Last Updated: 3-Jan-02
[Introduction] [General
Rulings] [Book I] [Book II]
[Book III] [Book IV]
[Go Back to the Irish DBM Ratings Page]
[General Rulings] [Book I] [Book II] [Book III] [Book IV]
This page contains a list of commonly agreed interpretations of gray areas in the DBM Army Lists Books I-IV. The purpose of this page is not to dictate policy to any list checker who is of course the ultimate authority for any competitions they preside over. However, as consistency and predictability are good properties of any list checking process, it is hoped that this page will be of some use to both players interested in potential problem areas with a specific list and also for list checkers when deciding which interpretation to adopt.
The information contained here usually represents the consensus of the DBM mailing list as extracted from the common discussions on army list legality/illegality. Wherever multiple interpretations are prevelant, I have tried to indicate the main proponents of each interpretation. In all cases of multiple interpretations, my currently preferred intrepretation (which is only relevant for players in competitions for which I check lists) is the first interpretation listed. This is a work in progress and I am always interested to hear from players or list checkers who have been the victims or perpetrators of contentious rulings on army lists.
The rest of this page is organised into sections on unclear or contentious areas of the DBM Army List Books. First, there is a section on problems common to many lists, then there are four sections dealing with specific army lists on a per book basis. All of the information presented here relates to DBM version 3.0 and Army List Books I-IV version 2 (plus Errata for books II-IV dated 20 May 2000) which are copyright Phil Barker and Richard Bodley-Scott.
When attributing different interpretations of the Army Lists I make use of the following abbreviations:
[WRG] Phil Barker and/or Richard Bodley-Scott
[Com] Common or concensus opinion
[BHGS] British Historical Games Society
[KD] Kevin Donovan (U.S.A.)
[LUS] Luke Ueda-Sarson (New Zealand/Japan)
[AUS] Australian
[AP] Antipodean (Common to both Australia and New Zealand)
[RB] Rob Brennan i.e. me!
Please note that I am entirely fallible in my attribution of views and that people sometimes change their own interpretations over time so please do not use the information here as anything other than a guide. If you would like to provide corrections to any of my attributions, please mail me.
[Introduction] [Book I] [Book II] [Book III] [Book IV]
1. Multiple Upgrades
2. Naval Replace Elements
3. X per Y Elements
4. Minima affecting allied contingents which include no
foot
5. Taking allies outside the dates allowed for the allied
list
6. The use of "or" to allow a mix of Troop Types
7. Upgrading TF to Gates
8. Army List Dates
TBD
TBD
Some lists have one troop type specified in terms of a ratio to another troop type. For example:
Legions Reg Bd(O) 6-12
Lanciarii Reg Bd(F) 1 per 3 Reg Bd(O)
Opinions differ on whether this implies a strict ratio which enforces a restriction on both the allowed numbers of Reg Bd(F) and the allowed numbers of Reg Bd(O).
8-Aug-01 [WRG] This is a strict ratio ie in the example above Reg Bd (O)
may only be taken in multiples of 3 and for each 3 Reg Bd(O) you must take
1 Reg Bd(F). Thus it is illegal to take for example 7 Reg Bd(O).
8-Aug-01 [AP] This imposes no restriction on the numbers of Reg Bd(O) but
for each 3 Reg Bd(O) you take you must take 1 Reg Bd(F). Thus it is legal
to take 7 Reg Bd(O) and 2 Reg Bd(F).
In some lists it states that allies “need not include compulsory foot”. There are several interpretations of what this means in the case where there is more than one type of compulstory foot:
25-July-01 [KD] If you chose to take compulsory troops you must take all
types listed. Thus if you take any foot, you must take at least the minima
of all types of compulsory foot.
25-July-01 [BHGS] The options are to take no foot, or if selected the relevant
minima and maxima must be adhered to. Where there is more than one compulsory
type of foot, the selection of one type does not make the others compulsory."
TBD
In many lists there is a line in the list like:
Foot archers - Irr Ps(O) @ 2AP or Irr Bw(I) @ 3AP 0-12
Many players ask if this means that you can mix the two types or you must choose one or the other.
8-Aug-01 [KD] You may mix them. If it says 'All x or all y' then you can't mix them.
Many lists have TF for fortifying their camp listed but none have gates specified. Is it possible to take gates in these TF?
31-Aug-01 [WRG] Yes. Any TF may be upgraded to a gate by paying the appropriate cost.
If the army list states:
3-Jan-02 [KD] Not.
3-Jan-02 [KD] Not. However for this one and the previous one, you should probably realize that sometimes the usage is not precise about the transition date. Sometimes it is clear from the way the list is structured that the transition date is included. My basic advice would be to avoid 'cheesy' interpretations revolving around picking exactly such a date.
3-Jan-02 [KD] Probably are included.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book II] [Book III] [Book IV]
1. Early Sumerian
8. Makkan, Dilmun, Saba, Ma'in and
Qataban
21. Kassite and Later Babylonian
24. Hittite Empire
25. Middle Assyrian
28. Sea Peoples
30. Dark Age and Geometric Greek
31. Neo-Hittite and Later Aramaean
43. Kimmerian, Skythian or Early Hu
45. Neo-Assyrian Empire
51. Neo-Assyrian Later Sargonid
52. Early Hoplite Greek
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes. But to do this you must choose 1 city for the army
and another for the internal ally.
31-Aug-01 [Nigel Tallis (list author)] Yes. The historical situation was
very complicated and difficult to specify within the constraints of a DBM
list without very extensive notes.
31-Aug-01 [Nik Gaukroger] No. The army must be from one city-state.
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes.
31-Aug-01 [Nigel Tallis (list author)] Yes.
31-Aug-01 [Nik Gaukroger] No.
25-July-01 [KD] No.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
25-July-01 [BHGS] Yes.
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No, mounted infantry and Bg are two types of foot that can only be put on Shp (I).
26-Aug-01 [Comm] Yes, they may place a WW without having to place a BUA.
26-Aug-01 [WRG] It can be assumed that an item you are not allowed cannot
be compulsory [clear as mud!].
31-Aug-01 [LUS] They can only support Ax(O) or Sp(I), see the list notes.
31-Aug-01 [Jeff Zorn] The Ps can support "foot warriors" when they are upgraded
they are no longer foot warriors but either swordsmen or proto-hoplites,
so don't get the support anymore.
25-July-01 [KD] You get 4-9 chariots. As you get 4-9 per CiC or AG this is a ratio.
12-July-01 [Com] No. This is an example of Multiple Upgrades that are discussed in the general section above.
12-July-01 [Com] Yes. This is an example of "Taking allies outside the dates allowed for the allied list" that are discussed in the general section above.
31-Aug-01 [Com] Yes.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No.
31-Aug-01 [Com] Yes. Massagatae must always take the asterisked foot (irrespective of allies).
31-Aug-01 [Jeff Zorn] It means that you can take these Ax and Ps in any proprtion/ratio you want.
25-July-01 [Martin Hall] This becomes more clear if you think in terms of the individual troops. Eg for Kallapani, the list says 2-4 of which 1/2 AxS, 1/2 PsO - in terms of individual troops this is 1-2 AxS + 1-2 PsO (but you must take same number of each). Written this way it is clear that an ally must include 1 AxS + 1 PsO.
31-Aug-01 [RB] No. It is not allowed by the current list wording.
31-Aug-01 [Nigel Tallis] Yes. This is a typo.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] No(?). Normally it is clear that troops of the same origin have an identical term in each line. The assumption here is a I think is that Dikut mati have a different origin from 'the battle array', but since the Dikut Mati line is coupled with battle array troops by an AND I am not sure it is possible to say they are 'just' Dikut Mati...
31-Aug-01 [LUS] The whole army.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] 5.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] The whole army.
31-Aug-01 [RB] Yes. Although probably unhistoric there is nothing in the
list which prevents it.
31-Aug-01 [Duncan Head] There is certainly no historical justification for
the above combination.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] There should probably be a caveat saying Asiatics can be
allied to mainlanders (except maybe Athenians), but not vice versa.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. The list notes state "Every Greek (non Thracian) nationality included in the army... ...must contribute a junior general who commands all it troops.". Note that as an ally he must also control 1/4 all the minima of mandatory troops.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book I] [Book III] [Book IV]
3. Classical Indian
5. Later Hoplite Greek
22. Arabo-Aramaean
23. Later Pre-Islamic Arab
31. Hellenistic Greek
33. Polybian Roman
40. Numidian or Early Moorish
49. Marian Roman
51. Late Judaean
53. Ancient British
55. Nobades and Blemmye or Beja
56. Early Imperial Roman
58. Alan
64. Middle Imperial Roman
74. Palmyran
83. Patrician Roman
12-July-01 [Com] Yes, using fractional elements of javelinmen to make a single
DBE is not allowed.
12-July-01 [AP] No, because the text describing the ratios of archers and
javelinmen is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
26-Aug-01 [WRG] Yes. This is because the "Poor quality foot and followers"
are specified as "1 per 2 Hereditary & mercenary Bw and Bd". This is
an example of X per Y Elements in the general rulings
section.
26-Aug-01 [AP] No.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. But note that the interp of question 2 above may limit the allowed mixes to have an even total.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [KD] I think that it is clearly not the intent of the list.
25-July-01 [KD] For late period I would suggest probably more Sassanid like
and thus probably armored horse archers. For earlier periods I would think
Arab or Anatolian (Galatian or Cappodician) or even late Hellenistic types
spear and shield cavalry might be suitable.
25-July-01 [Nigel Tallis] First Hellenistic, then R*man in the west (probably
very R*man in some cases - or rather Aramaean that we _think_ of as R*man
(the ubiquitous "eastern archer" for example). More a mix of Hellenistic/Parthian
in the east, then very Parthian/early Sasanian.
8-Aug-01 [KD] No. You may upgrade any SG to Reg Bd (O). ALL other Gens must be Reg Kn/Cv.
8-Aug-01 [LUS]. I don't think so.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
25-July-01 [Guglielmo Marlia] No.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] No.
3-Jan-02 [BHGS] Yes. The list notes specify only that allied contingents
have this restriction removed, this does not apply to internal allied commands.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] No.
3-Jan-02 [KD] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [BHGS] No.
3-Jan-02 [KD] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [BHGS] No.
26-Aug-01 [RB] Yes. Except for Aitolian allies in a Polybian Roman army.
26-Aug-01 [KD] A strict reading of the rules would seem to imply so but I
think you would be entirely justied on historical grounds to have only those
troops classed as Aitolians, plus the 1 thureophporoi per 2 javelinmen mentioned
in the notes, in the command.
31-Aug-01 [Com] No.
31-Aug-01 [Com] No.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] Just troops described as "Italian" ie just "Italian Tarantines" and "Italian allied infantry". Thus the example of the Gauls would be illegal.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. The list note is referring only to internal allies
taken as part of a Numidian army.
25-July-01 [KD] No. The list notes state "An ally general can only command
cavalry, javelinmen and archers or slingers".
3-Jan-02 [LUS] Yes. The list notes make this explicit with "The option to
use a Roman ally general represents the temporary ALLIANCE of rival leaders
in Civil war, such as Cassius with Brutus".
3-Jan-02 [Dan Hazelwood] No. The list note is an example and the main list
would be more explicit if the ally general was required.
3-Jan-02 [Antonio ?] No. There were two battles in Philippi in 42BC. Each
battle was fought seperately by Crassus and Brutus.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] No. They are not indented, so can only change sides in civil wars.
25-July-01 [KD] No. All/none refers to the whole army including internal allies.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes. Desert Blemmye and Beja are actually the same group of people - the name just changes with the Arab Conquest of Egypt in 642 AD. The Greeks (including Byzantines) knew them as desert Blemmye and the Arabs as Beja. If it is before 642 AD you must take the desert Blemmye options, after 642 AD you must take the Beja options.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] Yes (but not both eastern and western at once).
3-Jan-02 [Comm] No. Each listed troop type is indivually optional.
12-July-01 [LUS] Yes.
8-Aug-01 This is an example of X per Y elements in the general rulings.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. The errata to the allies section in the list books allows any troops which are bought as a ratio of other compulsory troops to be bought.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book I] [Book II] [Book IV]
3. Italian Ostrogothic
4. Early Byzantine
5. Middle Frankish
8. Central Asian City-States
12. Christian Nubian
25. Arab Conquest
28. Carolingian Frankish
37. Abbasid Arab
40. Norse Viking and Leidang
54. Early Samurai
57. Buyid or other Dailami Dynasties
64. Nikephorian Byzantine
70. Georgian
74. Fanatic Berber
3-Jan-02 [RB] No.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Unsure.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes. The Sabir end in 558. The Hephthalites in India (who should not be available as Byzantine allies) end in 570 AD. The Western Huns seem to end in 558.
25-July-01 [KD] Bw(O), substituting 2 elements of LH for one Bw.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No. Look at the Middle Frankish list, there is an exception in the notes. Their internal allies are different from most others and act more like external allies.
3-Jan-02 [LUS] Generally speaking Yes. Note that some allied contingents do refer to a specific sub-list though.
25-July-01 [WRG] No. The generals must be Irr Kn(F) if the Chakar is Irr
Kn(F).
25-July-01 [KD] Not sure, it's probably allowable but cheesy .
25-July-01 [AUS] Yes, although its probably not the intent.
2. Is it possible to have upgraded Reg Cv(S) generals and Irr Kn(F) Chakar armoured cavalry?
8-Aug-01 [LUS] Yes, as long as you are Tarim-basin states, Sogdians or other non-Tarim basin states cannot do this.
8-Aug-01 [LUS] Yes.
25-July-01 [RB] Yes. This is inferred from the standard WRG response
that out of date allied contingents represent nations/tribes before they
are sufficiently big to field their own armies. In this case the "desert
Blemmye" options of the list should be used. See the Nobades and Blemmye
or Beja list entry here for more info.
25-July-01 [KD] Not sure, probably No.
25-July-01 [KD] No. They are described as "Nomad or settled" and in the army
lists 'or' never read as 'all x or all y' unless they explicitly use the
word 'all'. [Also based on historical reasoning].
25-July-01 [Nick.Gaukroger] Yes.
25-July-01 [Comm] No. They are not described as nomads.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
25-July-01 [KD] No, but I am not at all sure about this [based on historical
reasoning].
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes, but they must be in an Aquitinian command.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No. The minimum number of Kn still applies. The 0-16 is just the number you may upgrade.
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. For example you may upgrade all the spears and none of the archers.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes.
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No. It can only be: Ally general as Irr Cv (O) or Irr LH (S), 2 Irr Bg, Irr 6 LH (S), 0-1 Irr LH (S) or Irr Ps (O) or Irr Bw (I)?
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No. If the extra ghulams are fielded then no Dailami Ax, Bw or Ps are allowed.
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No. The all the Irr Dailami must be under the command of an irregular CinC or sub-general.
1. Does the Byzantine Art(O) have to deploy with the baggage?
12-July-01 [BHGS] No.
12-July-01 [KD] Depends on umpire, cheesey to not deploy with baggage.64.
Nikephorian Byzantine
25-July-01 [WRG] Yes. This is an example of "X per Y Elements" that are discussed
in the general section above.
25-July-01 [AP] No.
25-July-01 [WRG] No. The boats replace some of the elements in the 0-14
allowed.
25-July-01 [LUS] Yes. The "plus 0-4 Boats" in the list allows an extra 0-4
elements to be brought as crew for the boats.
25-July-01 [WRG] No. This is an example of "Naval Replace Elements" that
are discussed in the general section above.
25-July-01 [LUS] Yes.
8-Aug-01 [KD] Yes. (But I'm not sure if this is historical in all cases)
8-Aug-01 [KD] No.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. Note the "or" in "Upgrade CinC or Berber generals to Reg Cv(O) All/0", also based oon historical considerations.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes. It's obvious that the Catalans are Christians.
25-July-01 [Comm] No. They are not explicitly listed as "Christian" troops.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book I] [Book II] [Book III]
7. Early Crusader
13. Medieval German
18. Lithuanian or Samogitian
30. Teutonic Orders
39. Navarrese
43. Later Hungarian
61. Italian Condotta
68. Medieval Spanish or Portuguese
83. Wars of the Roses English
25-July-01 [RB] No.
25-July-01 [KD] Probably not.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes, as long as you don't try to mix city and clerical
WWg in a clerical or city command. The CinC could command both though.
25-July-01 [KD] I don't think you can put them in the same command. IMO elements
bought on a per command basis remain with that command unless the list explicitly
says otherwise.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes, and only feudal ones may dismount after that date.
25-July-01 [Comm] You must take the full minima as it is an internal ally. The additional troops may be either the CinC's or Mercenary ally's commands.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. This is a tricky one - my view is that the minimum
does apply because they can be either Feudal or Mercenary and if you didn't
have any elsewhere you would have to have one to go with the Merc AG. So
even if you do have some elsewhere...
25-July-01 [Firefall] No, it is acceptable to count the ones in the CinC's
command.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes, its perfectly OK to count multiple rear-rank elements
on different general's DBE's towards the total.
25-July-01 [Dave Allen] Yes. Although you might be able to make a case for
six using the odd element as the rear of either of the other general's
DBEs. This is a bit iffy in my view.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No. They must be in an Imperial CiC's command.
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes. I think bows are permitted if the list doesn't specify.
31-Aug-01 [Karl Heinz Ranitzsch]. Yes. Historically, I think an 1150 German
Heerban (mostly rural) militia is unlikely to have been well-equipped with
high-tech weapons. So they should be bow-armed.
31-Aug-01 [KD, LUS] Yes. As the Ps(S) are mandatory you must take some Bw
that can be upgraded to Ps(S).
31-Aug-01 [Mike Campbell] No. This regrade only applies to Bw and if you
take the archers as Ps then you don't have to do the regrade.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Kn(S).
3-Jan-02 [Comm] They must be Bd(S).
18-Oct-01 [KD] Yes, if you have ANY Gascons in the ally command. If the Ally
General commands only English then it's ok not the have the Gascons in such
a command as it says "and/or" Gascons.
18-Oct-01 [Nick Wade] No.
18-Oct-01 [KD] No.
18-Oct-01 [RB] 1/4 of everything except Irr LH (S) if a Szekeler general
is used and Irr Kn (S) if they are used.
18-Oct-01 [LUS] Strictly speaking, 1/4 of everything except Irr LH (S) if
a Szekeler general is used and Irr Kn (S) if they are used. This is a mistake.
He should only be commanding Bosnians, and I can't see anybody enforcing
the letter when it is obviously a mistake.
18-Oct-01 [RB] Yes.
18-Oct-01 [LUS] No. Although this is not what the list actually says (see
answer to last question).
18-Oct-01 [Comm] Yes. The * says that the minimum applies to Venitians in Italy, so it is 6-8 LH(I) for Venitians, and 0-8 LH(I) for everyone else.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. For a Portuges army, the Castillan only items are irrelevant. So there is no star marked french element, then no condition, you can have 5+ french elements.
25-July-01 [LUS, KD] Yes, if any are taken [in the army].
25-July-01 [Aus] No.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
[Introduction] [General
Rulings] [Book I] [Book II]
[Book III] [Book IV]
[Go Back to the Irish DBM Ratings Page]
This page is maintained by Rob Brennan (brennanr@teltec.dcu.ie).