Hi guys,

I'm just starting out with collecting armies for the 100 years war and have a
question. In order to give the Scots something else to do instead of always
fighting the English I'd like to build up the army of Maol �osa, Earl of Orkney,
c. 1340s.

I wondered which army list to use; the normal one would be for the Vikings
(III/40) but this runs out in 1280. Should I use the Medieval Scandinavian
(IV/54) for this period?

I'd hoped Ian Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages (vol. 1) would give me some
clues but there's nothing about Scandinavia at all.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, thanks

Nick

On 01.10.2012 08:38, nickjonesinbarnsley wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm just starting out with collecting armies for the 100 years war
> and have a question. In order to give the Scots something else to do
> instead of always fighting the English I'd like to build up the army
> of Maol Íosa, Earl of Orkney, c. 1340s.
>
> I wondered which army list to use; the normal one would be for the
> Vikings (III/40) but this runs out in 1280. Should I use the Medieval
> Scandinavian (IV/54) for this period?
>
> I'd hoped Ian Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages (vol. 1) would give
> me some clues but there's nothing about Scandinavia at all.
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts, thanks
>
> Nick

III/77 Scots Isles and Highlands is the right list for the Kingdom of
the Isles; I'd expect that it would be great for Orkney as well.

DK

I worked for the Creature from 2005 - 2010.

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "Vince Cholewa" <vincecholewa@...> wrote:
>
> Fantasty? But I have seen the Creature in movies.

By Ian Mortimer
Is this a good Wargamers book?

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

Hello,

I'm currently finishing off some Yi Koreans using the Perry Korean range, and
keep having to grit my teeth that there's not enough space on the bases to fit
the models on.

The biggest problems so far were with a Hordes base and two Pikes bases. Fitting
7/8 figures on 60x40mm base is a real challenge, and my Pike guys charging with
lowered pikes take up physically far more table top real estate than the base on
which they're mounted.

My current fix is to have a proxy base with a single model for each problematic
element. Whenever the element gets into contact and can't meet it's opponent due
to the mass of inconveniently placed pointy sticks, I just replace them with the
lone banner waving loon. This at least looks good but does involve a bit of
faffing around during a game.

Rather than blame the sculptors for pandering to the market, why not accept the
reality of the situation and offer an alternative basing system?

I'd like to make the suggestion for an additional "cinematic" basing convention
in the rules - a bit wider, and a bit deeper, with a corresponding table size
etc to match. This cinematic basing convention would be entirely optional &
completely incompatible with the "serious" basing scheme of the rules. If
someone wanted a bit more space for their figures - expensive, detailed figures
that reward careful painting - they can use this cinematic basing convention and
be reasonably sure of meeting like minded players, or even of playing in the odd
"cinematic tournament".

Granted, many people already modify the basing conventions and clubs have house
rules for it. If such a basing convention was in the rules however, then rather
than having 30 or 40 different incompatible basing conventions on as many blogs
we'd just have 2 - one for the purists and tournament goers, and one for those
that like to spend time creating mini dioramas and occasionally play with other
like minded souls.

Please?

?

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2012, at 16:51, "Matt" <matt.m.jacobsen@...> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm currently finishing off some Yi Koreans using the Perry Korean range, and
keep having to grit my teeth that there's not enough space on the bases to fit
the models on.
>
> The biggest problems so far were with a Hordes base and two Pikes bases.
Fitting 7/8 figures on 60x40mm base is a real challenge, and my Pike guys
charging with lowered pikes take up physically far more table top real estate
than the base on which they're mounted.
>
> My current fix is to have a proxy base with a single model for each
problematic element. Whenever the element gets into contact and can't meet it's
opponent due to the mass of inconveniently placed pointy sticks, I just replace
them with the lone banner waving loon. This at least looks good but does involve
a bit of faffing around during a game.
>
> Rather than blame the sculptors for pandering to the market, why not accept
the reality of the situation and offer an alternative basing system?
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion for an additional "cinematic" basing
convention in the rules - a bit wider, and a bit deeper, with a corresponding
table size etc to match. This cinematic basing convention would be entirely
optional & completely incompatible with the "serious" basing scheme of the
rules. If someone wanted a bit more space for their figures - expensive,
detailed figures that reward careful painting - they can use this cinematic
basing convention and be reasonably sure of meeting like minded players, or even
of playing in the odd "cinematic tournament".
>
> Granted, many people already modify the basing conventions and clubs have
house rules for it. If such a basing convention was in the rules however, then
rather than having 30 or 40 different incompatible basing conventions on as many
blogs we'd just have 2 - one for the purists and tournament goers, and one for
those that like to spend time creating mini dioramas and occasionally play with
other like minded souls.
>
> Please?
>
>


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

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. He thinks the format of the rules are perfectly user-friendly,  having
not looked at any current rules, I guess. Just base the figure as you want to
play the game if you're not playing in tournaments what doesn't matter.

If you if you do play tournaments, try to get into matched pairs tournaments
with two armies based as you want them to be.

I believe that his now insistence that the number of figures on a base matters
for the rules is a real problem for those of us to have trouble putting
multiples of figures onto bases.  I'm particularly distressed that all of my
Gallic war bands that were three figures to a base now are supposed to be solid
war bands with four to a base.  And narrow bases.  I have five armies each of 25
mm and 15 mm Gallic armies. You think I'm going to actually rebased them all?



Bob
Dictated and sent from my iPad

On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Matt <matt.m.jacobsen@...> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm currently finishing off some Yi Koreans using the Perry Korean range, and
keep having to grit my teeth that there's not enough space on the bases to fit
the models on.
>
> The biggest problems so far were with a Hordes base and two Pikes bases.
Fitting 7/8 figures on 60x40mm base is a real challenge, and my Pike guys
charging with lowered pikes take up physically far more table top real estate
than the base on which they're mounted.
>
> My current fix is to have a proxy base with a single model for each
problematic element. Whenever the element gets into contact and can't meet it's
opponent due to the mass of inconveniently placed pointy sticks, I just replace
them with the lone banner waving loon. This at least looks good but does involve
a bit of faffing around during a game.
>
> Rather than blame the sculptors for pandering to the market, why not accept
the reality of the situation and offer an alternative basing system?
>
> I'd like to make the suggestion for an additional "cinematic" basing
convention in the rules - a bit wider, and a bit deeper, with a corresponding
table size etc to match. This cinematic basing convention would be entirely
optional & completely incompatible with the "serious" basing scheme of the
rules. If someone wanted a bit more space for their figures - expensive,
detailed figures that reward careful painting - they can use this cinematic
basing convention and be reasonably sure of meeting like minded players, or even
of playing in the odd "cinematic tournament".
>
> Granted, many people already modify the basing conventions and clubs have
house rules for it. If such a basing convention was in the rules however, then
rather than having 30 or 40 different incompatible basing conventions on as many
blogs we'd just have 2 - one for the purists and tournament goers, and one for
those that like to spend time creating mini dioramas and occasionally play with
other like minded souls.
>
> Please?
>
>


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

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?

"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]

As long as manufacturers insist on calling 18+mm tall figures "15mm",
disparagement is richly deserved.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
> "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]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



--
Andreas Johansson

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

I mostly play with 28mm figures which are advertised as such. Phil does not seem
to believe that there are such things as 28 mm figures and continues to maintain
in the rules basing for 25 mm figures.  So the basing and the format of the
rules continues to be 1990.

Bob
Dictated and sent from my iPad

On Oct 5, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:

> As long as manufacturers insist on calling 18+mm tall figures "15mm",
> disparagement is richly deserved.
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:
> > "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]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andreas Johansson
>
> Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
>


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

Pre 1976 at least

Antigonas One Eye

CC: DBA@yahoogroups.com
To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
From: beattie@...
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:10:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [DBA] Alternative cinematic basing system endorsed by Phil


























       I mostly play with 28mm figures which are advertised as such. Phil does
not seem to believe that there are such things as 28 mm figures and continues to
maintain in the rules basing for 25 mm figures.  So the basing and the format of
the rules continues to be 1990.



Bob

Dictated and sent from my iPad



On Oct 5, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:



> As long as manufacturers insist on calling 18+mm tall figures "15mm",

> disparagement is richly deserved.

>

> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Robert Beattie <beattie@...> wrote:

> > "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]

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

>

> --

> 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]

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]

Can you imagine after all the no votes against the enlargement of bases.

However a small enlargement of the of the upper front and a small firming of the
lower rear would improve the appeal of the game.
A very minor and simple procedure with  the use of silicone.

I. Nippem & U. Tuckem
Base Specialists (very)

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2012, at 21:21, "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]

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]
>

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]

Is Kenneth Branagh available? He would make an excellent narrator for the DBA
saga. Watching the development of DBA is like watching Walking with Dinosaurs.
Figures are actually better than they were ever before. Hinchcliffe, Minifigs,
Spencer Smith and Jack Scruby miniatures - what nostalgia! what abysmal horror!
Somebody switch off the stasis field.








________________________________
  From: Robert Beattie <beattie@...>
To: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:23 PM
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]

Tim

Today I puchased the figures for my matched pair of armies for Burton next year.

As yet I do not know it the scale will be 15mm ( 40mm bases) or 25mm (60mm
bases) as I am not yet sure what size bases will be required for the figures.

One of the reasons I play HoTT is the greater flexiblily allowed.

The point I was making was thatI do not find the base widths of 40mm and 60mm
for existing figures to be a problem

Can I say that I am pleased you enjoyed the PAWS event last weekend and you will
understand why I made a 320 mile round trip for an afernoons gaming.

Antigonas One Eye

To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
From: timjmoore@...
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 07:53:59 +0000
Subject: [DBA] Re: Alternative cinematic basing system endorsed by Phil






























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]

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]

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]

I was painting a bag (30 Figures) of
Old Glory SYW. The detail compared to my 1970's strip miniature figurines is
amazing.

Not self painting though. :(

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Oct 2012, at 18:14, "Michelle Bonavia" <nokklasewda@...> wrote:

> Is Kenneth Branagh available? He would make an excellent narrator for the DBA
saga. Watching the development of DBA is like watching Walking with Dinosaurs.
Figures are actually better than they were ever before. Hinchcliffe, Minifigs,
Spencer Smith and Jack Scruby miniatures - what nostalgia! what abysmal horror!
Somebody switch off the stasis field.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Beattie <beattie@...>
> To: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: "DBA@yahoogroups.com" <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:23 PM
> 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]
>
>


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

Given that my Gallic army is also, effectively, my Ancient British army, I will
not be rebasing any time soon. Of course, this means that my Early Galatian army
(when I get around to painting it!) can more or less double as a Gallic
army......if the Galatians haven't also changed that is..........



________________________________
  From: Robert Beattie <beattie@...>
To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 0:00
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]

I'm not suggesting that anybody rebase anything. I won't be doing it either.

I'm suggesting that Phil writes an alternate, optional, basing system into the
rules. This would mean that the rules contained two completely _incompatible_
basing systems: the current one for real men, and an additional one to ease the
pain of all those poor wretches duped into buying figures that were too portly.
It'd just serve as a guiding star for the artistically inclined.

Wouldn't that be a pragmatic alternative? The people with obese Burmese or
ahistorically proportioned Landsknechts were going to ignore/adapt the basing
system anyway. Maybe this way they might get a game in against other breakaways
now and then, and sleep easier knowing that they at least have half a blessing
from Phil.


--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Chris Hall <chal299@...> wrote:
>
> Given that my Gallic army is also, effectively, my Ancient British army, I
will not be rebasing any time soon. Of course, this means that my Early Galatian
army (when I get around to painting it!) can more or less double as a Gallic
army......if the Galatians haven't also changed that is..........
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Robert Beattie <beattie@...>
> To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 0:00
> 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]
>

If I'm reading you correctly, you're actually suggesting an addition
of a _third_ basing scheme, besides the 40 and 60mm frontage ones?

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM, mattjacobsen56
<matt.m.jacobsen@...> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that anybody rebase anything. I won't be doing it either.
>
> I'm suggesting that Phil writes an alternate, optional, basing system into the
rules. This would mean that the rules contained two completely _incompatible_
basing systems: the current one for real men, and an additional one to ease the
pain of all those poor wretches duped into buying figures that were too portly.
It'd just serve as a guiding star for the artistically inclined.
>
> Wouldn't that be a pragmatic alternative? The people with obese Burmese or
ahistorically proportioned Landsknechts were going to ignore/adapt the basing
system anyway. Maybe this way they might get a game in against other breakaways
now and then, and sleep easier knowing that they at least have half a blessing
from Phil.
>
>
> --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Chris Hall <chal299@...> wrote:
>>
>> Given that my Gallic army is also, effectively, my Ancient British army, I
will not be rebasing any time soon. Of course, this means that my Early Galatian
army (when I get around to painting it!) can more or less double as a Gallic
army......if the Galatians haven't also changed that is..........
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Robert Beattie <beattie@...>
>> To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 0:00
>> Subject: Re: [DBA] Prescriptions, was Alternative cinematic basing system
endorsed by Phil
>>
>>
>> Â
>> 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]
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



--
Andreas Johansson

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

Yep! But this basing scheme would suffice for 15mm, 25mm and 28mm "scales", so
it's not really that crazy.

It wouldn't conflict with anything currently written; it'd just be an extra in
the rules that most ignore but that appeals to some, like big battle DBA, the
campaign stuff and war wagons.

--- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
>
> If I'm reading you correctly, you're actually suggesting an addition
> of a _third_ basing scheme, besides the 40 and 60mm frontage ones?
>
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM, mattjacobsen56
> <matt.m.jacobsen@...> wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting that anybody rebase anything. I won't be doing it either.
> >
> > I'm suggesting that Phil writes an alternate, optional, basing system into
the rules. This would mean that the rules contained two completely
_incompatible_ basing systems: the current one for real men, and an additional
one to ease the pain of all those poor wretches duped into buying figures that
were too portly. It'd just serve as a guiding star for the artistically
inclined.
> >
> > Wouldn't that be a pragmatic alternative? The people with obese Burmese or
ahistorically proportioned Landsknechts were going to ignore/adapt the basing
system anyway. Maybe this way they might get a game in against other breakaways
now and then, and sleep easier knowing that they at least have half a blessing
from Phil.
> >
> >
> > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Chris Hall <chal299@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given that my Gallic army is also, effectively, my Ancient British army, I
will not be rebasing any time soon. Of course, this means that my Early Galatian
army (when I get around to painting it!) can more or less double as a Gallic
army......if the Galatians haven't also changed that is..........
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>  From: Robert Beattie <beattie@>
> >> To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 0:00
> >> Subject: Re: [DBA] Prescriptions, was Alternative cinematic basing system
endorsed by Phil
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> 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]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andreas Johansson
>
> Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
>

People need to understand the ramifications of making changes to base widths and
depths. This will affect both movement and aspects of combat (flank edge contact
springs to mind straight away).

Whilst I understand the frustration of trying to fit the figures on the base if
the figures are too big or portly, it is the fault of the manufacturer who in
their bid to make the figure as nicely sculptured as possible have to make them
bigger to be able to do so.

As for hordes, I'm sure no one will complain if you put five 15mm horde figures
on a base, thats what I do and no one has complained so far.

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]

I'm sure I've see. In the rules somewhere,
Wb 7 figures 4 in front 3 rear, staggered.
Could use 5, 3 front rank 2 rear rank, staggered so as to look
like a mob.
But it cod have been MM.
Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Oct 2012, at 10:55, "Adrian" <argrath_dragonspear@...> wrote:

> People need to understand the ramifications of making changes to base widths
and depths. This will affect both movement and aspects of combat (flank edge
contact springs to mind straight away).
>
> Whilst I understand the frustration of trying to fit the figures on the base
if the figures are too big or portly, it is the fault of the manufacturer who in
their bid to make the figure as nicely sculptured as possible have to make them
bigger to be able to do so.
>
> As for hordes, I'm sure no one will complain if you put five 15mm horde
figures on a base, thats what I do and no one has complained so far.
>
>


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

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]
>

Mike

Wb is a troop type of the current DBA 2.2 the equivalent of one of the Hd types
of DBM

Antigonas One Eye

To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
From: mike.leese@...
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:13:29 +0100
Subject: Re: [DBA] Re: Prescriptions, was Alternative cinematic basing system
endorsed by Phil


























       I'm sure I've see. In the rules somewhere,


Wb 7 figures 4 in front 3 rear, staggered.


Could use 5, 3 front rank 2 rear rank, staggered so as to look


like a mob.


But it cod have been MM.


Mike





Sent from my iPhone





On 8 Oct 2012, at 10:55, "Adrian" <argrath_dragonspear@...> wrote:





> People need to understand the ramifications of making changes to base widths
and depths. This will affect both movement and aspects of combat (flank edge
contact springs to mind straight away).


>


> Whilst I understand the frustration of trying to fit the figures on the base
if the figures are too big or portly, it is the fault of the manufacturer who in
their bid to make the figure as nicely sculptured as possible have to make them
bigger to be able to do so.


>


> As for hordes, I'm sure no one will complain if you put five 15mm horde
figures on a base, thats what I do and no one has complained so far.


>


>




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


















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