one word.
>
Yes, in 2.0 it's "Enemy contacted on their rear edge by the recoiling element's
rear edge or rear corner, or contacted on a side edge by its rear corner only
are also destroyed." He changed it in 2.1 (inserting "or pushed-back" between
"recoiling" and "element's" and deleting the "only", and inserting ", or on a
rear corner by its rear edge").

> Any recoil touching the side edge with the flat surface of the recoiling
> edge will not kill the blocking unit, regardless of whether the rear
> corner of the recoiling unit is involved or not.
>
> Any recoil where the rear-corner-only of the recoiling element hits the
> side (not front corner) or rear edges kills the blocking unit.
>
Hmm. It seems odd that you're destroyed when at a flat angle the enemy element
hits the last backward millimetre of your side edge, but not if the whole of the
enemy element is driven sidewards into your element - but you have convinced me
that this is what the rules intend (while we're normally are assuming that when
Phil Barker deletes a word it should have a meaning).

-- Michael

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, zaphoid_1999 wrote:

> David thanks for taking the time to answer. But never mind the Knights
> he also has to contend with warband and scythed chariots.

So?  Against Warband he is +5, +6 with psiloi support.  If he lets your
Warband kill anything in good going, he has made a serious mistake.

Scythed chariots are mostly dangerous psychologically; not so much
physically.  And most opponents who use them don't use them very
effectively.  Not a big deal.

> Having a Psilo
> elelment in support of his blades means he risks losing two elements at
> a stroke.

One psiloi supports three blades, not one -- and it is only at risk of
dying if the one in front of it gets killed.  That means he should always
use psiloi support when being attacked by knights (or scythed chariots, or
warband).  If he isn't using psiloi support, that's half his solution
right there.

> I think the ally Numidian or Pergamene option looks good, but swapping armies
probably is better.

The main advantage to swapping armies is that both of you will get better
at seeing the problem from the other side.

Polybians are an excellent army -- the only reason DS and I have never
taken them to a Big Battle Doubles tournament is that they are dead
boring.  With careful and systematic play, there is no reason they
shouldn't be able to fight even with Seleucids.

If he takes Numidian ally, I can probably convince DS to allow me to
release our top secret Marian/Numidian Big Battle Tactical Battle Manual.
Although Polybians with Numidian isn't exactly the same as Marian with
Numidian, it is close enough that the manual for one is still quite
useful.

DK

David thanks for taking the time to answer. But never mind the Knights he also
has to contend with warband and scythed chariots. Having a Psilo elelment in
support of his blades means he risks losing two elements at a stroke.

I think the ally Numidian or Pergamene option looks good, but swapping armies
probably is better.

Cheers

Martyn

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, michael_fis_de wrote:

>> If the front element is recoiled, the rear guy is NOT destroyed -- it is
>> contacted on its side edge by the whole enemy rear edge, not just the rear
>> corner.

> Are you sure? To me, English is a secondary language, by I'd have
> thought that a rear edge comprises inter alia two rear corners. And
> while hitting an enemy element with the rear edge, in many cases one or
> both of these corners will be hitting the enemy element, too. And it's
> not "by a rear corner only", but "Enemy contacted ... on a side edge by
> its rear corner".


P.11, 4th paragraph from the bottom:

Enemy contacted on their rear edge by a recoiling [...] element's rear
edge or rear corner, or on a side edge by its rear corner, or on a rear
corner by its rear edge, are destroyed.

In this case we have enemy contacted on a side edge by a rear edge.
Sometimes such recoils will also involve a rear corner, and sometimes it
will not.

So, am I sure?  Yes, absolutely.  That is the way you should play it.

Was this the best way the author could have expressed himself?  No.  This
is another case where he is an engineer, and doesn't use mathematically
precise terminology.  He is also a parsimonious writer, dropping any word
he thinks he can avoid, which creates pseudo precision -- in this case,
the 2.0 rule had the word "only" to describe the rule you mentioned (hit
on a side edge by its rear corner "only", and he dropped it in 2.0 -- not
because he wanted to change the rule, but because he thought it was
obvious and therefore he could take out "only" and save one word.

> Mentioning rear corners several times in this context
> might be attributed to the cases where only a rear corner (and no edge)
> hits or is hit.

I'm not sure what you mean -- he is trying to exhaustively describe all
the possible cases where the recoiling element might impact a vulnerable
part of the blocking element.  Vulnerable here can be taken to mean
anything not the front edge (where the two front corners are included as
part of the front edge).

Any recoil touching the front edge (or front corner) will not kill the
blocking unit.

Any recoil touching the side edge with the flat surface of the recoiling
edge will not kill the blocking unit, regardless of whether the rear
corner of the recoiling unit is involved or not.

Any recoil touching the back edge (ignoring corners) will kill the
blocking unit.

Any recoil where the rear-corner-only of the recoiling element hits the
side (not front corner) or rear edges kills the blocking unit.

Any recoil where the rear edge hits the rear corner of the blocking unit
kills the blocking unit.

This is all much easier to show in diagrams than it is to discuss in
words.

DK

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, David Kuijt <kuijt@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, martyn simpson wrote:
>
> > Sorry to ask a simple question but I think I may have been playing this
wrong for years.
> >
> > Suppose an element is fighting to it's front but it's rear edge rests on
> > the flank side edge of an enemy element. Do any count as being
> > overlapped? And what would happen should the element have to recoil are
> > there consequences for both?
>
> If the front element is recoiled, the rear guy is NOT destroyed -- it is
> contacted on its side edge by the whole enemy rear edge, not just the rear
> corner.
>
Are you sure? To me, English is a secondary language, by I'd have thought that a
rear edge comprises inter alia two rear corners. And while hitting an enemy
element with the rear edge, in many cases one or both of these corners will be
hitting the enemy element, too. And it's not "by a rear corner only", but "Enemy
contacted ... on a side edge by its rear corner". Mentioning rear corners
several times in this context might be attributed to the cases where only a rear
corner (and no edge) hits or is hit.

-- Michael

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, martyn simpson wrote:

> I'm fighting a lot of BBDBA at the moment. My opponent is Polybian Roman
> while my army is Seleucid :) While we've had some cracking and sometimes
> very tense battles the Seleucids win every time having rather a lot of
> quick kill elements against blades. This is leaving my opponent a bit
> depressed although he tells me he has thoroughly enjoyed the battles,
> can anyone offer my opponent some advice?

Dave Schlanger and I just used Marian Roman (with Numidian ally) to win
the Big Battle Doubles at Fall-In.  Our three opponents all had lots of
Knights: we faced Later Crusader (with Syrian ally), Alexander Imperial
(with Classical Indian ally), and Graeco-Bactrians.

The main advice is this -- don't just let the enemy charge in with
Knights.

There are lots of things you can do.

1) make sure you have a few spear in each command that is going to be
threatened by knights.  Put those spear (with a psiloi for support) in the
schwerpunkt.  There is a huge difference between 3-5 (Kn vs. Ps-supported
Sp) and 3-4 (Kn vs. Ps-supported Bd)

2) don't line up square.  Think Cannae.  Either make a cup (not of single
elements -- that's lame -- trios of Bd or Sp with one psiloi behind each)
or easier (and more aggressive), recess your front so he can only charge
in by giving up overlaps.  Again, don't recess single elements (that's
usually too static) -- use pairs or triads with psiloi support.

The advanced versions of this involve creating a vise with two triads of
psiloi-supported blade tilted inwards on the enemy Kn frontage, with the
center (facing the Kn) being recessed and Cav.  If the Kn wheel to face
your left, advance the triad on the right side (the one not facing them
frontally).  If the Kn wheel to your right, advance the left.  If they
advance forward towards the Cav, wait until they are committed and then
advance both sides so as to ZOC the edge elements of their group.

3) most importantly, don't be aggressive against the Kn -- be aggressive
everywhere else.  Make the enemy use his pips; make the enemy charge home.
The Polybians are a very strong army -- win everywhere he DOESN'T have a
wall of Knights.


> I suppose I can always lose
> deliberately.

Lame.

Swap armies with your buddy, and see if you can find tactics that he can't
find.

Have him try Polybians with a Numidian ally -- that gives him a strong
LH/BGo force, and an elephant to plump up his line against enemy Knights.

But Polybians should be about 50/50 against Seleucids.  They're a strong
army -- they just need to put out good terrain to make it very hard for
the Seleucids to win.  (That doesn't mean too much terrain -- but enough)

DK

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, martyn simpson wrote:

> Sorry to ask a simple question but I think I may have been playing this wrong
for years.
>
> Suppose an element is fighting to it's front but it's rear edge rests on
> the flank side edge of an enemy element. Do any count as being
> overlapped? And what would happen should the element have to recoil are
> there consequences for both?

No overlap.

If the front element is recoiled, it is destroyed as its recoil is
blocked.

If the front element is recoiled, the rear guy is NOT destroyed -- it is
contacted on its side edge by the whole enemy rear edge, not just the rear
corner.  What the rule means is that if you are at exactly 90 degrees to
the recoiling enemy, you will not be destroyed by its recoil into your
side edge.  That rule is in there to correct for the case where a hole is
busted in the center of a line and an element (mounted, say -- something
with a 30mm base depth in standard 15mm figure scale) closes the door but
then is forced to recoil into the other side of the hole.

DK

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, ektroman wrote:

> Question 1:
>
> We had this situation arise and wondering if we did it right.
>
> Assume that you have a warband element supported by a psiloi element. It
> is then attacked on the front by a spear and the door is closed by a
> blade element. Does the psiloi turn to face the blade unit, with its
> flank up against the rear of the warband, and then does one slide the
> blade to face the psiloi?

"support" is a technical term for aiding combat factor by giving +1 or +3;
Psiloi will never do that for Warband.

In the situation you describe, no movement occurs for the psiloi.

> OR
>
> Does the warband and psiloi remain in position with the door closed,
> with the warband rolling and both being destroyed in a loss?

Yes (to the part before the comma) and No (to the part after).  Both
remain in position; the Warband fights normally; since the Psiloi is not
giving support (a +1) it is not destroyed when the Warband is destroyed.

> I don't know if that wording makes sense. Let me know. We played it with
> the psiloi turning to face the blade unit.

That only happens if the blade unit comes into legal combat contact with
it -- which would be easy to do as the attacker, just move the blade to
hit the flank of the psiloi, rather than the flank of the warband.

> Question 2.
>
> When DBA states that some units can go through others, it is confusing
> whether the list of units are those that cannot go through others, or
> can go through others. Does the paragraph below mean that blades can
> recoil through blades or spears or cannot? (As an aside, I cannot figure
> the logic behind many of these. They seem arbitrary, such as why Psiloi
> cannot recoil through Psiloi, if that is what it means).
>
> "Recoilers can pass through friends facing in exactly the same direction
> to a clear space immediately behind the first element met, but only if
> mounted troops recoiling into any friends except Pikes, or Elephants,
> Blades recoiling into Blades or Spears, Pikes or Bows recoiling into
> Blades, or Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi." Paragraph
> 3, page 9.

Mounted can recoil through anything
* EXCEPT pikes or elephants

Blade can recoil through Blade (a)
Blade can recoil through Spear (a)

Pike can recoil through Blade (c)
Bows can recoil through Blade (b)

Psiloi can recoil through anything
* EXCEPT Psiloi

The two marked (a) above were put in, most believe, to represent an aspect
of Roman manipular replacement for the Polybians (hastati, triarii, etc.)

The one marked (b) above seems to have been put in to represent similar
in-combat replacement during the English wars of the 15th century --
either the War of the Roses or the HYW, I can't recall right now.  I think
the WotR?

I have no idea wherefrom comes the Pike recoiling through Blade -- it is
almost irrelevant anyway, since Pike rarely fight in a single rank, which
is the only time it would occur.

As for why Psiloi don't recoil through Psiloi -- why should they?  The
Psiloi in the back are not formed troops; they are as light and vulnerable
to pushbacks as anything in anyone's army could be.  So when anything
falls back into them (including friendly psiloi), they don't stand and let
the friendlies filter through to reform behind them, they just fall back
instead.

Hope this helps,

DK

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Mark A.W. Wall wrote:

> Bob Beatie or Dave K., or anyone else knowledgeable,
>
> What do you do when two units are in column (or on the edge of a larger
> group) and being attacked by the front and the flank at the same time?
>
> Let's say a warband and psiloi are in column with warband in front, and a
> spear attacks the warband on the warband's front edge, while the warband is
> attacked on the flank by blade? What happens to the psiloi that was behind
> the warband (it now has the blade touching it's flank)? Does it turn to face
> the blade or is the door closed and it remains idly behind the warband? Or
> is it pushed straight back out of fighting range? Or something else?

The way you describe it, the psiloi does nothing.

If the Wb is killed (recoiled will kill it, since it has an element
hitting its flank as well as front combat), there are no consequences for
the Psiloi.  It is now an element in two enemy ZOCs; it can fight either,
turn to face either (already facing one), or retreat straight back to its
original rear.

DK

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "martyn simpson" <m.simmo@...> wrote:
>
> Suppose an element  is fighting to it's front but it's rear edge rests on the
flank side edge of an enemy element.
> Do any count as being overlapped?
>
"An element not in close combat to its front but in mutual right-to-right or
left-to-left corner contact with an enemy element overlaps it."
Clearly not the case.
"Any enemies in mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close
combat or not."
Obviously not the case, too.
These are the only cases of overlap, so not overlap.
Even "in front edge and front corner-to-front corner contact with flank or in
full front edge contact with the rear" does not apply (technically apparently
not an overlap, but giving the same tactical factor).

> And what would happen should the element have to recoil are there consequences
for both?
>
"A recoiling element … that meets enemy … is destroyed. Enemy contacted … on a
side edge by its rear corner … are also destroyed."

So: yes.

-- Michael

I'm fighting a lot of BBDBA at the moment. My opponent is Polybian Roman while
my army is Seleucid :) While we've had some cracking and sometimes very tense
battles the Seleucids win every time having rather a lot of quick kill elements
against blades. This is leaving my opponent a bit depressed although he tells me
he has thoroughly enjoyed the battles, can anyone offer my opponent some advice?
I suppose I can always lose deliberately.

A interesting measure would be to fight Magnesia using DBA has anyone done this
and can you provide me with an DBA orbat.

Thanks

Martyn S

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry to ask a simple question but I think I may have been playing this wrong
for years.

Suppose an element  is fighting to it's front but it's rear edge rests on the
flank side edge of an enemy element. Do any count as being overlapped? And what
would happen should the element have to recoil are there consequences for both?

Thanks I did try a trawl through the archives

Martyn S

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Mark

The spear verses the warband is straight forward, however the blade can actually
contact one or both elements.

If the blade keeps corner-to-corner contact with the spear it then counts as an
overlap for the spear. The Psiloi remains behind the warband, only the warband
being destroyed if recoiled.

The alternative is for the blade to go in and contact the front corner and side
of the psiloi, here it does not act as an overlap for the spear as it is not in
contact, but causes the psiloi to turn and face it, exactly lining up with the
blade. In this case if the spear battle is first and the warband is recoiled it
will be destroyed, possibly the best opption as the psiloi are likely to flee
from the blade, so if that was first the warband can recoil.

Hope that makes sense. The critical thing is that you must end in front edge and
front corner-to-corner contact.

David Constable

#################

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A.W. Wall" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> Bob Beatie or Dave K., or anyone else knowledgeable,
>
> What do you do when two units are in column (or on the edge of a larger
> group) and being attacked by the front and the flank at the same time?
>
> Let's say a warband and psiloi are in column with warband in front, and a
> spear attacks the warband on the warband's front edge, while the warband is
> attacked on the flank by blade? What happens to the psiloi that was behind
> the warband (it now has the blade touching it's flank)? Does it turn to face
> the blade or is the door closed and it remains idly behind the warband? Or
> is it pushed straight back out of fighting range? Or something else?
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Mark Wall
>
> www.toysoldiers.ca
>
>
>

Question 1:

We had this situation arise and wondering if we did it right.

Assume that you have a warband element supported by a psiloi element. It is then
attacked on the front by a spear and the door is closed by a blade element. Does
the psiloi turn to face the blade unit, with its flank up against the rear of
the warband, and then does one slide the blade to face the psiloi?

OR

Does the warband and psiloi remain in position with the door closed, with the
warband rolling and both being destroyed in a loss?

I don't know if that wording makes sense. Let me know. We played it with the
psiloi turning to face the blade unit.

If someone can show me their answer based on Wadbag or the DBA 2.2. that would
be excellent. I can't seem to find an answer.

Question 2.

When DBA states that some units can go through others, it is confusing whether
the list of units are those that cannot go through others, or can go through
others. Does the paragraph below mean that blades can recoil through blades or
spears or cannot? (As an aside, I cannot figure the logic behind many of these.
They seem arbitrary, such as why Psiloi cannot recoil through Psiloi, if that is
what it means).

"Recoilers can pass through friends facing in exactly the same direction to a
clear space immediately behind the first element met, but only if mounted troops
recoiling into any friends except Pikes, or Elephants, Blades recoiling into
Blades or Spears, Pikes or Bows recoiling into Blades, or Psiloi recoiling into
any friends except Psiloi." Paragraph 3, page 9.

Mark Wall
www.toysoldiers.ca

Bob Beatie or Dave K., or anyone else knowledgeable,

What do you do when two units are in column (or on the edge of a larger
group) and being attacked by the front and the flank at the same time?

Let's say a warband and psiloi are in column with warband in front, and a
spear attacks the warband on the warband's front edge, while the warband is
attacked on the flank by blade? What happens to the psiloi that was behind
the warband (it now has the blade touching it's flank)? Does it turn to face
the blade or is the door closed and it remains idly behind the warband? Or
is it pushed straight back out of fighting range? Or something else?

Best wishes,



Mark Wall

www.toysoldiers.ca





From: DBA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DBA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
hussars5th
Sent: November-12-09 10:52 AM
To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DBA] Re: DBA Tournament at MillenniumConXII





Howdy Yall,

Here are the results from the DBA Texas Championship run at MillenniumCon
XII this year.

Congratulations to our DBA Texas Champion:

Casey Baeslack from Austin Texas.

Casey was tied for Second with Morgan McAdams going into the final round
where Casey was facing Cameron Radetzky who was in First. Casey beat Cameron
which moved him into First Place while Cameron dropped to 4th.

We had 8 players, 6 from Texas and 2 from Oklahoma, here is how they flushed
out.

1. Casey Baeslack - Early Imperial Roman
2. Patrick Sweeney - Kassite and Later Babylonian
3. Warren Jackson - French Ordonnance
4. Cameron Radetzky - Ancient Spanish
5. Morgan McAdams - Neo-Elamite
6. Tim Hargis - Seleucid
7. Alex Hay - Polyblan Roman
8. John Neff - Timurid

Next year's DBA Texas Championship will be a Late Imperial Roman and It's
Enemies Theme on 40mm frontage bases.

I hope some of you will be able to participate in the DBA Texas Championship
at MillenniunCon XIII in November 2010!

cya





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My last blog post "A Campaign For The Balkans 1370 AD" has been well received
and to a couple of people asking if I'd publish their campaign systems.  One
such came from Peter Barrett of Canberra Games Society.

His system is based on Roman expansion in the 1st century BC but is equally
applicable to any expanding empire, including mid 4th century BC Macedonia, the
Byzantine Empire of Justinian I, the early days of the Arab Caliphate, the
Seljuk Empire, the Mongol Empire or the Empire of Timur.

Online now.

--
Martin Stephenson
http://vexillia.blogspot.com/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia

At long last I've got back to the King Magnus' War campaign and fought one of
the preliminary battle: the battle of Stamford between Harald Hardrada and
Harold Godwinson in 1066. An interesting battle in the finished Viking army's
first outing:

http://hesperiana.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/battle-of-stamford/

With much ado and little-to-no fanfare, I am pleased to announce that both a
date and a venue have been chosen for HOTT Wax 2010 - The Year Our Armies Make
Contact!

The event will be held on Saturday, February 6th at 10:00 (weather permitting),
and could run as late as 7 PM at the sufferance of the gods.

For the second year in a row, HOTT Wax is being held at the MOSSL office in
Worthington, OH - where the Columbus Area Boardgaming Society regularly meets. 
Lunch/Dinner may be brought in, but snacks are expected to be purchased on-site
(soda, chips, candy, etc at $0.50 from the MOSSL Elves.)

For those unfamiliar with how to get to the facility, there are excellent
directions on the CABS website:

http://www.buckeyeboardgamers.org/location.htm

Four rounds of murderous mayhem using 15mm 36-point Hordes of the Things armies!
Bust out those Gods and Dragons!  Overwhelm your opponents!  Experience HOTT
bigger, longer, and uncut!  Compete for Fame, Glory, and Prizes, Prizes, Prizes!

The tournament will run from 10:00 AM till 7:00 PM, with hour-and-a-half long
rounds.  Players should bring terrain and a 36-point 15mm army, but loaner
armies and extra terrain will also be available.  Beginners welcomed!  HOTT 2
Rules with proposed 2.1 modifications (Shooter move 2", Warband move 3", Sneaker
breakaway and "friction kills") will be used.  Special rules for 36-point
battles will be explained before we begin.

For questions about the tournament, feel free to contact me:
    Dave Zecchini (vitruvianzeke@...)

Howdy Yall,

Here are the results from the DBA Texas Championship run at MillenniumCon XII
this year.

Congratulations to our DBA Texas Champion:

Casey Baeslack from Austin Texas.

Casey was tied for Second with Morgan McAdams going into the final round where
Casey was facing Cameron Radetzky who was in First. Casey beat Cameron which
moved him into First Place while Cameron dropped to 4th.

We had 8 players, 6 from Texas and 2 from Oklahoma, here is how they flushed
out.

1. Casey Baeslack - Early Imperial Roman
2. Patrick Sweeney - Kassite and Later Babylonian
3. Warren Jackson - French Ordonnance
4. Cameron Radetzky - Ancient Spanish
5. Morgan McAdams - Neo-Elamite
6. Tim Hargis - Seleucid
7. Alex Hay - Polyblan Roman
8. John Neff - Timurid

Next year's DBA Texas Championship will be a Late Imperial Roman and It's
Enemies Theme on 40mm frontage bases.

I hope some of you will be able to participate in the DBA Texas Championship at
MillenniunCon XIII in November 2010!

cya

Just 30 days to MAG-CON (Dec 11-13).

This is a small convention, so we have to close registration at around 150
players.

Register at www.MAG-CON.com

If you cannot make it, please consider buying a day-pass to help us with the
fund raiser.  This convention has no overhead, the owner of Homewood Suites
Hilton donated all the gaming space so that we could use this convention as a
fund raiser.  The charity mission is “Purple Pinkie,” a Rotary Club
immunization effort to eradicate polio in 3rd world countries where the disease
continues to persist.

Thanks and hope to see you at MAG-CON.

Justo
www.MAG-CON.com
832-527-4849

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You can play the game anyway you want.  Many players make  modifications to suit
their own research and ideas.  You only need to follow the letter of the rules
if you play others especially in a tournament.
WWg shooting came in 1.1
Sea Peoples do not have WWg any more.
I/28. Sea-Peoples. 1208BC-1176BC.
1xLCh or 4Bd (Gen), 2x4Bd, 6x3Bd, 3x3Ax or 2Ps.
The wagons can be used as a camp
WWg is not necessarily a cannon carrying unit, range is only 2" so mostly
shooters
The Achaians still have pikes and spears.
(a) Achaian: 1xLCh//4Bd (Gen), 3xLCh//4Bd, 4x4Sp, 2x4Sp or 4Wb or 4Pk, 2x2Ps.

You can play 1.1 if you like the old style, those were good rules.

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh Jackson" <bobafett_42@xxxxxxx.xxxx wrote:
>
> As I am relativley new to DBA this may have already been discussed but I
> shall ramble on anyway.
> In the earlier editions of DBA (1.0 or 1.1 I think) a war wagon was
> unable to shoot, in the latest (ver 2.0) it has aquired this ability.
> Now for a later (renaissance) war wagon that mounts cannon this makes
> sense but for my sea people ox carts (count as war wagons) this seems
> very strange. I just wondered what other peoples opinions on this were
> and if there are any other oddities like this in the list.
> Also in the earlier lists for the Myceneans they had 4 pike but now have
> some spear instead. This is fine for later mycenean but what about
> earlier armies. Again I would be interested in what others have to say
> about this.
> Should we tamper with the army lists and rules to remove these anomalies
> or leave it as it is? What do others think?
>
>
> May the force be with you
> The Fettster (a.k.a. Leigh)
>
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

--- michael_fis_de wrote:
>
> --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "ektroman" <mark@> wrote:
> >
> > Are War Wagons considered to be foot or mounted?
> >
> "Foot troops can be: ... War Wagons." (Troop Definitions, p.3)
>
> > Does anyone have any advice on how to use them effectively?
> >
> Dr Kuijt has: http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dbaDocs/warwagons.html
>
> -- Michael

I believe that is for the 1.x version of DBA.

I asked a related question on Fanaticus here:
http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=7683

A question about WWG movement was here:
http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=8277

Good luck.

Dale

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "michael_fis_de" <Michael.Fischer.Bonn@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "ektroman" <mark@> wrote:
> >
> > Are War Wagons considered to be foot or mounted?
> >
> "Foot troops can be: ... War Wagons." (Troop Definitions, p.3)
>
> > Does anyone have any advice on how to use them effectively?
> >
> Dr Kuijt has: http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dbaDocs/warwagons.html
>
> -- Michael
>
As I have no army with war wagons the following is based on observation of
others who do (well, litters, anyhow) and conjecture.  You can not move war
wagons to contact, even corner to corner contact as an overlap, so to hurt the
opponent you need to shoot with them.  Movement costs two pips for a group
containing one, so you need to be economical with them.  As I recall they don't
retreat when beaten, if at 2 to 1 or higher they die, and are quick killed by
artillery and elephants as far as I recall, so you would prefer not to put them
where artillery shooting or elephant contact is likely.  Their highest and best
use may be to turn sideways and hold a flank or block enemy advance while your
maneuver troops kill four enemy or two enemy and take a camp.  They fire all
arround and whatever edge contacted by melee first is the front edge.  Turned
broadside on they block two stand widths and lots of troop types would prefer
not to melee with warwagons, particularly since victory, at less than two to one
has no impact.  They work well teamed with artillery, as both can shoot and
warwagons provide support at "close range" shooting (2 inches).

The more terrain, especially rough going, the less valuable war wagons are.  In
some circumstances special rules may be needed about terrain setup to allow you
to place all your warwagons on the board.  If you can't set up all your army I
would refuse to fight and appeal to any referee on the point at a competition. 
As a practical matter, no general would fight on ground where his army could not
be all marched to battle.  This should not be a problem when you are the
defender and set the terrain.  When you are the attacker, why would the attacker
fight on terrain where he could not use one or more of his most powerfull units?
If the other guy wants to play a game with you, you need him to understand the
game requires both sides to have 12 units, if he succeeds in excluding one or
more of your war wagons it isn't DBA.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Mark A.W. Wall <mark@...> wrote:
> Are Scythed Chariots destroyed if they win a combat? In other words, are
> they only good for one kill, then they die in combat? Or can they keep
> fighting until a push or a loss?
>

They are not destroyed if they win.

--
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

Are Scythed Chariots destroyed if they win a combat? In other words, are
they only good for one kill, then they die in combat? Or can they keep
fighting until a push or a loss?



Mark Wall

www.toysoldiers.ca





From: DBA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DBA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David
Kuijt
Sent: November-11-09 7:33 AM
To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DBA] Re: War Wagons







On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, michael_fis_de wrote:

>> Does anyone have any advice on how to use them effectively?

> Dr Kuijt has: http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dbaDocs/warwagons.html
> -- Michael

IIRC, I wrote that regarding the use of warwagons in DBA version 1.1; if
so, it won't be entirely on target for the current version (2.2).

DK





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, michael_fis_de wrote:

>> Does anyone have any advice on how to use them effectively?

> Dr Kuijt has: http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dbaDocs/warwagons.html
> -- Michael

IIRC, I wrote that regarding the use of warwagons in DBA version 1.1; if
so, it won't be entirely on target for the current version (2.2).

DK

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "ektroman" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> Are War Wagons considered to be foot or mounted?
>
"Foot troops can be: ... War Wagons." (Troop Definitions, p.3)

> Does anyone have any advice on how to use them effectively?
>
Dr Kuijt has: http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dbaDocs/warwagons.html

-- Michael

Couple of questions:

Are War Wagons considered to be foot or mounted?

Does anyone have any advice on how to use them effectively?

Mark Wall
www.toysoldiers.ca

Salutations, gentlefolk !

You haven't heard much from me lately.  Been out of work, seriously
short on cash and time (jobhunting is _not_ a 40-hour-per-week
occupation) to do much in way of DBA or other miniature gaming.

Awhile back I thought about 'how can I get my friends to play DBA?', and
decided that 'twould be best to sit them down, say "Hello, Eric, Hi,
Frank!  Here are your armies, this is the 'battlefield', and here are
... The Rules ??? "

In other words, to hold the Greater East Lansdowne Invitational DBA
Instructional Seminars - GELIDIS - Latin for 'cold water', feel free to
pour some on the idea.

So, I 'pruned' off the 'non-core' parts of the DBA rulebook.  GELIDIS-1
are the rules you need to _sit down and play_, no less no more.

(I've gotten the armies painted and based, the terrain set up, Go To It!)

GELIDIS-2 are the rules for the various troop types - movement, attack,
defense.  I've tried to put _everything_ someone commanding - or
combating - elephants or psiloi, scythed chariots or cavalry, in one
place, on one page.

Finally, I formatted them to printup on 8.5x11 paper in 12-point type,
lots of white space, and took the layers of subordinate clauses in Phil
Barker's writing and broke them into seperate lines.  I hope this may
make them more easily comprehensible.

After some time 'collecting cyberdust' on my hard drive, I've uploaded
them to the 'files' section of this Yahoogroup.  I hope some of you may
find them useful or interesting.

Yours, John Desmond