Appendix IV?

[loki223]

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.

[loki223]

Help please....lol

[DaveMather]

"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

[loki223]

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?

[DaveMather]

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/

[loki223]

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.

[DaveMather]

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

[loki223]

I took the description of (I) as missing any statment about shields as purposfully ommitting it.

[Aloysius the Gaul]

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!

[loki223]

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.

[Hammy]

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

[loki223]

lol. to funny.

[loki223]

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

[Aloysius the Gaul]

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.

[Barritus]

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).