"DBMM Rules And Army Lists" Topic

All the new army lists for DBMM are now available on Amazon.

Even if you do not play DBMM, these must be the most well researched and plagiarised army lists for the ancient period.

But only in the UK

Even if you do not play DBMM, these must be the most well researched and plagiarised army lists for the ancient period.

I believe "Tactical Ancient Armies" were the first serious ancient wargame's army lists, published by Milgamex in 1977, for WRG 5th edition armies. The book contained almost 150 lists. They had quite a nice format, with four unit availibity categories: required, standard, limited, and special.
At the time the only WRG army lists were the few in the purple primer.

WRG's red book was also published in 1977, both in April, I wonder what the back-story was here.

I have a memory of old timers saying that before this date comps published their own 'legal' lists, some knocked out by PB and his crew.

David F Brown

They are nigh on the same as the first MM army lists with some minor changes.
For instance the Visigothic list is now called Gothic, that's about the flavour of the changes, all that input by a lot of different people and nothing really changed, still has a bunch of typos according to the people on the MM yahoo list.

I've heard similar comments about the similarity between the 1st and 2nd editions from two gamers who have bought the new lists. I play DBM occasionally and use the DBMM lists and I am wondering if it is worthwhile getting the new ones if only a limited number of lists have changed. I don't want to risk breaching copyright but does anyone know of an on-line list of the lists that have changed – if you see what I mean?

Even if you do not play DBMM, these must be the most well researched and plagiarised army lists for the ancient period.

How would you convert DBMM lists into a 'real-world' format, with armour, morale and weaponry?

Ashill I think someone is doing an errata of the changes, will try and find out and let you know. I don't think it breaks copyright but am not an expert.

It's basically a reprint from what I can see. All that talk about changing things with all that input, even from Duncan Head, and nothing, even has typos still, Sx(s) was thought to be a new troop type but turns out it's meant to be Ax(s).

. Not sure why it took so long in that is the case. At least they are back in print if anything needs replacing, as the print quality was not that great to begin with. My original DBM book 2 is a lot older and has been used more than my MM book 2 which is falling apart, may just replace that.

I know another list someone is Lh(s) in there own home list but is only Lh(o) in others where they are acting as mercs,

I too would be highly interested to see the changes. I also only play DBM but use the DBMM lists, and if there are only minor changes it's not really worth my money buying 4 new books.

Apparently the Welsh list in Book 3 the bowmen are now Bw(s) for some unknown reason, how they are as good as English long bowmen no one knows why.

Will let you guys know what the changes are, but as I said from what they have been saying on the MM yahoo list it isn't much at all which has got some a trifle unhappy over there.

The Welsh BwS aren't as good as the English BwS. The latest rules have differentiated the combat outcomes for irregular BwS and regular BwS. The cost differential has changed so the regulars are more expensive now.

The earliest W RG army lists that I have is dated April 1977. It's the one with the puzzled Viking on the cover, and the DBA cover Roman on the inside front cover . The cover says for use with the rules 3000 BC to 1250 A.D. there are 48 armies given. From the text in the introduction it seems clear these were the first ones that Phil produced.

The army lists in the book pictured above by Arnold Hendrix was prepared, I believe, for his own rules. Milgamex-Ancient Warfare:Wargame Rules for Entire Battles from Earliest History

Read about them here.
link
They were Arnold's attempt to simplify the W RG rules of that time, 1975.

Phil's purple book did have some army list and it was published in 1975.

Bw(s) is Bw(s).

Bw(s) is Bw(s)

Not in DBMM it isn't.

In regard to the "Tactical Ancient Armies", they were done for WRG 5th. I have a copy. I used them when I played WRG 6th. Looking back they are somewhat dated, but then you can say that about any set of army lists that haven't come out in the recent decade.

I also have a copy of Mr Hendrix's Ancient Warfare. These actually have the army lists at the back of the rules, including Middle Earth lists. They have similar format (Compulsory troops, % ratios, etc) as the Tactical Ancient Armies lists, but have the required Stats for his rules, rather than the 5th/6th statistics.

I'll also say that I still hold the same opinion that I wrote in Bob's link. Were I inclined to go back to a unit based set of rules like 6th edition, I've be seriously thinking of using Ancient Warfare instead. It was far ahead of it's time with the mechanisms it used.

Cheers,
JohnG

"Bw(s) is Bw(s)."

Irregular get +1. Regular get +2.

This was done largely to allow the Welsh to be S but not to overpower them.

Haven't read the rules in a very long time, not since they first came out. But I do find it interesting that some MM players are talking about ignoring one of Barkers new troop types, namely the bow X in front with Bw(I) behind that.

Swampster:

It seems DBMM has at last dealt with the problem of Irr Bow being as good as Reg. It made the old Bw(S) Samuri too powerful as they were "cheap" Irrg but shot just as well as massed disciplined Bow units.

Interesting change – I've been advocating something like it for years.

Not sure though that DBMM can withstand any more complexity did Phil also at last cut some fat out of other areas of the rules?

TomT

The impetuous movement rules are generally considered much simpler.

Maverick here's a link to the MM yahoo page thread where Duncan Head ( who is a very knowledgeable and respected person in the ancient gaming community as well as the MM crowd), is doing a list of errors and changes, only has book one done so far, haven't read the errors and changes myself yet.
link

The impetuous movement rules are generally considered much simpler.

Yes it is.

Don't get me wrong, DBMM is not a "simple" set of rules at all. I would never recommend DBMM to someone who only intends to play a handful of ancients games a year. DBA is the set for that and Big Battle DBA does a very good job of massed battles.

But for me, DBMM gives the best replay-ability and narrative from all the rules I've played. I like the complexity. It allows both a "set up and smash troops together" type of game, and one with sneakiness and skullduggery (for example you deploy with two commands on the table. Your opponent believes you are flank marching and re-deploys a command to face the on-coming flank march. But you have instead used a "delayed" command and your command comes on your own side and you quick march up and take him on the flank.).

I also play DBA. ¿porqué no los dos?

JohnG

Apparently one of the QRS sheets also has errors in it.

Glad they worked on the Impeteous rules – I remember thinking they needed a lot of work in my DBMM2.0 playtest days.

But there was so much noise on the DBMM "playtest" list that it was hard to get heard. The smaller group used for DBA3.0 worked much better. I liked DBMM on priniple as I always preffered DBM (prior to DBM3.0) to DBA. But honestly feel that DBA3.0 dealt with many of the same issues as DBMM but in a much more elegant manner. Frankly DBMM would benefit greatly from using the DBA3.0 solutions rather than the intricate DBMM versions.

Look forward though to seeing the latest effort.

TomT

Thanks aynsley683 I'll check it out!

DBMM book 2 errors and changes are up from Duncan Head-
link

People, remember, Ansley is as opposed to DBMM, as I've seen, as he plays DBM and only has negative comments about DBMM. There are very few mistakes, but Duncan lists everything. The main purpose of what Duncan is doing is to give the differences in the old lists, vs the newly released ones.

Lou

People, here are a list of a ' few' more errors in book one so far
link
I'm not opposed to MM Drusilla unless you can show me where I've done so in this thread, as I've said constantly in the past I don't care who plays what it's just the 'well this is far superior to other ancient games as it flows much better as its so elegant compared to others' comments from MM players.
Even you have to admit the list books still contain errors from the first editions?

Drusilla I have never made personal negative comments about anyone or what they play , and that sir is unsporting of you.
Also remind me again who asked the convention staff to return the tables you were going to use for your MM games at Lancaster and told you who had them please?

Book three errors and changes, I also find it interesting that Duncan himself says some of the changes seem dubious.
link

LOL…

Aynsley683…

Funny how folks have a different opinion of you than you have of yourself.

Life is strange that way.

Joe Collins

Joe,
I think some people forget all we are doing is pushing little dollies around on a table, it's not world breaking. No rule set is perfect or we'd all be playing it. And I'm well aware DBM isn't perfect, it has issues and don't mind when others say so.
We all have different tastes but apparently with some you are not allowed to say if and why you don't like something or even have an public opinion.
Aynsley

Keep up the good fight, may DBM never die!

I like DBM (wouldn't mind trying DBMM) and have the original DBMM Army Lists. I'm having an issue with Yahoo. I'm mostly interested in book 3 and Baltic armies in book 4. Is it worth getting the new lists or not? Any help appreciated.

I'm in the same situation. From what I've seen so far I don't think it's worth buying the new lists if you have the old ones. The real changes I'm looking for are in book 4 which I don't think anyone has compared yet. I'll be highly disappointed if the Scots Common pike aren't classified as regular after 1306.

I don't think it's worth it, Duncan head is compiling a list of changes, errors and problems , book 4 should be soon, he has done the first 3.
Did you have any specific lists in mind as I can have a quick look for you and let you know.
Maverick I will take a quick look at the scots list later and let you know.

Maverick,
The scotts common only has one change that I can find, the feudal archers:on ponies Irr mtd Bw(o) or on foot Bw(o) 0-4, gets moved down the page to after 1305 and the amount changes to 0-1 per Kn(o).

Sorry to say no mention of the pike being regular after 1306.

I'm going to be making up an errata list of changes from Duncan's for my guys here to put in their old MM lists, as the errors and changes aren't that different.

The written paragraph looks the same but didn't look through it closely. Anything else you need me to look at?

That's highly disappointing and I probably won't be buying the new book then, greatly appreciated for checking Aynsley. Only other medieval armies I have are feudal English/HYW English/WotR English.

The feudal English only has one tiny change, the upgrade levy spearmen w north Welsh foot Irr Pk(f) got changed from 0-8 to 0-9, I suppose that's to reflect the fact they fight in 3 ranks (at least in m not sure about mm) so you'll have 3 ranks of 3 rather than 2 of 3 with one under powered file of 2 elements.

The HYW English lost the Bw(s) in the main list it got moved to a before of after 13 something and some other minor Bw(s) numbers changed from 1-2 to 1-3 per Kn something or the other way around, apart from some Bw(s) numbers etc. The list picked up some letters after some troops, X can only be used in England not France and vie ser versa.
Not touching the Tudor list, too many things to check

I have a few armies from that book. If you could check the Burmese, Early Tang and Nan-Chao that would be great. Thanks.

Catavar,
I just looked at Duncan's list of book 3, he makes no mention of Burmese or early Tang so one assumes no changes.
And the Nan-Chao just some terrain changes, 'DH or O' no longer compulsory.
So no need to change anything in your armies.

Wow, they changed the longbow men in the Feudal English and War of the Roses lists from Irregular Bow (o) to Irregular Bow (s)… That's huge. Enough of a change for me to at least buy book 4.

Don't listen to some, as the number of mistakes is minimal.

Most of the changes have added excellent nuances to the armies. When someone who doesn't even play DBMM, tells you not to buy the lists, take with a grain of salt what they state.

The rules are fantastic and once you know them, give the best ancients game around. IMHO…………

If you have played and liked DBM, like myself, you will love DBMM………

Lou

Maverick,
I didn't notice the Scott's common army the pike are still the same as the first MM list ie, they still become Reg. Pk(o) after 1513.

As Drusilla says I'm sure some lists have become better with 'excellent nuances' ( which not one single person has praised on the yahoo MM list ) but when people on the MM list themselves start calling changes 'dubious', with new troop types that aren't cover in the rules no one is sure of how to treat (the new Bw(X) with Bw(I) behind) , basic misprints with the Roman general Sulla in AD not BC is a bit obvious, I never said they had many errors just (as Duncan head himself says as well ) that they had errors, then again it must be because I'm a heretic where you get the MM view of the world us good everyone else bad.

My personal advice is to just wait for Duncan's errata of changes and errors of all the books, that will save people a lot of money for basic little changes, which some don't seem to like being mentioned for some reason, oh well takes all sorts I suppose.