<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>DBA at Yahoo! Groups</title>
    <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/</link>
    <description>Dedicated to all matters reagarding the miniatures rules De Bellis Antiquitatis. Discussion on the rules, scenarios, OOB, Q&A, </description>

    <item>
      <title>Re: Are Auxiliaries Too Weak in DBA 3.0?</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:26:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>s.andrews994</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39783</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39783</guid>
      <description>... Unfortunately, the Auxiliaries would still be unable to break-off, because Blades and Pikes automatically pursue and maintain contact. However, combining</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Curious About A Rule That Seems To Have No Purpose</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:19:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Vince Cholewa</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39782</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39782</guid>
      <description>Hi Tim I would assume the reason for the apparent horse archer paradox is the element is not &quot;full&quot; of soldiers. Much of it, in some cases most of it, is</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Curious About A Rule That Seems To Have No Purpose</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:00:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>renegade_dalek</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39781</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39781</guid>
      <description>Bob, Those of us that already play DBA have a considerable head start on new comers when it comes to understanding. I tried to show someone, who was an</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>what is straight back ???Re: [DBA] Re: Threat Zone Wording (or the R</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 05:43:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39780</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39780</guid>
      <description>Hmmm, so that &quot;diagram&quot; didn&#39;t work too well... Let me try again - it should look like this (I hope): _________ CCC _______ B ___ _ AAA _ B ___ _______ B ___ </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>3.0 Army Lists</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 05:43:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>baronlakwa</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39779</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39779</guid>
      <description>Is there an a set of army lists available that is compatible with the May version of the 3.0 draft rules?</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Curious About A Rule That Seems To Have No Purpose</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 02:02:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Robert Beattie</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39778</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39778</guid>
      <description>Without the diagrams, these rules will be very hard to understand. I can barely understand them as they are. I don&#39;t believe I could teach them to anybody</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Curious About A Rule That Seems To Have No Purpose</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 01:51:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Vince Cholewa</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39777</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39777</guid>
      <description>One of the options is to publish the rules soon and, in future, publish online free addenda and errata. Could even be a planned review cycle. Vince </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Are Auxiliaries Too Weak in DBA 3.0?</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 01:19:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>David Kush</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39776</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39776</guid>
      <description>Maybe let them survive doubling, just recoiled, except against mounted? They don&#39;t fight well but the can break-off if losing? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Curious About A Rule That Seems To Have No Purpose</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 22:11:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Robert Beattie</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39775</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39775</guid>
      <description>Not one diagram is yet to be seen by anybody in the review group. The crucial  improvement in these rules structurally is the addition of diagrams. But I guess</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Curious About A Rule That Seems To Have No Purpose</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 22:00:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>torsjorvik</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39774</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39774</guid>
      <description>Come on chaps enough is enough!!!, let it be finished this week. Kingo</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Are Auxiliaries Too Weak in DBA 3.0?</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 19:07:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>vincecholewa</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39773</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39773</guid>
      <description>Sorry, the last paragrah should have started: &quot;I agree, this is NOT directly relevant … &quot; Vince Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note vincecholewa</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Are Auxiliaries Too Weak in DBA 3.0?</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 19:02:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>vincecholewa</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39772</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39772</guid>
      <description>About Early Imperial Roman auxilia, Adrian Goldsworthy writes in &quot;Roman warfare&quot;:  &quot;Auxiliary infantry also included units of archers and contingents of</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Are Auxiliaries Too Weak in DBA 3.0?</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:56:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Adrian</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39771</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39771</guid>
      <description>&quot;Be careful of Vegetius. He&#39;s not a soldier himself, he&#39;s writing very late (about 400CE), its not clear what his sources for the armies of the earlier empire</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Are Auxiliaries Too Weak in DBA 3.0?</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:39:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>s.andrews994</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39770</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39770</guid>
      <description>In my last post, I mentioned why I believe reducing the combat difference between Ax and Bd/Sp from the current 2 to 1 would help correct the disparity between</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Are Auxiliaries Too Weak in DBA 3.0?</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:34:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>s.andrews994</dc:creator>
      <link>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39769</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/39769</guid>
      <description>Following on from my original post, my stating that Ax in DBA 3.0 are weaker in good going than they were in 2.2 is not just my personal opinion, but is an</description>
    </item>

  </channel>
</rss>
<!-- rss2.grp.bf1.yahoo.com uncompressed Thu May 23 04:20:01 PDT 2013 -->
