Thanks for posting this - it showed an nice example of the recoil (and then no recoil destruction by those Elephant fighting Psiloi). Also interesting to so the "flank by an extra smidgen to get the overlap". Also you don't overlap and -1 on the Psilio. Lots of little things that I didn't immediately pick up from reading the rules. Always something to learn from watching these videos. Thanks
I really love your camps, inspired me to make a nice one. When looking at the rules Phil wants the camps to be temporary unless an edifice. Do you call the gates and forts an edifice, or does it not matter if they look cool.
Please... Can the reaction or defensive shooting of the archers be at medium and long distance or only at short distance (adjacent)? thank you very much.
Bow/Crossbow/Longbow units can shoot every bound if they did not move than one BW. They can do that up to their max range. Keep in mind there are none of those unit types in this particular matchup.
Great series of videos! But I have a general question. I have been playing DBA 1.0 for years and, despite all the "Barkerese", enjoyed it quite a lot. As many others, I had some grudges against 2.0 and 2.2, but somehow got used to it (though I've never even tried to understand the infamous BUA rules) since the changes were not that fundamental. Now, it doesn't look that 3.0 made it any more "streamlined", quite on the contrary... All these "fast" and "solid", "double based" elements, who does or does not provide rear support, "0 PIPs on the first bound", cumbersome set-up instructions? So my question is: since you've been playing it a lot, in what way DBA 3.0 is better than its predecessors? What do I miss?
I have been playing DBA since late 2004 so I am very familiar with 2.2 and 3.0. I can't comment on earlier versions but 3.0 is vastly superior to 2.2 BECAUSE of all of the different troop types. IMO the troop types add flavor and not complexity. Most of the confusion in DBA comes from the conforming/moving into contact rules sunce it is a very abstract game at times.
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively Thanks Tony! I will certainly give it a try: the reference sheets from the Society of Ancients seem to make it easier than it sounds :-)
It is a good way to get lots of battles that actually finish done in a day. Also for those of us that paint it allows a lot of different variety of armies to build since you only need 30 or so figures.
I have both of these armies (I'm a big Carthage fan); the figures look like Essex Miniatures from the UK; am I right? (They look identical to mine - I'm in the UK)
One question- why do you group move both the front ranks and the back ranks for 1 PIP? Shouldn't that be 1 PIP for just the front rank as a group and than the second PIP for the back rank if they do not move as a column?
Hello Tony, unfortunately your Psiloi-move at 24:33 was not a legal move, because your interpenetrating element wasn't starting lined-up behind (!) the element which was to be interpenetrated. Regards, Ronald
They did start lined up before interpenetrating the unit. That is how we have seen it played by every one in every show we have been to in the US and our reading of the rules as well. However, feel free to play however you like.
Love the figures, but I think that the move where you move up to side-to-side contact e.g. at 24:11 is not legal. You would still get the overlap bonus if you were corner to corner. You can get an mutual overlap if after outcome move you find yourself side to side, but when moving into contact you have to "line-up", and this can only be done corner to corner
Check out moving into contact with the enemy CONDITION D. "The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge into contact with enemy always results in combat. At the end of the bound's movement phase the contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-up with an enemy element, either; (a) in full mutual front edge contact, (b) in full front edge to rear edge contact, or (c) in front edge to side edge contact with front comers in contact, or (d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap." We do this throughout many videos and in the many tournaments we have played in the south and north of the US including at Historicon. It is also consistent with the 2.2 version of DBA and its derivatives.
@@TonyAguilarFigure-ativelyI can see why it is necessary in this case, because, unlike 2.2, in 3.0 you cannot overlap Psiloi or Scythed Chariots in the conventional corner-to-corner style (as per Figure 9a). In 3.0 you have to rely on mutual edge contact. But can you legally move into contact this way? Could you, for instance, move into an overlap with an enemy element when you had no contact with the friendly element in front edge contact? For example, say a Blade moved into side contact with the last 15mm of an enemy Elephant side edge which was already in close combat to the front by, say, a friendly Spear element. The Blade would have finished its move "in overlap" by the definition of being in mutual side-edge to side-edge contact with the Elephant but with no contact to the Spear it is supposed to be assisting, that is the logical conclusion of how the rule could be interpreted, but I don't think I would like it if an opponent tried it! (Certainly in DBMM it is not allowed in that you can only move into contact with a "front edge or front corner" not a side edge). I would say that the key words are "lined up" and allow you only to use a tactical move to go corner-to-corner as per Figure 9a. The mutual side edge thing is there to account for those times that elements have slid past one another owing to outcome moves, not a means of getting into contact. That would be the "conservative" interpretation of the rules. Otherwise, the whole point of the new rule giving Psiloi (presumably because they are in a fluid formation effectively without proper flanks) and Scythed Chariots (because they are just ploughing forward at speed without regard to their flanks) relief from overlaps can be too easily by-passed.
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively I know, and that is what I assume my Spear has done to the enemy Elephant before the friendly Blade moves to "overlap" it by moving into side contact of the last 15mm of its base in the example I gave. I think that the element that is moving to overlap has to go corner-to-corner. The mutual contact rule is there to cover the results of outcome moves.
@@llewevI will take a look at it again, but the time stamp you said at 24.11 does not match with a move. Please revise so I can see what particular situation you are describing.
Always a pleasure to watch your videos
Great battle. Thanks for the detailed explanations - they are very helpful in picking up the rules.
Love the video's guys . A great help in learning the game . Keep em coming
Thanks for posting this - it showed an nice example of the recoil (and then no recoil destruction by those Elephant fighting Psiloi). Also interesting to so the "flank by an extra smidgen to get the overlap". Also you don't overlap and -1 on the Psilio. Lots of little things that I didn't immediately pick up from reading the rules. Always something to learn from watching these videos. Thanks
There are lots of bits to digest in these rules. They are certainly not as simple as they seem. :)
I love this camera angle ! a bit more than your more recent games, its easier to see what is going on.
I agree. I really need someone who is camera savvy. We can't seem to get the same angle even though our equipment hasn't changed.
Thanks Tony and Mitch! The video was entertaining and informative.
Glad you enjoyed.
Nice Tony! Keep on the good work.
You have got my subscription, wonderfully done.
Great video. Good combination of tactical and rules training.
Great stuff, keep them coming.
I never realized that first bound every move was 1 pip
Nice looking game, splendid lines of battle and camps!
Thank you, Phil R.
Brilliant. Keep em coming please :)
We got plenty now.
Buena partida e aprendido algunas cosas gracias
I really love your camps, inspired me to make a nice one. When looking at the rules Phil wants the camps to be temporary unless an edifice. Do you call the gates and forts an edifice, or does it not matter if they look cool.
Doesn't matter. I make them based on what fits for the look of the army.
Best thing about Carthaginian army is also the worst; that's the variety of troop types: when the various troop types work together they win,....
Interesting game! Good to see Carthaginians do well.
A minor miracle. :)
Please... Can the reaction or defensive shooting of the archers be at medium and long distance or only at short distance (adjacent)? thank you very much.
Bow/Crossbow/Longbow units can shoot every bound if they did not move than one BW. They can do that up to their max range. Keep in mind there are none of those unit types in this particular matchup.
I am referring to the archers of the non-phased player or defending player, can he do it ?
Great series of videos! But I have a general question. I have been playing DBA 1.0 for years and, despite all the "Barkerese", enjoyed it quite a lot. As many others, I had some grudges against 2.0 and 2.2, but somehow got used to it (though I've never even tried to understand the infamous BUA rules) since the changes were not that fundamental. Now, it doesn't look that 3.0 made it any more "streamlined", quite on the contrary... All these "fast" and "solid", "double based" elements, who does or does not provide rear support, "0 PIPs on the first bound", cumbersome set-up instructions? So my question is: since you've been playing it a lot, in what way DBA 3.0 is better than its predecessors? What do I miss?
I have been playing DBA since late 2004 so I am very familiar with 2.2 and 3.0. I can't comment on earlier versions but 3.0 is vastly superior to 2.2 BECAUSE of all of the different troop types. IMO the troop types add flavor and not complexity. Most of the confusion in DBA comes from the conforming/moving into contact rules sunce it is a very abstract game at times.
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively Thanks Tony! I will certainly give it a try: the reference sheets from the Society of Ancients seem to make it easier than it sounds :-)
I've never really seen the appeal of DBA until I saw this report. Now I'm going to investigate it.
It is a good way to get lots of battles that actually finish done in a day. Also for those of us that paint it allows a lot of different variety of armies to build since you only need 30 or so figures.
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively I'm thinking I'll use it to introduce my gf to the hobby
I have both of these armies (I'm a big Carthage fan); the figures look like Essex Miniatures from the UK; am I right? (They look identical to mine - I'm in the UK)
My Polybian army is made up of all Old Glory. Mitch has some Essex for sure. He does not paint so he purchases his army at shows.
One question- why do you group move both the front ranks and the back ranks for 1 PIP? Shouldn't that be 1 PIP for just the front rank as a group and than the second PIP for the back rank if they do not move as a column?
A group can have several ranks as long as they are all aligned with corners touching.
Tony Aguilar ou. Did not know that. Thanks. :)
Hello Tony,
unfortunately your Psiloi-move at 24:33 was not a legal move, because your interpenetrating element wasn't starting lined-up behind (!) the element which was to be interpenetrated.
Regards, Ronald
They did start lined up before interpenetrating the unit. That is how we have seen it played by every one in every show we have been to in the US and our reading of the rules as well. However, feel free to play however you like.
What are the print outs on the field?
Bryan Letcher they are available on the link that can be found here: ruclips.net/video/-4kXhnZ9Hng/видео.html
Solid foot? Not spears anymore?
john shaw 4Sp Spears ARE Solid Foot.
Love the figures, but I think that the move where you move up to side-to-side contact e.g. at 24:11 is not legal. You would still get the overlap bonus if you were corner to corner. You can get an mutual overlap if after outcome move you find yourself side to side, but when moving into contact you have to "line-up", and this can only be done corner to corner
Check out moving into contact with the enemy CONDITION D.
"The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge into contact with enemy always results in combat. At the end of the bound's movement phase the contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-up with an enemy element, either; (a) in full mutual front edge contact, (b) in full front edge to rear edge contact, or (c) in front edge to side edge contact with front comers in contact, or (d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap."
We do this throughout many videos and in the many tournaments we have played in the south and north of the US including at Historicon. It is also consistent with the 2.2 version of DBA and its derivatives.
@@TonyAguilarFigure-ativelyI can see why it is necessary in this case, because, unlike 2.2, in 3.0 you cannot overlap Psiloi or Scythed Chariots in the conventional corner-to-corner style (as per Figure 9a). In 3.0 you have to rely on mutual edge contact. But can you legally move into contact this way? Could you, for instance, move into an overlap with an enemy element when you had no contact with the friendly element in front edge contact? For example, say a Blade moved into side contact with the last 15mm of an enemy Elephant side edge which was already in close combat to the front by, say, a friendly Spear element. The Blade would have finished its move "in overlap" by the definition of being in mutual side-edge to side-edge contact with the Elephant but with no contact to the Spear it is supposed to be assisting, that is the logical conclusion of how the rule could be interpreted, but I don't think I would like it if an opponent tried it! (Certainly in DBMM it is not allowed in that you can only move into contact with a "front edge or front corner" not a side edge). I would say that the key words are "lined up" and allow you only to use a tactical move to go corner-to-corner as per Figure 9a. The mutual side edge thing is there to account for those times that elements have slid past one another owing to outcome moves, not a means of getting into contact. That would be the "conservative" interpretation of the rules. Otherwise, the whole point of the new rule giving Psiloi (presumably because they are in a fluid formation effectively without proper flanks) and Scythed Chariots (because they are just ploughing forward at speed without regard to their flanks) relief from overlaps can be too easily by-passed.
@@llewev you can only ove into the side ovelap situation if another unit has already made contact with this unit first.
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively I know, and that is what I assume my Spear has done to the enemy Elephant before the friendly Blade moves to "overlap" it by moving into side contact of the last 15mm of its base in the example I gave. I think that the element that is moving to overlap has to go corner-to-corner. The mutual contact rule is there to cover the results of outcome moves.
@@llewevI will take a look at it again, but the time stamp you said at 24.11 does not match with a move. Please revise so I can see what particular situation you are describing.