DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: loki223 on May 15, 2007, 07:07:56 PM
-
Line 7
"change all previouse Ps (S) to Ps (o) esxcept:......."
Previouse to what?
I see the list of armies this excludes, but cannot figure out who it includes?
What time period does it refer to?
I am having much difficulty in deciphering the writting in this book. MY 5 buddies also can not seem to find this answer, and some of us are college educated.
-
Help please....lol
-
"change all previouse Ps (S) to Ps (o) esxcept:......."
Its Ps(I)
Previouse to what?
Its referring to the army list books so its saying all Ps(S) in the army lists are now Ps(I) unless
I see the list of armies this excludes, but cannot figure out who it includes?
this is the list of troops that are still Ps(S) eg in the Hebrew list Gadites are still Ps(S), in the Late Hoplite list and others that have Greek peltasts they are still Ps(S).
in the early Byzantine list the Slav Ps(S) would now be Ps(I)
Moorish Ps(S) in the current army lists would be Reg Ps(S) in the later carthaginian list but Ps(I) in others
What time period does it refer to?
3000BC to 1500AD
-
ok so let me see if i have it straight.
All the PS(S), not in the exceptions noted on that line, are now PS(I) for all 4 army books.?.
AM i understanding this correctly?
-
Yes
the only Ps(S) are those listed Hebrew gadites,....
although the draft Book 3 available at the yahoo DBMMlist site shows more Ps(S) than that - but it is still draft
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/files/
-
the next question I guesse, is should we start rebaseing or not?
its not really rebasing but painting up new figs becouse the (s) and (I) are different models.
-
How ?
Look at the description of Ps(S) and Ps(I) in the rules - there is nothing about them being shieldless or anything else that would necessarily differentiate them from Ps(S) - except perhaps for a lack of grey hair or beards or holes in their sandals
-
I took the description of (I) as missing any statment about shields as purposfully ommitting it.
-
The best thing to do with any of Phil Barkers rules is not to "take anything as" at all.
His language may be a bit old-fashioned, but he's almost always explicit and says exactly what he means.
If you're having trouble with the rule then chances are you are trying to read somethign into it that is not there, making assumptions from DBM, R or A, or somethign similar. this is always a mistake.
Way back when DBM came out we used to have a mantra that "the rules say what they mean, and mean what they say" - a variation on RTFM, and it is possibly time to roll it out again! :)
-
actually i have never seen DBR, only heard of DBA, and played DBM a couple times..not enough to try and read those rules into these...like i said I picked up the rules and curretly trudging through them and asking questions. Haveing RTFM as you put it, and still have questions.
I have been told in some earlier posts that these rules do parallel DBM and some of them still apply. So thank you much Aloysius, I will be sure to Not to assume anything and ask even more questions. ;D
-
The best thing to do with any of Phil Barkers rules is not to "take anything as" at all.
His language may be a bit old-fashioned, but he's almost always explicit and says exactly what he means.
If you're having trouble with the rule then chances are you are trying to read somethign into it that is not there, making assumptions from DBM, R or A, or somethign similar. this is always a mistake.
Way back when DBM came out we used to have a mantra that "the rules say what they mean, and mean what they say" - a variation on RTFM, and it is possibly time to roll it out again! :)
Unfortunatley for DBMM this doesn't seem to be the case. Sometimes it seems that what the rules explicitly say isn't what Phil actually means but trying to pin down exactly where things differ is far from easy.
For the moment I would work on "the rules say what they mean, and mean what they say except for where the errata and FAQ on this site contradict this"
Hammy
-
lol. to funny.
-
Ok here is another. bit on the same topic.
For the PS(s)
Maccabean Jews from BK2
Have options for upgrading the Guerillas Skirmishers PS (I) to (S) is this still availible or no?
I think the answer is NO but i DON't want to short change my wife's army if i can help it.....lol
-
Unfortunatley for DBMM this doesn't seem to be the case. Sometimes it seems that what the rules explicitly say isn't what Phil actually means but trying to pin down exactly where things differ is far from easy.
I dont' care what he meant - he has expressed himself in written form, and I haven't paid to be able to read his mind, only his rules.
so I'm only gonna take what's written.....not what someone thinks he should have written or meant to write.
If he got it wrong then he can amend the rules...it's been known to hapen before.
Maccabean guerilla Ps are not among those mentioned as being allowed to be Ps(S), so they cannot be - hence the upgrade is no longer allowed.
-
Ok here is another. bit on the same topic.
For the PS(s)
Maccabean Jews from BK2
Have options for upgrading the Guerillas Skirmishers PS (I) to (S) is this still availible or no?
I think the answer is NO but i DON't want to short change my wife's army if i can help it.....lol
On a literal reading of Appendix IV, the answer would appear to be no. The problem is that until discussions start on Book 2, we won't know whether Phil intends to stick to that amendment; other Appendix IV amendments appear to have not survived the development of Book 3.
As for short-changing your wife, consider that you could get three times as many Ps (I) as Ps (S).
-
I believe the down grading from Ps superior to inferior is an improvement for most armies.
I use Ps to screen my heavy troops, inferior class troop can do this just as well as a superior quality Ps and at a third of the price. Once the main battle lines are joined Ps troops are either dead or more likely hiding somewhere at the back.
Generally its worth paying the each cost to buy superior troops as the cost difference between inferior or ordinary and superior isn?t that great, however in this is not the case for Ps.
However what I do have trouble understanding is that all these early armies had superior class Ps for 20 yrs under DBM, suddenly they are almost all downgraded to inferior under a new set of rules. ???
-
It's a new set of rules......why would you expect them to be the same? ???
-
three times the number if (I)...Hmmm I might be able to sell that one. the down side is she still only has the number of figes availible. ...Thanks.
I hope the Q's aren't getting annoying but I dont have the best memory for written rules.
I like hands on to learn and remember them. this is the hard way.
-
I hope the Q's aren't getting annoying but I dont have the best memory for written rules.
Better than not asking and getting it wrong!
Anyway, there are probably other DBMM newbies reading some of your questions, and quietly thanking you for saving them from having to ask... ;-)
-
Please keep asking the questions - look at how many times your threads are being read - that gives you an idea of the number of lurkers who are wanting to ask the same questions.
DBM Ps(S) were Ps(S) just because they had javelin and shield. Ps(I) didn't have shields. Ps(O) had bows.
DBMM Ps(I) have javelins (with or without shields). Ps(O) have bows, and thus an advantage of range over them. Ps(S) are truly superior in morale or have handguns.
-
so thats the real difference in the (S) is the handguns?
and a few exceptional without get the higher rating.
-
Handguns because they were scarey things in those days, and "professional" skirmishers becaus they are better at it.
IIRC it was suggested that only the best archers and slingers should be (S), and javelinmen never better than (O) - since hte sormer outrange the later, but Phil is still fairly strongly wedded to javelinment being the proper counter to archers and slinger.
-
I was surprised that the Early German skirmishers that follow and give rear support to Early German cavalry are not Ps(S). They seem to have been a chosen bunch. In the old WRG 6th Edition these followers were upgraded to Irregular "B" for this reason.
-
They still may be
If you look at the Ps in the current Book 3 draft - then there are additions to the Appendix IV (S) and (I)
At the moment with the freeze looming ever near and only looking as far as list 28 in the draft Book 3
We have the following additional Ps (S)
Basque javelinmen - in Middle Frankish and Carolingian
Javelinmen in Hindu Indian, Breton and Arab Conquest
Appendix IV is to some degree a guideline it will be superceded by the army list books when they appear
Book 2 is next up so get your evidence ready if you feel strongly - Note however that the classification for Ps(S) and Ps(I) has altered since DBM -
Being Ps (I) ain't that bad especially if all you are going to do is support your Cav - only 1AP rather than 3AP :)
Regards
David Mather
-
OK, understood that the Appendix is an interim measure.
Also understood that Ps(I) would be more cost effective.
However, there is a strong part of me that wants to use the Army Lists as a way of understanding the ancient world, instead of just conjuring up a good competition army. I know that I should be looking at source material and not wargames if I want to do that, but in practice 30 years on and off of war games has probably given me a much better understooding of history, and ability to understand history, than the average popular history book.
As an aside, it is a shame that the rules are probably set in stone for a while now. If I had discovered about DBMM before it had gone to press I would have suggested introducing new categories of Ps(F) and Ax(F) specifically for infantry that run with cavalry/knights and chariots - probably "double based" in DBMM terms though I don't like physically doubling basing troops because it makes them too game specific. You could argue for the extra speed in good going on the basis of sometimes riding double or hanging onto the backs of chariots, and just having to be extremely fit to keep up with your boss on the horse in front or get to hear about it later! It would also put them nicely between the (S) and (I) categories. But too late now I suppose *sniff!*
-
I wouldn't worry - the chance of having got them accepted would have been pretty infinitely small.