"Bowmen in DBM" Topic

Hey TMP! Have a quick question about Regular Bow (S). I noticed in the rules it says they are 7 points for a stand, is this a misprint? For irregular, the jump is one point per grade (I=3, O=4, S=5), but for regular troops the grading is (I=4, O=5, S=7, X=7).

This doesn't make sense to me. There is no reason in my eyes to have it jump by 2 points when in every other case it jumps by 1 point. As well, when compared to X bowmen we see the same price, yet X bowmen are S against mounted and have spear combat factors!

Am I missing an eratta somewhere where it addresses this? Would there be any consideration by the community to change the cost? Thanks!

Stanton

For the QK on Kn I would imagine

Yes that would make sense… If the irregular bow (S) was 6 points as well, but it isn't, it's 5. The quick kill ability of bow (S) has no added benefit when concerning regular or irregular.

The movement and manoeuvrability of Reg Bw(S) over Irreg Bw(S) is quite significant – I play Early Samurai and 100YW English and there are things that the samurai have difficulty with that are less of a hassle with the English.

In the first edition of DBMM Reg Bw(S) is 6 points. Not sure about DBMM 2.0 though.

Are we talking DBMM here or DBM?

Cost in DBMM v2.1 is 7 and 5 respectively, but in DBMM Reg Bw get +2 but Irr Bw only get +1. Plus there are manoeuvre differences.

JohnG

I think he's talking DBM. In versions prior to 3.0 Reg Bw(S) were probably worth 7 (many had to be mounted which further increased cost) but barely (hence Samuri were the more popular "bow" choice).

When DBM 3.0 appeared it made Reg Bw(S) much worse but with no lower of points – hence English HYW disappeared.

If you've got a copy just go back to using DBM 2.2.

TomT

Thanks Tom T for explaining the situation. Unfortunately I don't have access to DBM 2.2. I was hoping to get the eratta in point cost from 7 to 6 added to the DBM 3.3 official update.

I think the 2.2 rules are available free online somewhere and the changes can be seen as different coloured text, red and blue I believe, so one can see what changed from 2.2, I think not having it in front of me right now.

But yes some point costs can be odd looking, mine is the Lh cost difference between O and S, (s) always looked too expensive for M, I know they are 6 ap in MM but are impetuous as well I believe.

Agreed, LH is another good example of an unwarranted points hike. Spear S was another good example and the guys who made DBM 3.3 reduced their cost to 6 points which I find appropriate.

I think both LH(S) and Reg Bw(S) are worth their points. Reg Sp(S) and Reg Bd(S) or (O) weren't, so we reduced them.

Late Medieval English armies certainly haven't disappeared, and the Wars of the Roses version was one of the most successful under DBM 3.2. The HYW army always suffered from a shortage of cheap "filler", and that's still the case.

DBM 3.2 is on Phil Barker's WRG site (there's a link from my site at jglwargames.com ). I don't think 2.2 is around, but there are some old DBM versions on the WRG site.

Thanks for weighing in John. Fair enough with your explanations. I am fine with their points cost at 7 AP if all I have to take is 10 like in the WotR lists, but as you have pointed out the structure of HYW has lead me to avoid that list like the plague.

I'm really excited for the DBMM 2.1 WotR list, they upgraded the levy troops to irregular bow (S) and irregular blade (O). I've had great success with WotR so far.

Maverick,
I forgot to mention, the British have a different style of play where they, over there believe Bd and Sp(s) need point changes but not Lh(s) – that would only really effect a few armies, especially when Lh only has a combat factor of 2 anyway.
Also over there they play the 25mm games on a much smaller area than we do here, and allow all rear support's specifically mentioned in army lists except the Sparatan sp(o) being able to support Sp(s) , we here allow it and haven't seen a single one yet or any more Roman armies being played than before the Bd point changes.
I'm not saying it's wrong in anyway it's just a question of different playing styles that's all.

WOR had cheap filler essential in DBM 3.0.

HYW did not (except Pike(X)). Though I did win my last national championship by using lots of Knight(I) and minimizing Bw(S) in the army – basically cheap Knights and it carried the day but that was 3.0 where cheap was good.

Next year lots of massive Ireg/(I) armies started showing up and swamped me.

To get Blade(S) English had to buy Knight(I) and dismount wasting a point. Likewise many Bow had to take mounts (useless) also wasting a point – it began to add up. A workable army in DBM 2.0 but useless in 3.0 (except for the cheap knight trick – which only worked once).

Better in DBMM where there was a concentrated effort to make filler troops less important.

In all case I would just go with DBA 3.0 Big Battle (or A Game of Fire and Ice – even better). You get the advantages of DBMM but with out the rule overhead. Both DBA 3.0 and A Game of Fire and Ice are excellent systems for the HYW.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games