DBA Army List References

[valentinianvictor]

That's ok for friendly games Holly, but I doubt competition organisers would allow home brew lists because they don't have time to check the references and sources for home brew lists.

[Imperial Dave]

agreed Adrian. Not much of a competition man myself but there was a time when most conventions/shows I attended always had empty tables for turn up and play games against random opponents and then this was doable.

I am sure I would get very short shrift from people if I turned up with 'home made' lists at competitions these days!

[Mick Hession]

The point is that army lists are there to give a framework and that it shouldnt discourage people from doing their own research and refining lists.

Indeed, though as Adrian has noted self-researched lists are usually not permitted in tournaments (but then the hobby is broader than the competition circuit).

One problem with self-researched lists is interpretation of sources. Way back when the only published lists were WRG 5th edition I recall a clubmate using a self-researched Irish list c.1170 with Welsh horse-archers, impetuous Viking wedges and triple-armed (staff-sling, axe and javelin) Irish warriors, for all of which he could supply references in primary sources that, if interpreted in a particularly generous way, could justify his list.

Cheers
Mick   

[Erpingham]

I'm not a competition gamer, so self made lists work well enough for me.  However, Mick's example does show the weakness of non-peer reviewed lists.  My own preference in other people's lists is that they allow legitimate difference of interpretation but demand consistency.  So, you can have your 8th century Vikings as loose order warriors or you can have them as close order shieldwalls but not mix them in the same army.

[valentinianvictor]

I don't think homebrew lists are much of a problem with rules such as the DBx series as there is not the emphasis on weapons, armour etc that other rulesets have, so you wouldn't really get killer armies appearing because of this.

[Mick Hession]

I don't think homebrew lists are much of a problem with rules such as the DBx series as there is not the emphasis on weapons, armour etc that other rulesets have, so you wouldn't really get killer armies appearing because of this.

No, you'd get killer armies for other reasons. For example, in DBM(M) weapons, armour etc are abstracted to things like grading factors so it's generally a good thing to have some superior troops in a list. A good command structure is helpful, as is regular baggage, and a wide choice of element types to allow you to optimise army design against multiple potential opponents. In the past, many (Phil Barker would possibly say most) proposals to change the published DBMM army lists could be construed as attempts to make armies more "gameable" (though not those emanating from SOA members I find, which tend to have greater concern for accuracy than effectiveness).         

Fact is, all rules systems have some quirks that can be exploited to optimise army design and homebrew lists that haven't been through some sort of peer review are liable to be looked at critically by potential opponents.   

And if you disagree, I'd like to play you with my impeccably researched Late Neolithic European list, which has regular generals and baggage (high level of organisation indicated by monumbers like Stonehenge) and relies particuarly heavily on archers graded as Bw(S) (unusually powerful bows indicated by the extinction of megafauna)  

Cheers Mick 

[aligern]

Actually the bows are supposed to be flat section compound bows and are very powerful. The stone tips may not be up to bodkin effect, but then no one is wearing armour .
Roy