If you have an idea you would like to see included in this page please
email it to Mike Young at michaelyoung@blueyonder.co.uk.
Include the words "DBM Heresy" in the title. I would also be interested
in feedback on this page or on the effects of playtesting the ideas.
You can vote on the changes to the rules, or comment on them by
clicking on the "submit vote" button.
If you wish to try to playtest any of these ideas then print off either the whole page or the index and show it to your opponent before the start of the game. Get him to mark those ideas he would be interested in using. Try to settle on a set of amendments you always use, irrespective of the army you are playing. Note that if you only want to use those ideas that favour your particular army, your opponent is unlikely to want to use them.
Do not reject and idea just because it is surrounded by other ideas you do not agree with, sift what you consider to be the dross for the gold. Remember to vote!
Don't forget to bookmark this page! .
Deployment and set up
No deployment within 6 of the rear of the table: Carl HollidayPIP Dicing
Leave Baggage out of commands: Michael Campbell
Specify that baggage may intermingle
Defender Sets Up Last by Dave EverettDowngrading the Advantages of Regulars: Phil BarkerTactical Factors
A regular C in C may specify one regular general to get the top score, and one to get the bottom.
A regular C in C only has the ability to swap his dice with a subordinate
A regular C in C may swap one dice, either with a lower scoring sub or with a higher scoring one
Regulars choose best of Two Williams
Hidden PIP dice: Rob BrennanFlank contacts do not destroy, but get an extra -1 tactical factor by Mike RutherfordRelative Troop Capability
Sp, Pk, Bd get -1 in close combat with enemy Sp, Pk, Bd by Rudi Harmse
- Elephants
Elephants are not destroyed if doubled by Heavy Infantry: Mike Young
(Elephants flee instead of being destroyed)
(Pi and Sp do not count ranks against El)
(Elephants are destroyed if doubled, but do not recoil on greater score)
(Troops do not count overlaps against El)
Elephants not pushed back by mounted troops: Mike Young- Knights
Cataphract Vulnerability from Flank and Rear: Mike Young
Non-Fast Knights or Camels cannot destroy LH by doubling them: Mike Young
(LH flee only from camels)
(LH flee only from Kn(X))- Warband
All Warband should be compulsory double based: Luke Ueda-Sarson
(Optional but still a point cheaper)
Warband (X) category: Luke Ueda-Sarson
Warband Less Effective in Bad Terrain: Luke Ueda-Sarson
Warband Recoil as Skirmishers: Mike Young- Auxilia
Ax(X) downgraded by only allowing 2nd rank against Kn or Cm:: Mike Young
Ax fight as skirmishers if one rank deep only Michael Campell- Bowmen
Superior Troops Shooting upgraded back to 2.2 capability: Mike Young
- Light Horse
LH(S) or LH(O) gain +1 for a 2nd Rank vs Cav or LH: Mike Young
Only LH(S) kill Ps on a higher score, other LH need to double them: Mike Young
Non-Fast Knights or Camels cannot destroy LH by doubling them: Mike Young
(LH flee only from camels)
(LH flee only from Kn(X))
LH(X) class
- Pikes
Pikes must be compulsory double based, but a double base is a point cheaper
- Double Based Troops
Plus 1 if shooting at double based troops
No Deployment within
6 inches of the table rear
Carl Holliday:
Rules ChangesJust as the current "deployable" area is limited with 6" margins on the sides, create a 6" margin at base table edges of each side. Allow only fortifications and troops inside them (or possibly baggage) to deploy in the rear six inchesComments and JustificationThis reduces the somewhat unrealistic "edge of the world" effect and gives more scope for outflanking. The increased deployment areas in 3.0 should mean that armies will not be over cramped if this rule is implemented. Flank marches may be more devastating as they could arrive in the rear 6 inches.
Rules ChangesBaggage is not allocated to commands, unless flank marching with an ally.Discussion
All baggage is stationary unless flank marching.One of the perennial arguments in DBM is whether baggage counts towards "intermingling" at deployment, i.e. are commands intermingled if troops from a different command are between the baggage and the other troops from the baggage's command? Alternate SuggestionsThe problem is solved if baggage is not in any commands!! Just put it down and defend it! Of course it then has to be stationary unless flank marching (no commands means no general to spend PIPs on it), but is mobile baggage really historical in the first place?
A possible alternative is to require all baggage to be on-table and
stationary - no flank marching baggage.Another alternative is to specify that baggage is immune from the intermingling rules.
Rules ChangesDuring deployment the defender sets up after the attacker, rather than before. The attacker still moves firstComments and JustificationIn DBM 3.0 the advantage is heavily with the attacker. This would serve to somewhat mitigate that advantage of the attacker
Rules ChangesA series of possible changes were discussed in the Session "After DBA" held at the Designing Military Conflict Simulations conference at Knuston Hall in July 2000. Suggestions included.Comments and Justificationa) A regular C in C may specify one regular general to always get the biggest dice score, and one always to get the smallest.
b) A regular C in C only has the ability to swap his dice with a subordinate.
c) A regular C in C only has the ability to swap one dice, either with a regular subordinate with a higher score or with a subordinate with a lower score.
A series of possible changes were discussed in the session "After DBA" held at the designing military Conflict Simulations course held at Knuston Hall in July 2000. At it Phil discussed some of the areas of the rules which he felt needed improvement. He was quite concerned that in DBM regular generals have too big an advantage over irregulars due to their dice swapping capability. The above suggestions were made, all of which tone down the effectiveness of Regular Generals. Your comments on the above are welcome.
Rules ChangesINSTEAD of regular (non allied) generals swapping dice they roll 2 die and choose the highest.Justification and commentsThis would make single reg CinC's and subordinates better, get rid of pip dumps (small regular commands whose sole job is to take the lowest pip dice), and save time as players would not have to waste time assigning pips.
Rules ChangesThe normal number and colour of PIP dice rolled each bound, however they are rolled by the opponent out of sight of the commander. A commander with regular dice then allocates them to commands on a highest die, lower die, lowest die basis (without any knowledge of the exact numbers rolled). The commander now starts to make moves with their troops, after each move the opponent must tell the commander if the last PIP on that die has expired.Justification and commentsThe commander continues to make moves until all PIP dice are exhausted.
For cases where more than one PIP is required to make a move/halt troops and there are insufficient PIPs remaining, the move must be converted to a cheaper, affordable, legal move or if this is not possible then the troops are not moved. This may be seen as a result of troops receiving garbled orders.
Some people feel that the current DBM PIP system, while elegant, fails to sufficiently limit a commander's ability to control their troops. Currently a commander is faced with a tactical situation and rolls PIP dice. The commander's task is then to optimize the use of the PIPs available rather than to prioritize the movement of their troops (although these are related). This leads to a lot of micro- management and certainty on the commander's behalf. By hiding the number of PIPs available the commander is forced to ruthlessly prioritize moves and complicated attacks dependent on multiple, sequential single element moves become very nerve-racking (and hence rather less commonplace).
Rules ChangesAn element in contact with a flank (not just overlapping) causes an additional -1 tactical factor, rather than generating a quick kill if pushed back. Rear contact prevents push back.Justification and comments
Troops in contact with Flanking troops follow up the recoiled .opponentThis rule will make the effects of flank attacks slightly less deadly, especially for troops with high combat factor, such as heavy infantry. It will prevent a single Psiloi in the flank of a phalanx which is fighting to its front being quite so devastating. It will make these troops much tougher to kill.Troops with lower combat factors are much more likely to be doubled, so this rule will make less difference to them.
This rule should probably not be applied to War Wagons, as they worry less about flank contact.
There may be strange effects with the mechanics if a flank contact follows up a recoil and the front contact does not (does the element turn to face or not?)
Rules ChangesTactical factors: -1 to Sp Pk or Bd in combat with Sp Pk or BdComments and JustificationThe aim of this rules change is to make Foot vs Foot Combat a bit faster, and hence more decisive. It will also mean that there will be greater incentive for DBM generals to use multiple lines of foot, whereas at the moment they only use single lines.
Rules Changes
Elephants not pushed back by mounted troops
Mike Young:
Rules ChangesIf Mounted except LH and Cm(X) score greater than but not double the elephant's score then this has no effect. If they score double then they push back the elephant.Justification and commentsWith the rules as they stand mounted troops can destroy Elephants if they attack so as to get overlaps. In practice this did not often occur in the ancient world as the mounted troops were reluctant to engage. Therefore it is proposed that Mounted troops lose their ability to push back elephants unless they double them.
To counter this argument it has been pointed out that there are some documented cases (from India) of elephant riders being killed by mounted troops (The death of Rama Raya at Talikota).
Rules ChangesSuperior (S) troops add +1 to all shooting outcomes, not just those when their total score is equal to the enemy (or one greater if superior). This is a reversion to the version 2.2 rules.Justification and CommentsIn version 3.0 of DBM the advantage of Superior troops was downgraded from that previously. Previously an enemy needed to dice 2 higher when facing S troops to double them than he did facing O troops. This was judged to be too much of an advantage. In version 3.0 the rules were subtly changed so that he needed to dice only one higher. (This was done by making the winner subtract one from his dice rather than making the loser add one).
The exception was missile troops shooting. In earlier versions of DBM superior troops needed to score one more. than ordinary troops did in order to kill their opponent by doubling. In version 3.0 there is no difference, and the only advantage superior troops have when shooting is a greater ability to push back the enemy.
Many players feel this reduction in effectiveness has gone too far, and wish to revert to the previous version of the rules.
Rules Changes
Kn(X) were specifically mentioned as being particularly vulnerable to flank or rear attack. This ensures (to some extent) that this is so.
This change proposes that all LH currently graded (F) become LH (O), and those that are now graded LH (O) should become LH (X); thus eliminating the LH (F) class but introducing a LH (X) class. LH (X) would be counted as LH (S) when in frontal combat with LH and CV, and as LH (O) in all other circumstances.
They would be (S) against LH because that is the situation in which their javelins and (usually) shields are most useful, and against Cv because while such types as Numidians couldn't beat equal numbers of Cv (O) like Italians, they weren't easily beaten by them either - a situation quite well modelled by factors of 3 (O) vs 2 (S).
AP cost would remain 3 AP for LH (I); LH (X) would be 5 AP, the same as those that are now graded as (O) (so somewhat improved in terms of AP value), LH (O) would be 4 AP (the same as they are now being LH (F), - better in combat, since they are graded (O), but not a fast as before; while LH (S) would have to be reduced to 6 AP. this is because while LH (S) are already somewhat overpriced (especially in numbers), they are too good for 6 AP, but under this scheme, their normal opponents, other LH, will have improved in combat ability relative to them, so 6 AP will be a realistic value.
Vote for the "whole package" but if you wish to comment on this, please feel free to do so.
Rules Changes
by Luke Ueda-Sarson
Rules Changes
All warband should be compulsorily double based (thus entitling them to be one point cheaper per double base).Comments and Justification
From what we know of Wb, they tended to fight in deep formations, "densely packed by forward pressure" as the rules put it. (Rules p. 6) The prospect of them fighting in a single element depth seems unrealistic. At the same time they would be cheaper as there is a discount of 1 AP for a DBE's rear rank "if specified by army list". (Rules p. 11) As Wb are popular in small numbers in otherwise non-Wb armies, but Wb armies themselves are regarded as next to useless, the 1 AP saving would help them without unduly assisting those armies which use only a few Wb. Aesthetically, it would encourage the "mini-diorama" effect possible with DBEs, especially with irregulars, or the placement of berserks in a rough wedge formation.Alternate suggestionThis does have the disadvantage of making Wb more vulnerable to missiles.
Allow Double based warband as optional, but allow a double based warband of the same grade to be one point cheaper. This will effectively allow players to choose if they want to implement the above rule or not (and will also serve whilst armies are rebased!)For more on warband see http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Warband.html .
by Luke Ueda-Sarson
Rules Changes
A new Troop Type should be made combining the representing those of Warband that are both fast moving and powerful hand to hand. Warband (X) is proposed to fill this gap. It costs 5 points, and is treated as (F) warband except that it counts (S) in hand-to-hand combat. They could be distinguished by placing four figures on an (F) base.Comments and Justification
Many armies have most of their Warband as (F) with the elite components represented by (S) troops. Because these are slower they cause co-ordination problems. The Wb(X) category could fill this gap. There are many historical instances of warband being damaged by missile troops. Galatians or any (S) warbands in armies predominantly (F) warband, should be this type.Alternate suggestion
Make warband (X) count as Fast against Ps LH and Cav in hand to hand also.For more on warband see http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Warband.html .
Rules ChangesFor more on warband see http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Warband.html .Warband do not count the -2 for bad or rough going. However they lose their quick kill against Foot in such terrain. Only (F) count a 2nd rank in rough going.Comments and JustificationThere is little justification for warband being considerably downgraded for operating in rough terrain. They fought in a less ordered manner than other foot, relying more on individual prowess than on cohesion. They also won numerous battles against heavier foot in difficult terrain. Therefore they should not receive a -2 for difficult terrain. The losing of their quick kill ability means that they may not be too powerful. Losing the ranks means they are still worse than Ax.
Rules ChangesIn the same way that Skirmishers may be pushed back by recoiling friends, even if they are not facing in the same direction, so Warband may be pushed back by recoiling warband.Comments and JustificationWarband are very vulnerable disorder by such wheezes such as kinked lines and wheeling troops. It is felt that this is too big a penalty, and that, being more disordered in the first place (in the same way that skirmishers are), they should not be as vulnerable as more rigid troops to angled recoils.Whilst the disadvantages these tactics can introduce by overlaps may be justified, it is felt that combining this with what is effectively a "quick kill" is somewhat overdoing things.
Rules Changes
Ax(X) have been upgraded considerably in DBM 3.0. This seems to have been overdone as Ax(X) are now very powerful. They are better than Roman Legionaries and equal to a 2 deep Spartan Hoplite phalanx (except they move faster and are unimpeded by difficult terrain). They can also beat Ax(S). We think it is implausible that the most powerful weapon in ancient times was a unarmoured man with a spear only. It is proposed that the pendulum has swung too far and that the power of Ax(X) be reduced somewhat (although they are still better than version 2.2).
Rules Changes
There's always been something wrong with the auxilia class - these guys are supposed to be able to be "heavy skirmishers", but get crushed by any "real" heavy infantry without too much bother.The v3.0 change that allows Ax to fight 2 deep allows us to think of differentiating between "auxilia" that are skirmishing and those that are fighting in close order. So a player would have a choice - either fight 2 deep as "heavy" infantry, or 1 deep as skirmishers.
Rules Changes
There are instances when light cavalry close and fight toe-to-toe with the enemy. These are usually LH(S) types. (Huns and Mongols are often recorded as being ready to "mix it" fairly frequently). These LH seem to have the ability to fight either in close formation or as skirmishers. (as Ax are meant to??)Also the v3.0 changes mean that LH(S) is now a very expensive troop type for what they are. This idea may also help to partially redress this balance.
Rules Changes
This will make Psiloi screens (especially if double ranked and (O)) much more of a hindrance to LH.
Note that Light Horse cannot kill Psiloi on a higher score in DBA.
This rule may also compensate for large difference in Points between LH(S)
and LH(F) or (O) under version 3.0 of the rules, where it is often thought
that LH(S) are now no longer cost effective.
Rules Changes
Pikes were always used in deep formations, (at least 8 deep). But there are various unrealistic tactics that are used in DBM such as deploying them in a single rank as a screen against mounted troops. It is felt that this is implausible. It is also felt that double basing would more adequately represent the rigidity of pike blocks. To counteract these problems it is proposed that all pikes be deployed double based. As a compensation for this the pikes are given a -1 on their points cost. It is felt that a -2 reduction would be a bit too generous, making 2 ranks of Pk(O) cheaper than a single rank of Sp(S).
Rules Changes
One of the worst disadvantages of double based troops is that they are very vulnerable to shooting, taking casualties twice as fast as single based troops. This correction evens out the balance. It may well be especially needed if the ideas for compulsory double basing of Warband and Pikes are taken up. It also makes Bw(X) a bit better in a shooting duel, probably a good thing.