Hi Wayne

Wb(F) are no worse against shooting than they were in 3.0, and better than they
were previously; the bows now get +1 instead of the Wb taking -1, a change much
to the Wb's advantage. Generally Wb(F) are about the same as they were ten
years ago; their disadvantage applies in both bounds but is only half as
damaging as the old one was.

The 3.1 "mitigating factors" are good for Wb, surely. Supporting psiloi make Sp
and Bd less effective against Wb than they were previously.

My impression is that warband armies have become a good deal more common in DBM
3.1, because of the four ranks counting against cavalry. Wb(F) didn't benefit
from that so they're relatively less favoured than Wb(S/O).

Cheers

John GL

--- In dbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "waynedacia" <ux2qc@...> wrote:
>> >
> I've played warbands religiously since dbm began. I've been through all the
changes. I played Dacians for over 5 years non stop with mixed results, and
little frustration, but after a few tournaments in 3.1 I got sick an tired of
hearing the phrase "Oh, that's right, they're fast, pick 'em up!". Especially
vs. BW.
> So I have switched back to my Gauls as WB(o). Now, if the Gauls just had a
BW(I) option.......
>
> My take on the entire warband issue is that WB(O) an (S) are way too good
against Cavalry, about right (maybe a bit too strong)vs KN.
>
> WB(F) frustrate me under 3.1. They were strong vs BD, SP, PK under 3.0 and
even earlier versions IMHO, that's why I played them!. However, the 3.1
mitigating factor changes made many BD, SP and Pk better (a change I agree with)
vs WB, whilst at the same time diminishing WB(F).
>
> As for other fast troops, the Dacian falx BD(F) work just fine. My Sarmatian
KN(F) work just fine. I don't use LH(F), but enjoy killing them tremendously
:).
>
> I won't be playing massed wb(f) armies under the current rules. I think they
are fine as an ambush or rough terrain troop type. I have many other options.
After so many changes over the last 15 years, I think the "FAST" rating is about
as good as it will get. I will wait and see what happens with the proposed
"House Rules"n regarding WB(o,s).
>
> As for Aynsley at the WIC.... I warned you about WB(F)! KN are supposed to
mow down WB(F). I've had a 24 block of wb(f) taken apart by 1 elephant!
>
> Wayne Q Carter
>