DBA 2.

0 System Study

An analysis on the system problems and needed clarifications

Edition 1

April 2001

Jerboa
 DBA 2.0 system study

An analysis on the system problems and needed clarifications

I. INTRODUCTION

De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) rules by Phil Barker (PB) Richard Bodley Scott and Sue
Laflin-Barker were first published in 1990, and unexpectedly initiated a paradigm shift in
wargaming principles that would dominate the whole decade. Through these rules WRG
accomplished the most unlikely endeavour of introducing some degree of standartisation
concerning base sizes in ancient and medieval gaming and to some extent miniature scale as
well, probably because the bases used in DBA were compatible with the older WRG ancient
rules.
The key point for the success of DBA and DBA 1.1, was the consecration of the concept
of result oriented game design and streamlined procedures, with no necessity for
bookkeeping.
But though the slim rulesbooks displayed the most innovative concepts, the concise but
cryptic writing style hid surprisingly complex rules and - most unfortunately - major
omissions. But those who would persevere in deciphering the text and get information on
missing procedures would be rewarded with unsuspected game depth.
The success of the new game system warranted a second edition in 1995 (DBA 1.1) and
finally in March 2001 the much anticipated 2.0 version, the object of this article, hit the
press.

In this article gaming mechanics of DBA 2.0 are analysed in some detail, with the main
objective of highlighting its remaining problems as objectively and unbiased as possible.
Major needed clarifications are also covered, especially when these are directly related to
the issues under discussion.
This article is in no way endorsed by the authors, directly or indirectly, but will
hopefully be interpreted as a tribute to their work.
Many insights on the game were acquired during net playtest discussions oriented by
Bob Beattie, to whom I sincerely thank for its patience and open mind. I believe that due to
his work the text in 2.0 is more tight and clear than it might have been.

By default all references to measurements are in millimetres, with 15mm conventions.

The discussion concerns the main rules only, because these are the most important. Some
latter notes will refer to larger battle variants or campaign, but those aspects are not

2
specifically covered. Occasionally DBA 2.0 is compared with its predecessor 1.1 version,
those being shortly designated by the version numbers.
All rules citations are between quotation marks: cited text.

1. Game description
Standard DBA is an ancient and medieval wargame played over a 60x60cm battlefield,
usually a cloth with some model terrain on it, over which armies of 12 bases of figures fight.
The playing area is quite small, considering the average 180x120cm wargame table, and so
is the number of required figures. Yet as the game unfolds one can abstract from the small
format, as it becomes apparent that the army has a centre line and flanks, which can be
committed or refused, won or lost, as in most historical battle descriptions.
In 2.0 totally new and well laid terrain rules may present interesting tactical challenges
and do greatly increase the game variety, complete with specific army aggression factors
and home topography.
The included army lists closely follow those of previously published WRG books and
display an impressive research, even on nations whose historical information is remarkably
scarce. The game allows the choice among hundreds of army lists. Variety is further
amplified by the fact that there are 16 different basic troop types, plus variants, to combine
into the final 12 element sets.

2. Text structure and index.

One of the major problems in understanding the basic rules procedures for the average
reader is the cryptic-concise writing style of PB. Add to that the dispersed and disorganised
presentation layout and youll understand why many who are able to learn other rules
quickly will be daunted by DBA, giving up confused or feeling uneasy with many
procedures. Detractors of WRG rules have designated the writing style as barkerese a
nickname that may have misfired as PB fans can affectionately use the term during
discussions. But in fact this writing style is now an integral ingredient of DBA flavour, and
may have contributed to the game success, by enshrining it with an aura of mystery, only to
be deciphered by the initiates. The sentence the average player has memorised the battle
rules part way through his or her first game might just be a magnificent display of the
British humour, or a proof that I myself lag well below the average player rate.
Instead of the general rewriting that has been requested elsewhere, better content
ordering of the core 6 page rules could be appropriate by making reading easier.
Chapter II in this study will follow the structure shown on the following contents list for
a systematic approach.

3
 CONTENTS (Chapter II)

1. Basic game conventions .............................................................................................. 5

1.1 Playing equipment and representational scales ............................................................ 5

1.2 Troop definitions .......................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Basing your figures and models ................................................................................... 5

2. Terrain features .......................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Creating the battlefield ................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Area terrain features ..................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Linear terrain features................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Camps........................................................................................................................... 7

3. Setup and play sequence............................................................................................. 7

3.1 Deployment .................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Sequence of play........................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Player initiative point dicing......................................................................................... 8

4. Tactical moves ............................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Tactical moves procedures: single element, line and column....................................... 8

4.2 Troop interpenetration ................................................................................................ 12
4.3 Moving across rivers .................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Moving into contact with the enemy .......................................................................... 13

5. Fighting the battle..................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Distant shooting.......................................................................................................... 19

5.2 Close combat .............................................................................................................. 24
5.3 Resolving combat ....................................................................................................... 24
5.4 Combat outcome......................................................................................................... 26
5.5 Outcome moves: recoil, flee and pursuit .................................................................... 28

6. Winning and losing ................................................................................................... 30

4
 II Rules analysis

An arrow is thicker than the

line thats used to describe its
path.

In this chapter a factual analysis of the rules is attempted, as to highlight the main
problems of interpretation, logical loopholes or omissions. As some specific procedure
instructions were not found during close reading, sometimes how presumably the game
should be played is suggested, but in no way these assumptions are rules.

1. Basic game conventions

1.1 Playing equipment and representational scales

The inclusion of metric system conventions for all measurements makes of these rules a
genuine international set. DBA is now played by a significant number of players outside the
countries were wargames are traditionally played.

1.2 Troop definitions

Hordes are the only new troop type in 2.0, an interesting addition that increases variety.

1.3 Basing your figures and models

Current DBA basing conventions can pose some problems, mostly because some
elements have different base depths but share the same tactical factors (TF). For example
legal knight elements can be either 3 or 4 figures on a 40x30mm stand or 6 figures in a
40x60mm base; bows can be 3, 4 or 8 figures on stands either 30 or 60mm deep; and
warband elements can have 3, 4 or 5 warriors in 20, 15 or 30mm deep bases.
The impact of differing base depths becomes clear on specific tactical situations. The
most obvious consequence is that the longer the unit the more space it takes to deploy, and
higher the probability for contacting bad going. The main effect in close combat is that the
deeper the base the larger the recoil distance, with an increased probability of destruction.
War Wagons are now double depth, making them very awkward elements, but probably
easier to base, considering a cart plus draught animals.
It should be noted that base alignment is crucial in DBA but may be tricky. For example
for knights, it is often difficult to mount 4x15mm mounted figures within the base
boundaries.
All double depth elements over 40mm can look out of scale in the somewhat constricted
DBA gaming area, specially if you bear the battle rules in mind.

5
 2. Terrain features
Terrain rules are one of the major improvements of 2.0 over 1.1, definitely making the
latter obsolescent. Inclusion of different terrain types, rules for terrain feature size, shape,
number and placement are all fundamental additions.
While this section defines terrain features use it also includes special rules that apply to
tactical moves or combat, which could also fit into the correspondent sections and will be
discussed there.

2.1 Creating the battlefield

The authors now acknowledge the most common procedure for setting up the battlefield,
that consists in "placing separate terrain features on a flat board or cloth" instead of the
fixed board format favoured in 1.1.

2.2 Area terrain features

The maximum area for terrain features is about 9 base widths (BW) length plus width,
about 324mm2 area, a single full size feature covering a significant part of one terrain
quarter. For most of the playtest time a maximum size of 6 BW length plus width features
were used, so it is surprising this increase to much bigger areas. But as the maximum
number of area features decreased from the 7 to 5 the actual area covered is in fact similar,
and the final net result is that the good going area gets less fragmented.
The plain division into good or bad going of 1.1 is retained, but now enhanced with
different terrain features. Close reading will reveal that all are unique in some way, being
bound to slightly different rules, but to understand the differences you must cross
information from different sections and tables. For example steep hills, woods, marsh,
rough, oasis and dunes are bad all going. But all hills have a crest; woods and oasis block
firing and general's orders inside; marsh block general's orders inside only; and dunes block
firing and are special to camelry.
The minimum covered area with bad going is very important for armies that include a
high proportion of psiloi or auxilia to have a chance, specially if their aggression factor is
high and the opponent has heavy troops. This minimum area depends on home topography,
and ranges from no bad going at all to less than 4BW perimeter, which may be insufficient.

The BUA is a notable exception to area feature rules and will be discussed in the next
chapter.

6
 2.3 Linear terrain features
River and road length restrictions seem necessary for when the game is played in more
competitive settings. Fortunately the extremely bendy road is now effectively restricted,
with a subtle but potentially important impact on tactical move rules. Yet the sentence
bending only to avoid terrain features may suggest that avoiding such features is
mandatory. Bending only <if> to avoid terrain features would stop both the erratic bends
but also clearly show that such bends are optional.
As a waterway can extend up to 600p (15cm) inland and is a linear feature, there is no
rule to stop you from using a small area feature as an island surrounded by water, including
a BUA. Isolating a camp along the same lines is more circuitous but possible by placing
first a gentle hill and then placing the camp over its good going slopes.

2.4 Camps
Camp maximum size is now clearly defined ending the vagueness in 1.1. The minimum
size is unfortunately not mentioned but something a little above 1 BW wide per half BW
deep is a reasonable assumption, considering that the current wording suggests that a camp
follower base should fit inside. There is nothing to stop you from building a fortress or
castle with an appropriate open space within.

3. Setup and play sequence

The combination of unique terrain features, army aggression factors and deployment
rules is well integrated, and turns the game into a self-sufficient system appropriate for
competition.

3.1 Deployment
In deployment the invader has a 50% probability to start from a preferred board side,
which can be an adequate compensation for the lack of input on the terrain placement,
provided the armies are balanced. Yet the defender may still adapt his army disposition to
that of the invader, so it seems that defense is definitely the preferred status, which is not
unreasonable. The aggression army level may become a major factor in picking up
tournament armies.
Switching two pairs of elements means that a maximum of 4 elements may be
rearranged, but some problems may arise if the exchange involves different base depths. It
is suggested that the front edge is used as a reference, those in the rear conforming to keep
the original formation. Nothing forbids that only three elements are rearranged, as for
example A is swapped with B and then B with C.

7
 The possibility of a flank or rear attack by a littoral native army may pose an interesting
strategic challenge and is another reason for littoral armies to prefer a defensive stand.
Deployment over a river is not consistent with the rule to dice before entering a river. In
fact PB is known to have declared about 1.1: "No real army ever formed up in a river, so
better to ban it?". With 2.0 this problem was alleviated because now a river cannot lay
entirely along the setup zone, but players may still be tempted to place units in the river if it
ends or crosses the deployment area.

3.2 Sequence of play

In this section a classical play sequence of move-shoot-fight is presented but morale
tests are not necessary.

3.3 Player initiative point dicing

This well-written section allows for consecrated by use PIPs to be officially used in
DBA.

4. Tactical moves
Information in the text is remarkably dispersed and somewhat scarce, considering that
pushing troops around should be a most basic procedure. In fact some information on how
to move may be missing.
The basic measurement procedure is a point-to-point technique, ignoring any curved
arcs, but perhaps taking into consideration the path. But a reference to the point-to-point
technique is only found under Tactical Move Distances section, after rules such as river
crossing and interpenetration, and hidden after an otherwise, the maximum distance
between the starting point of any front base corner of a single element and that corners
final position is: distances in paces following.
In the next sections an interpretation of how movement should be conducted is
attempted.

4.1 Tactical moves procedures: single element, line and column

There are four different types of tactical movement: single element movement; group
line movement, when at least two elements in a group are side-by-side; group column
movement, when all moving elements are aligned in a single file; and group line to column
contraction.

8
 In 1.1 groups were defined as elements touching each other, but now both edge and
corners contact are required for group formation. As the contacting corner is not specified,
rear corner contact should be legal [fig. 1].

Fig. 1 Elements on the left are all in group formation; elements

on the right must move as single elements.

4.1.1 Single element movement

This looks like a simple procedure, but a few points are tricky:
- The single element front corner that travels the farthest is used to measure
movement in a straight line, disregarding wheeling and facing changes. As a result a rear
corner may legally move more than the nominal distance [fig. 2].

Fig. 2 - Point-to-point
measurement technique: the
solid line illustrates the
correct procedure. A rear
corner may travel more than
a front corner because it does
not influence measurement.

- Movement can be over good or bad going, except for Artillery and War
Wagons off road.
- It can benefit from road travel.
- The main problem comes if changes of direction are necessary, for example to
avoid impassable terrain, bad going or the enemys ZOC (discussed latter). A wise
solution may be to consider the path travelled by the reference front corner as several
straight segments to be measured separately and added together (the segmented path
measurement technique) [fig. 3]. Yet as the rules omit the exact procedure other
interpretations are possible.

9
 Fig. 3 The
segmented path
theory: A moves
through 2 segments
to avoid an enemys
ZOC. The total
distance traveled is
the sum of both
continuous lines
(green). Please note
that no part of the
elements crosses the
ZOC.

- It is clear that a single element may pass trough a gap less than one element
wide, if its side edge leads the movement. So the minimum gap an element can possibly
pass through is 15mm for elements on 40x15mm bases.

4.1.2 Line group movement

Line group movement is fairly well defined. At least major definitions are there, even if
scattered through several paragraphs and mixed with column movement, making it very
difficult to precisely understand. Please note that a line can include any number of ranks.
Line group movement has the following characteristics:
- It is basically a forward displacement of all elements in the group, unless the
line wheels.
- Changes of direction are only possible by pivoting around a fixed inner front
corner, the distance traveled being measured between the starting and ending position of
the outermost front corner in the group. Please note that no element in the group can
move backwards, because a "group can only move straight ahead". A practical problem
is that while measurement must be made from the external corner of the outer element,
the fixed inner pivoting corner can be many elements away, making it difficult to control
the movement as a whole or simply to predict the final position. As a result a tendency
to move back the inner elements may occur. Using a thin stick to measure group rotation
and then aligning the front edges with it can overcome this problem [fig. 4].

Fig. 4 Line
wheeling:
measurement
is in a straight
line. During
wheeling the
inner front
corner F is
fixed.

10
 - It may not include elements in contact with an enemy front edge.
- No element in the group can be over bad going.

4.1.3 Column movement

This is apparently simpler to understand:
- The front element is displaced. Movement of the front corner that travels the
farthest is used to calculate distance. Other elements follow and are aligned behind.
- If the front element has to wheel then it is probable that all straight segments that
constitute the movement are added to calculate the final distance. Probable but not
certain.
- Column movement can be by road.
- It may not include elements in contact with an enemy front edge.
- Movement can be over good or bad going, again except if artillery or war wagons
off-road in bad going.
- Column movement introduces a notable exception to the group formation rules,
in that a column that wheels and ends the movement over a bend is still a group, despite
only elements corners are touching. This specific circumstance is not addressed in the
text [fig. 5].

Fig. 5 Column wheeling: a column may end

the movement in a bent position, but it is still
a group, regardless of the fact that only one
corner of an element is in contact with
others.

4.1.4 The special case of contracting a line

into column as a group move should require:
- That the front element is displaced forward as if moving alone.
- That the next elements then move forward to contact behind as if per
single element rules.
- That no element can end behind the original line rear. Again: a group can
only move straight ahead.
The line contraction will seldom be completed in a single turn, so elements in the
original line may probably resume group movement in the following bounds to form in
column, whatever the intermediate position. Some marking of the eligible elements may be
useful. Another possible restriction is that during this process all elements should remain in

11
contact to still qualify for a group move on next bound, so a fast front element will have to
move less than its allowance.
Expanding from a column into line is not allowed as a group move.

4.1.5 Road movement

In this case a single element or column can freely follow the road twists, and the sensible
procedure may be to calculate the final distance travelled as straight line, ignoring small
bends. By precluding the erratic bendy road the current setup rules may favour this
approach, but whether this is exactly the proper procedure is not clear.

4.1.6 Unlimited wheels problem

Considering the poor drilling of ancient and most medieval troops, limiting the number
of wheels would be reasonable. But in fact that there are no limits to the number of possible
wheels, originating a problem to the segmented path movement theory (a limit situation,
see glossary).
If there are no limits to the number of wheels the wheeling element may conduct a very
high number of wheels. In the limit situation of a number of wheels close to infinite the path
travelled can be curved, what is not consistent with the straight measurement technique.
Note: as the smallest division in a DBA ruler is 100p, it is suggested that for any segment of
the movement no less than 100p can be spent, any fractions being rounded up to that number.
The maximum number of forward or wheeling segments would therefore be 5 for a light horse.

4.1.7 Command distance

The command range measurement to see if an extra PIP must be spent is done when the
element is about to move, not at the beginning of the bound, so the situation should be
judged as it is currently.

4.1.8 Dismounting
Some elements may start as mounted, for example knights or light chariots, then
dismount and move as a foot type, in a single element or group move that spends 2 PIP.
This strengthens some armies significantly, especially if they include elements that start as
knights and may end as blades. In this case there is the option of choosing among two of the
most powerful DBA units, staying mounted if facing mounted enemy and then dismounting
if foot enemy approaches. Fortunately this is only of tactical importance and does not affect
the core game system.

4.2 Troop interpenetration

Troop interpenetration occurs during a tactical move and must not be confused with
outcome moves, yet rules that apply to both situations are mixed under the same heading.

12
 The relevant facts to point out are that interpenetration always involves psiloi and that
troops must be facing exactly the same or opposite direction (unlike recoil that is in the
same direction only). Recoil and flee rules are analysed in the combat outcome sections.

4.3 Moving across rivers

Rivers are defined as being neither good nor bad going, so a kind of a special river
going must be admitted. The implications of this definition are wide but only movement
issues are discussed here.
River crossing was too slow under 1.1 and the problem was fixed by the elegant front
edge rule. Artillery and war wagons cross as swiftly as others, and maybe that should not be
the case, but this is not a serious problem. Please note that it is not forbidden to join in a
column after the front element has crossed.
Current river movement rates are 100p for all but paltry rivers. A movement rate for the
latter is not mentioned, so a wise solution may be to consider the movement rate of the
underneath terrain. Dubious river placement should thus be avoided.
As a river may cross bad going, if an element is over both then it should move at the
slower rate, depending whether the front edge is over the river or not. The rules text may be
misleading: An element which is partly in bad going counts as entirely in bad going for
movement but this should be ignored for movement if at least part of the front edge is
over a non paltry river, because the river will slow down the element more than bad going.
Also note that after entering a river turning is restricted, even if it is paltry.

4.4 Moving into contact with the enemy

In 2.0 complete and clear moving into contact definitions were finally introduced.
Unfortunately the extreme dispersion of such rules through different chapters and tables
make understanding difficult.
As a summary, there are 4 legal contact situations:
a) close combat, that occurs when any elements front edge contacts and aligns with that
of an enemy [fig. 6];
b) flank contact, that must include both a front edge contact with flank and front-to-front
corners contact;

Fig. 6 Legal
contacts.
A: Close combat;
B: Flank contact,
note that same
side front corners
must touch; C:
Rear contact.

13
 c) rear contact, when a front edge and corners contact and align with those of a rear
edge;
d) overlap contact, when an element that is not in close combat to its front touches with
any front corner a same side front corner of an enemy already in close combat; or when any
part of the side edge touches that of the enemy, whether in frontal combat or not [fig. 7].

Fig. 7
Overlap
contacts. For
an overlap is
it sufficient
that front
same side
corners
touch.

Contacts with enemy other than those defined in the rules text cannot occur as a result of
a tactical move by a single element [fig. 8]. Group movement abides to the same rules but
allows for important exceptions, as described below.

Fig. 8 Illegal contact positions: none of these can occur as result

of a tactical move. A must align with B.

About d) it is important to stress that moving into contact is illegal if the enemy is not in
frontal close combat [Fig. 9].

14
 Fig. 9 Illegal contact to
overlap. A may not move into
corner contact with B,
because B it is not in close
combat to its front.

Art or WWg may not

voluntarily move into contact, and this means that line groups cannot move into close
combat if they include any of these elements and they would end in either edge or corner
contact with enemy. Others may only move to contact with enemy if they end in a legal
contact situation, unless the contact results from group movement in which at least one
element of the group ends in close combat or in another legal contact situation, as listed
above [Fig. 10].

Fig. 10 Legal contacts after group movement: A, B and C

moved as a group. A is in legal close combat with X. B
contacts Y but is not in close combat with it, so B overlaps X.
C contacts Y and Z, but none are in close combat.

Elements not in a legal contact position should not be considered in combat, and if this
convention is accepted rules for disengaging (see 4.4.1.2) and shooting (see 5.1.4) are
affected.

4.4.1 Crossing the enemys front

Practical experience demonstrates that the rule that restricts movement within one base
width of an enemys front edge is one of the most difficult to grasp by beginners and
experienced players alike. This 1BW sided square to the front of an enemy unit will be
designated here as the zone-of-control (ZOC) for convenience only.

15
 A move even partially over such area may only include a directly forward or rear
movement without any wheeling whatsoever, unless to align with an enemy in a forward
movement. So even if you start with a small corner over the ZOC you may not back up and
then change direction for the rest of the move [fig. 11].

Fig. 11 A can only move straight back or

forward if it starts in a ZOC or after it
enters that area. The only turning allowed
is to align with the enemy to its front.

It is possible to move through different

ZOC during the same bound, if no deviations from the straight path occur. A single element
starting from a position that is under two or more ZOC can choose to contact any of its
opponents [fig. 12].
Note: maybe a sideways restriction like that of group rules should be implemented.

Fig. 12 ZOC areas are shaded in red. Accordingly to the

current text A can choose to turn to contact any enemy,
including B located to its rear.

16
 On group movement there is a limit to sideways shift of one half BW. This means that
an element in the group must contact the enemy whose ZOC covers it the most [fig. 13].

Fig. 13 A, B moved as a group, shaded areas are ZOC. A

must contact C and B must contact D. B cannot contact E as
then a sideways movement over one half BW would be
required.

It should be noted that the ZOC shortens for all purposes if an element is partially
interposed [fig.14].

Fig. 14 ZOC shortening. B is partially interposed in Xs

ZOC (red area) so A may move along the green line.

4.4.1.1. If your element is within the ZOC but facing away from the enemy:
a) there may be some confusion as the text says an element can only: "retire directly to
its own rear." A very strict interpretation would mean that a forward movement facing away
is not possible. It may be reasonable to assume that a straight forward movement is perfectly
legal, as long as there are no wheels. A displacement forward that moves the element away
from enemy is an equivalent to "retire directly to its own rear." If retiring to the rear is legal,
then forward movement in the same direction should not be forbidden.

17
 b) those who think that DBM rules should apply to DBA, will first demand that the
element turns towards the enemy and then move backwards. This introduces new
complications because this procedure is not mentioned in 2.0, there is the question weather
the diagonal of the base (turn around) should be added to the distance traveled (see 4.1.1 -
segmented path theory) and the position where to stop such turning around is also not
defined.

4.4.1.2 Breaking-off from contact in a non close combat position

Breaking-off from contact in a non close combat position should probably follow the
same rules as moving though a ZOC. An alternative interpretation is using the 4.5 section
rules, but this is not the preferred option, as the element does not start the move in close
combat.

4.4.2 Conforming to enemy

The rules for conforming to an enemy group may not be readily apparent. In an attempt
to rationalize the procedure it could be said that if single eligible elements are contacted by
the front edge of an enemy line, then they must align with the contacting element in a legal
frontal close combat position, by the end of the tactical moves phase [fig. 15].

Fig. 15 A, B and C moved as a group, P is psiloi and L

is light horse. By the end of the move these must align
respectively with B and C in a close combat position.

An alternative interpretation is that single elements must turn around on the spot and
then conform to the enemy whose ZOC covers it the most. In that case P would align to A in
fig 15.

4.5 Breaking-off from close combat

The rules for breaking-off are clear. The 200 paces minimum requirement seems
reasonable and the maximum back-up distance is presumably influenced by terrain as under

18
any tactical move.
The only difficult point is how to understand the sentence construction ends facing that
broken-off from. Yet if we change the sentence to ends facing that enemy it has broken-
off from it all becomes clear.

5. Fighting the battle

All close combat and shooting rules are discussed here regardless of their location in the
rules text.

5.1 Distant shooting

5.1.1 The within-range area (WRA)

The text that defines the possible shooting area is among the most difficult. In this study
the area possibly covered by the firing element is designated as the within-the-range area
(WRA) for clarity. First lets analyze what the text exactly says, and then what is
presumably the authors intention. After defining the shooting range of 500 paces for Art
and 200p for others, the only reference to that areas definition is within an element base
width of directly forward. Basically directly forward should mean that an element can
only shoot directly away from the front edge; within an element base width is logically
interpreted a reference to a range, and here we become lost as a different range had been
previously defined. As a conclusion this sentence can prove very hard to decipher.
So in trying to understand the authors intention and as a range had been defined as say
200p, within an element base width can be interpreted as an extra sideways allowance to
the baseline shooting area. So we get a rectangular area that has a baseline of 120mm and
is 50mm deep. The problem is that now the range from a front corner and the anterior same
side corner of the WRA is longer than 50mm. So the final legal area might be imagined to
be a rectangle with both anterior corners truncated along a circumference whose center
corresponds to the elements front corner and whose radius is 50mm [fig. 16].

Fig. 16 The WRA: please note

that the bottom line is divided into
three equal 40mm segments. All
evidence gathered suggests that
this is the legal range area as
imagined by the authors.

19
 5.1.2 Area-of-fire (AOF) assessment
Distant shooting is now blocked by intervening troops, by a hill crest and by a wood or
oasis edge, but the influence of troops or terrain on firing is very different.

5.1.2.1 The rules state that if a troop element is even partly between the shooter edge and
the target edge fire is blocked. This means that the area between the two edges must be
accessed for intervening troops and can be designated as an area-of-fire (AOF). This is a 4
sided polygon whose opposed edges are:
- the shooter and target edges,
- the lines that join the front corners of the shooter element and both front, rear or a
pair on either side of the target corners. [fig. 17].

Fig. 17 The shaded area between A and B is the AOF.

D presents two possible target sides to C.

5.1.2.2 Defining a legal target side

In oblique positions a target side must be chosen, because often the target element will
present at least two sides to the shooter [Fig. 18]. Unrestricted choice by competitive players
may lead to strange firing angles in oblique positions when the most likely side to be hit is
hidden by friends, foe, terrain or a combination of those [fig. 18, 19].

Fig. 18 In this position three different legal target sides may be

chosen, though hitting the rear edge may be unlikely.

20
 Fig. 19 A and B are friends and A
shoots at C. In this position only the
rear hedge would be eligible as a
target, because the front and side edge
areas are blocked by a troop element.

Note: gaming practice and

graphical work demonstrates that it
would be much better to restrict the
target side choice to prevent unlikely
shooting situations but that would
mean the introduction of yet another
rule.

5.1.2.3 If only terrain intervenes there

is no necessity for an AOF assessment, because shooting is possible even if only a corner is
before the terrain limits. Fire is only blocked by an hills crest or wood and oasis edge if
either the shooter or target edges are entirely beyond it. These rules are found on the
Creating the Battlefield section.
If rules are interpreted exactly as written, elements within a terrain feature such as a
wood are able to fire at each other, probably an oversight.
If the position is difficult to solve when both troops and terrain intervene, it is
recommended that the AOF is accessed normally, because an edge not entirely beyond the
terrain limits is an eligible target [fig. 20].

Fig. 20 Terrain interposition.

A: If only terrain intervenes the concept of AOF is irrelevant.
B: If any troops intervene then the AOF must be accessed normally.

21
 5.1.2.4 Targeting a side in a parallel position
This is a limit situation, in which the front shooter and target edges are parallel and
aligned exactly facing each other. The problem is: can a side be targeted? [fig. 21].

Fig. 21 - Supposing that absolute

parallelism exists, graphical analysis
demonstrates that no line can be traced from
the shooter to the target edge that intersects
the side of the target, so it is suggested that
such shot is not allowed. This situation is only
relevant if the frontal ZOC is blocked.

5.1.2.5 The blocked fire after range situation

There is a situation in which part of the target lies in the WRA but there is no clear AOF
because an element is interposed between, but outside the WRA. In this case strict
application of the rules does not allow such shot [fig. 22].

Fig. 22 A is bows
and shoots at B. The
WRA ends at the dashed
line but C blocks the
frontal AOF beyond the
200p range.

This result is reasonable because a commander of the unit in the field would not measure
a range, and would only see that some troops are close, covering to some extent the intended
target. Also the range limit in the rules can be viewed as an average, some arrows possibly
reaching a little longer or ending shorter of the conventional limits.

22
 5.1.3 Rear shooting
In 1.1 when an element was shot from the rear it would recoil towards the shooter. Now
the rules state that an element that recoils from shooting entirely on its rear edgeis
destroyed.
This should mean that the target is destroyed if it is possible that all the incoming fire
would exclusively hit the targets rear. Graphical projections demonstrate that this is only
possible if the shooter front edge is completely behind a line that extends the targets rear
edge [fig. 23].

Fig 23 Shooting entirely on the rear edge is possible if the

shooter front edge lies wholly behind a line that extends the
targets rear edge.

5.1.4 Shooting in contact with enemy

Two elements may be in contact but neither in close combat nor giving overlap (see 4.4).
In this case nothing in the rules forbids shooting, as this is restricted only if: not if either
shooters or target are in close combat or currently providing rear support or counting as an
overlap.

5.1.5 Shooting problems overview

Considering the many interpretation problems that the rules text presents, wondering
about the cause is almost inevitable. It seems that the main reason for so many complexities
is the necessity of evaluating both a WRA and a AOF. Interpretation is also further hindered
because the maximum range is again defined separately and not fully integrated with these
concepts.

23
 5.2 Close combat
Combat definitions were dramatically improved and many detail problems were solved,
so there are no significant problems under this section.
Close combat occurs when: elements move into, or remain in, both front edge and front
corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element.
Please note that overlaps, flank, rear contacts and rear rank support are all positions that
may aid friends in close combat to their front but are not true close combat positions.
Note: maybe features that can be attacked, like camps, should require that their
sides were at least 1 BW long for smoother working with other combat rules.

5.3 Resolving combat

Besides the inclusion of Hordes in the table there were many small changes on TF and
support rules that express the authors interpretation of historical facts, do not affect the
gaming system and are therefore outside the scope of this work.
A few points are worth mentioning though.

5.3.1 Camels and dunes

5.3.1.1 The logical loophole
The TF table includes this sentence: "-2 If mounted in close combat with enemy in,
bad going on or off-road". The problem arises when we replace camels for mounted and
the enemy is any but camels over dunes.
a) What is the result of what is written: camels are mounted and they count
dunes as good going. Yet the rules do state that mounted get a 2 factor for fighting
enemy in bad going. So camels do get a 2 modifier for fighting other than camels
over dunes, because enemy is in bad going, yielding an illogical result.
b) How do the authors want the situation to be played: there is some
evidence that the authors want this situation to be interpreted from the perspective
of the camel and so camels on dunes should never get the 2 TF.
If the authors really want to enforce b) it is regrettable that the rules do not state that
fighting is interpreted from the camels point of view, because the owner of the enemy
element may well complaint.
It is recommended that the game is played as b) regardless of what is actually written.

5.3.1.2 Camels in dunes versus enemy in good going

This is just a case that can cause some confusion. If camels partly in dunes fight other
mounted in good going only, then should the latter get the 2 modifier, because they are
fighting the former that is in bad going to them? In this case it is clear that both are in good
going, the camels because they are partially over dunes and the enemy because it is over

24
good going, so the bad going rules should not apply. But the opposite interpretation has also
been advocated.

5.3.2 The downhill advantage

The rules state that hills can give a close combat advantage only if "all an element's front
edge is upslope of all of its' opponent". This requires a limit situation to occur, that is, an
absolute parallelism between an elements front edge and the crest, which can be considered
to never to occur in reality. Any slight deviation relative to the crest puts a tiny part of the
down element a fraction above the upper elements front edge. In practice a tedious player
may always argue he is not downhill and he is strictly correct.
Application of common sense may be enough to overcome the problem but the design
fault is there.

5.3.3 River bank defense

An element is defined as defending a river bank: if on land with its front edge or both
front corners touching it. This leads to an interesting tactical situation in that it will be
possible to attack a central defending element with overlaps from the outer bend, but
impossible from the inner bend. As a result it is more favorable to set defense from the
external side of a river bend [fig. 24].

Fig 24 A central element defending a river on the inner bank

can be overlapped (A) but not on the outer bank (B).

25
 5.3.5 The sideways support psiloi protection
Psiloi can support spears, blades and auxilia against mounted if directly behind them and
also if an element of the same type is immediately to the side. The rules also state that: An
element that added +1 in rear support of a destroyed element directly to its front is also
destroyed. In conclusion it is safer to provide support to a side unit because if such unit is
destroyed a supporting psiloi can avoid destruction.
Please note that the psiloi support is valid with either element on bad going, unlike other
types of rear rank support.

5.3.6 The shooting general

A common interpretation problem may arise if a General that can shoot, shoots at a
target that can shoot back. Please note that the Gen shooting at a target other than bows,
artillery or war wagons does not get the +1 TF. If the Gen shoots at elements that can shoot
back it may look like the +1TF does not apply. Yet it does, because the target shoots back
and so the Gen is being shot at.

5.4 Combat outcome

There are many changes on the combat outcome tables, including new DIB (see
glossary) that again reflect the authors interpretation of history and are irrelevant to this
analysis. Yet a major problem was introduced with the psiloi domino effect and many minor
issues remain unsolved.

5.4.1 The psiloi domino effect

Let's consider any army with 4 or more psiloi elements, not an uncommon case. These
are light armies that could be interesting because they represented a challenge, but as they
are now they are close to unplayable because psiloi now flee were they recoiled.
Let's consider what happens if such an army fights on bad going, in ideal conditions for
the psiloi. More often than not the enemy will form a solid line containing for example
blade or auxilia. The psiloi have to form a line themselves, looking for an opportunity to
outmaneuver the opponent if PIPs allow.
If the line or parts of the line meet what happens?
1st - the psiloi fight with a disadvantage of 1 TF. This is 2+1 to 3+1 minimum roll odds.
If the psiloi win the enemy recoils one base, this is 15-20mm, well within ZOC that is a
40mm square.
2nd - if the psiloi loses it will move a total of 300p + 1BW (recoil) + 1BW (turn) to the
rear facing the rear. This means that the front edge will end 115mm from the original
position.

26
 If the psiloi has a PIP to move back it can only move 55mm forward. This is measured
from the front corner facing to the rear to the end position, that corner having moved 75mm
in fact. It cannot join the line but can cover part of the gap with it's ZOC. So on the next turn
it's friends in the line have to fight overlapped, with a greater probability of more flees - a
falling domino effect.
3rd - If a single psiloi has not enough PIPs to move back then a gap is created without
ZOC limitations.
The next turn one of the psiloi in the gap will be attacked in the flank (shut-the-door
move) and all the line is in big trouble.
But this is under ideal conditions, if the psiloi have to meet non psiloi enemy in the open
all odds are very great against the light ones. One single loss = flee = battle loss.
One of the advantages of psiloi is the move rate and ability to surround on the sides, but
as the table is small if psiloi try to fight on the flanks they will simply flee off-board.
Fortunately all small changes made recently increase the psiloi power, but only when
supporting the heavies, in fact making the latter stronger. This is no compensation for the
catastrophic consequences of either fleeing or dying when psiloi do have to fight on their
own.

5.4.2 Doubling near 0

Any positive number is an infinite number of times larger than 0. And so any negative
number is infinitely smaller then 0. There are system problems on doubling near 0 values.
The maximum negative modifier an element can get is -6 and light horse is the lucky
one. A light horse attacks uphill in bad going and is overlapped on both sides and attacked
in the rear. This yields a -6 tactical factor, and so the minimum final result is -5. It is clear
that -2 doubles -5 or -4 and that -1 doubles -3.
The problem comes when doubling numbers from -2 to 1. Under this range you can only
double, but cannot simply win.
For example -1 always doubles -2, 0 always doubles -1, 1 always doubles 0, and 2
always doubles 1. The problem is that the difference between these numbers is just one. So
it is impossible to win without doubling.
Note: to solve this problem the rules could state that you would have to double
with at least 2 difference. In this way for example 0 would beat -1 but only 1 would
double it. As they are if the enemy total TF is between 2 and 1 the table: total is half
or less than half of its opponent is used even if the element lost by just a difference
of 1.

5.4.3 Fighting over a river versus fighting over bad going

Fighting at least partially over a river that crosses good going should be treated as
fighting over a river: ignore all going references in the combat outcome tables. This means
that for example troops that would be destroyed in good going are not and that bad going
penalties also do not apply.

27
 If a river is over bad going terrain then troops partially over both should be treated as in
bad going for combat purposes because: An element which is partly in bad going counts as
entirely in bad going for movement and close combat.
For most elements attacking across a river is less severe than attacking over bad going,
which is strange. Attacking across bad going gives the element a 2 TF, but if the same
element is in a river there is no penalty, unless the enemy is positioned as defending the
bank. Even so the enemy gets only a +1 bonus. Please note that a negative modifier is more
severe than a positive one to the enemy, because a negative TF will lower the total nearer to
0 (see section 5.4.2).
If an element is both over any river and bad going then it counts as in bad going for
close combat purposes.
Obviously elements that may flee should avoid attacking across a river.

5.4.4 Scythed Chariots (SCh) versus Artillery (Art)

An anomaly has been reported when a SCh moves into close combat with Art. If the
SCh total is even or less than the Art but more than half, then the SCh is Destroyed. But if
the SCh result is half or less, then the SCh will just Recoil from Artillery in close combat.
This anomaly is known to have been reported to PB but was not considered important.

5.5 Outcome moves: recoil, flee and pursuit

Outcome move rules are dispersed but most problems are adequately addressed.

5.5.1 Recoil
There are no major problems concerning recoil rules, but four potentially difficult
interpretation situations are mentioned:

5.5.1.1 Please note that recoils can pass through friends met, but only if facing in exactly
the same direction. This is different from interpenetration during a tactical move, which can
take place if friends are facing in exactly the same or opposite directions.

5.5.1.2 Another interpretation problem is what happens when elephants recoil into
elephants, as the text includes: If it is Elephants, any friends he meets are destroyed. If not,
and it meets friends otherwise pushes back any except Elephants and War Wagons. This
may be tricky to understand but I will cite a mail by B. Beattie citing PB: It really should
be obvious that both are destroyed and so the problem is solved, but only if we know about
the citation.

28
 5.5.1.3 Recoiling into a type 6 river
If a 6 is rolled for a river type then it may appear strange that an element can recoil into
a river that can be impassable for that turn. If try to cross is interpreted as a voluntary
action, then these river crossing rules can reasonably be assumed to apply to tactical moves
only. If so, there is no requirement to dice when recoiling into such a river, and that is the
most likely correct procedure.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that any but a paltry river will destroy a
fleeing element, in this case the river feature affecting an outcome move. This demonstrates
that the rule is a bit unclear and that other interpretations are possible.

5.5.1.4 Recoiling into a bent column

If the leading element in a bent column such as shown in fig. 5 recoils, than it is
destroyed as recoils can only push back friends facing in exactly the same direction.
Alternative interpretations may point out that a bent column is still a group and so the
whole group is pushed back, but a reference to such an exception is not provided for in the
rules.

5.5.2 Flee
Fleeing moves are in fact a sequence of three different events: first a recoil, then an
about-face and then the flee move proper. Elements that can flee in the standard rules are
light horse, cavalry, camelry and psiloi.

5.5.2.1 The recoil must follow all the regular recoil rules.

5.5.2.2 If the element survives it will make a 180 turn in place.

5.5.2.3 The flee move is then conducted, for a distance that is equal to the maximum
tactical move allowance. It is not mentioned if the terrain crossed affects this distance, so by
default it should as with a tactical move. So a cavalry element will flee for 400p in good
going but only 200p if it starts its move over bad going. During flee interpenetration can
occur along the same lines as tactical moves.

5.5.2.3 If the fleeing element cannot move then it halts, except that meeting a non paltry
river means doom.

5.5.2.4 Some further restrictions on the fleeing path could be done, or two strange results
may occur: ending the move just by another enemy element; ending the move anterior to the
starting point [fig. 25].
Note: the former could be solved by not allowing movement to end inside a ZOC
and the latter by limiting the angle of the fleeing path.

29
 Fig 25 A flee
move that ends
anterior to the
starting position.
L is light horse
and the
horizontally
stripped area is
its starting
position. W is
waterway. The
dashed line
indicates the
path followed by
the left front
corner that is
500p long from
point F to the
arrowhead.

6. Winning and losing

Some facts on the winning conditions may be difficult to grasp on first reading:
- Eliminating the general does not ensure victory; you must also have
destroyed more elements than the enemy. So in a tie in the number of elements lost
the game continues.
- If a the end of the bound there is a tie of 4 elements destroyed or
equivalent, then the game continues, even if one or both generals have been lost.

30
 III Final considerations

In this chapter some considerations are added that do not fit into a purely technical
analysis. After a thorough study of the game system some subjective opinions are
unavoidable, hopefully fundamented by the preceding work. Wherever the reader stands, it
must be stressed that this work derives from the quality of v2.0 rules, as this study would
have never been written based on the 1.1 wording.

1. Room for improvement

Despite the huge evolution the game still displays some flaws that deserve to be pointed
out. In fact the authors seem to have swayed between the writing style of a game to be
played among a circle of friends and the necessity for publishing a mature rules set for
competitive settings. Both design philosophies are hardly compatible, and appeals to
common sense are pretty pointless both in the heat of a tournament and to the meticulous
player that struggles to follow the rules exactly as written (please lets not confuse these
with the true rule twisters).

2. The BUA complex

The inclusion of this new feature in the game had been hardly requested by DBA die-
hards and has been considered by many an experienced player to be a very unfortunate
occurrence.
The reasons of dissatisfaction can be thus summarized:
-BUA rules introduce a lot of exceptions into the terrain system.
- BUA rules burden an already dense text, as there are about 59 references to the BUA in
the 6 pages that constitute the main rules.
- BUA do take a lot of precious battleground space, including their area and one BW
ring around for the attacker.
- BUA role during a battle is not completely clear. Though it can represent a castle, the
authors did not probably envisage siege fighting, or otherwise obvious anachronism would
occur: siege took months or years while most battles were fought over a single day.
- BUA stimulate boring shooting battles.
- If economy is a justification than others should have features like: flocks of sheep to
steppe armies; caravans for arabs; mines for hilly people; and fish markets for littoral folk.
- If structure modeling must be introduced then towering fortresses and mighty castles
might be used for camps; which can be up to 12BW perimeter.
- BUA may introduce a too large chance factor in tournaments.
- BUA rules do not contribute significantly to the main field battle game.

31
 On the other hand others have considered that the BUA enhance the game scope and
they are an interesting addition for campaign rules, where in fact siege fighting do make full
sense.
It is surprising that BUA and camp rules are not integrated. For example denizens rules
work exactly as camp followers, because both are +1 troops that cannot leave the site. So
why is the camp follower element physically represented?
A BUA is defined as a polygon with an undetermined number of sides. It should be
noted that a regular polygon with an infinite number of sides is equivalent to a circle.

3. Compatibility problems
If you really like DBA, on reading the rules you cannot avoid the strange feeling that the
game is somehow under the domination of another set.
The most obvious distortion of the system is the requirements for official DBM base
sizes. These were directly imported from those rules without any adaptation to the different
DBA system. As a result recoil distances, troop positioning and shooting rules are affected,
with undesirable consequences, as pointed out in chapter II-1.3.
Players should have to option to bring elements assembled for DBM into DBA, or to
base DBA elements in DBM standard, and all should be legal. But this compatibility should
not preclude DBA to have appropriate autonomous conventions. This means that all DBA
knights and cavalry should be officially allowed as 3 figures on a 40x30mm base, all bows
auxilia and warbands as 3 figures on a 40x20mm stand and all blades and spears as 4 figures
on 40x15mm bases.
But the influence of the large derivative does not restrict itself to basing issues. The TF
might have been tweaked to simulate the effect of numerous hordes in DBM and the psiloi
side support rules may be related to the higher numbers of such troops allowed in DBM, as
some compensation for the lack of a points system.
On the other hand increased compatibility could be expected to bring the baggage
elements from DBM into DBA, but these were left out. Instead camp rules are retained in
2.0, including some archaic aspects, for example the inclusion of camp followers that cannot
leave the camp, thus becoming mere decorative elements. Simply awarding the camp a 3 TF
would perform exactly the same function.
Some rules omissions in DBA are apparently covered in DBM and so such players may
be encouraged to assume a tutoring attitude towards DBAers. It would be great for DBA to
regain the status of a fully compatible but also independent rule system and this game well
deserves it.

32
 4. Generic limit contact situations
Limit contact situations are not always covered by the rules, sometimes raising
interpretation problems. These include the cases of contacting but not overlapping area
terrain features, a river, a ZOC, or the WRA boundaries. Such positions are again a
theoretical occurrence because in reality the imaginary lines that define the absolute
boundaries have a certain thickness and they can be imagined to be at least overlapping a
little.

4.1 The ZOC

A typical example is when a 40mm deep element recoils: is it still within the ZOC?
In ZOC rules "move across" and within are used and it is not easy to infer a solution.
Yet, development of other WRG rules indicate that in a limit situation such as the one
shown above, the element is still subjected to the ZOC restrictions.

4.2 Touching terrain or the WRA.

About terrain we can read that "An element which is partly in bad going counts as
entirely in bad going..."; and an element is defending a river bank if: "its front edge or both
front corners are touching it". The words partly in could be interpreted as: at least a little
over the appropriate areas and it is clear that an element defending a bank is not considered
as being in the river.
Note: for the sake of simplicity and coherence it would be much better if all
contact limit situations would be dealt as outside the correspondent area.

5. The points system

The 12 elements format on a 60x60cm board is now a classical game that needs no
fixing. Yet for larger battle variants a points system would still be the most natural way for
the armies to increase their size, on boards up to 120x90cm, allowing the players to
progressively expand the game, eventually up to DBM 300 points. The big battle allys
concept and information are nevertheless useful to all gamers.

6. Conclusion
DBA 2.0 is not an amendment to 1.1 but a much improved rules set. Many detail
clarifications and tightening of the text will not be readily apparent in a first browsing, but
are a relief for the tournament empire. DBA is now more appropriate than ever to be played
in a competitive setting, from the largest conventions to the neighborhood tournament. The
terrain rules alone make of 1.1 an obsolete variant, with only historical interest left because
of its former impact on the hobby.

33
 We have highlighted a few important problems of the game system and many minor
bugs, yet the game concept shines well above such contingencies, in its basic simplicity,
subtleness and incredible fast play.
It is also fair a reference to the commercial value in Europe: the asking price is very
reasonable considering the contents and the work behind the small booklet. DBA 2.0
deserves to fare well, and hopefully huge sales and increased popularity will warrant for a
new revised edition.
If this article contributes in some way to promoting DBA or demonstrates the necessity
for further improvement, then it will have fulfilled its objective.

34
 Glossary

AOF area-of-fire.
BUA built-up area.
BW - base width: a standard measurement unit in DBA.
DBA De Bellis Antiquitatis, by Phil Barker, Richard Bodley Scott and Sue Laflin-
Barker.
DIB destroyed if beated: when an element is destroyed if the total combat result is
less than that of its opponent but more than half.
Limit situation a limit situation occurs in game design when the rules do not define
limits for quantifiable elements, specially those that can be increased up to an infinite
number, or calls for absolute positions that are only theoretically attainable.
PB Phil Barker
PIP player initiative points.
TF tactical factor.
WRA within the range area.
WRG Wargames Research Group.
ZOC zone of control: the 1BW square space directly to the front of an enemy unit.

Acknowledgments:
Special thanks to Bob Beattie for his constructive criticism and for the hard job he
undertook in reviewing my poor English. Thanks to my friends in the AJSP Lisbon club for
their support and to all that have discussed the game with me over the internet, including
Jan Spoor and John Hills. My gratitude goes also to Chris Brantley who has kindly accepted
to host this file in his awesome website.

Feedback:
Please send comments, corrections or contributions to jerboa@mail.Eunet.pt
Or to:
Jerboa Wargames
Av. Dr. Mario Moutinho Lt 1708, 9A
1400-136 Lisboa
Portugal

35