|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 31, 2018 17:36:54 GMT
I always thought the Romans were a dab hand at assaulting fortifications. With that in mind, am I incorrect in thinking that the ultimate Bd-killing defence against an attempt by Bd to take a town is to hold it with Wb? If so, this seems odd....Am I missing something?
I can buy the wild charge of the painted, wooly-haired Gauls scaring the bejeepers out of raw legionnaires. It seems out of place that Gauls would be just as scary when constrained to fighting a BUA defence against sophisticated siege weaponry. Was this intended?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 31, 2018 17:47:56 GMT
I always thought the Romans were a dab hand at assaulting fortifications. With that in mind, am I incorrect in thinking that the ultimate Bd-killing defence against an attempt by Bd to take a town is to hold it with Wb? If so, this seems odd....Am I missing something? I can buy the wild charge of the painted, wooly-haired Gauls scaring the bejeepers out of raw legionnaires. It seems out of place that Gauls would be just as scary when constrained to fighting a BUA defence against sophisticated siege weaponry. Was this intended? I'm not sure I understand...the best defense of a BUA is a Bd. +5. A warband is just a +3. Remember...an element beaten but not doubled while attacking a BUA just recoils. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 31, 2018 18:45:59 GMT
But the CRT states clearly that Bd losing a combat to a Wb is destroyed. ....  Another clarification for the FAQs? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 31, 2018 18:50:10 GMT
But the CRT states clearly that Bd losing a combat to a Wb is destroyed. .... Another clarification for the FAQs? Well...not my choice in presentation...but, Here tis... If its total is less than that of its opponent but more than half: Destroyed if defenders of a city, fort or camp or denizens or camp followers that have sallied or mounted infantry in bad going. Recoil if in close combat against defenders of a city, fort or camp. No effect if CP, Lit or CWg. Otherwise: In direct answer to your question...yes, this may be a good FAQ question. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 31, 2018 19:37:16 GMT
No problem with more FAQs but the text is very clear. The CRT states clearly
"Recoil if in close combat against defenders of a city, fort or camp. ...
OTHERWISE
Blades Destroyed by Warband. If not, recoil"
Note the OTHERWISE So Blades recoil if just beaten by Wb defending a City, Fort, or Camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 5, 2018 15:15:31 GMT
Attacking walled cities/castles etc. has always been a bit of an odd concept. Weapon types don't matter. Pikemen would drop pikes etc. Really a question of organization and resources (ladders etc.) For fun you can let defenders take Boiling Oil as an option - grants Shock against attackers.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 5, 2018 16:26:07 GMT
No problem with more FAQs but the text is very clear. The CRT states clearly "Recoil if in close combat against defenders of a city, fort or camp. ... OTHERWISE Blades Destroyed by Warband. If not, recoil" Note the OTHERWISE So Blades recoil if just beaten by Wb defending a City, Fort, or Camp. That seems weird when Wb normally Qk Bd in any other terrain if the Bd loose? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 5, 2018 17:20:19 GMT
Attacking walled cities/castles etc. has always been a bit of an odd concept. Weapon types don't matter. Pikemen would drop pikes etc. Really a question of organization and resources (ladders etc.) For fun you can let defenders take Boiling Oil as an option - grants Shock against attackers. TomT Very clever! One I hadn't thought of... Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 5, 2018 17:34:21 GMT
No problem with more FAQs but the text is very clear. The CRT states clearly "Recoil if in close combat against defenders of a city, fort or camp. ... OTHERWISE Blades Destroyed by Warband. If not, recoil" Note the OTHERWISE So Blades recoil if just beaten by Wb defending a City, Fort, or Camp. That seems weird when Wb normally Qk Bd in any other terrain if the Bd loose? Not so weird when you think that the reason the war bands destroy the blades is that they go into them with a mad dash after first breaking their coherence. Phil says of Wb, “including all wild irregular foot that relied more on a ferocious impetuous charge than on mutual cohesion, individual skills or missiles; such as most Celts and Germans. Enemy foot that failed to withstand their impact were swept away,” so how do you think this applies to troops inside of a fortification/structure fighting blades. There is another rule that says troops do not pursue outside of works, would you rather they did? |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 5, 2018 17:44:28 GMT
That seems weird when Wb normally Qk Bd in any other terrain if the Bd loose? Not so weird when you think that the reason the war bands destroy the blades is that they go into them with a mad dash after first breaking their coherence. Phil says of Wb, “including all wild irregular foot that relied more on a ferocious impetuous charge than on mutual cohesion, individual skills or missiles; such as most Celts and Germans. Enemy foot that failed to withstand their impact were swept away,” so how do you think this applies to troops inside of a fortification/structure fighting blades. There is another rule that says troops do not pursue outside of works, would you rather they did? I don't altogether buy that idea about warband as the Gauls at Telamon,Galatians on occassion and Early Germans showed signs of cohesion. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 6, 2018 17:39:54 GMT
Against walled cities/castle wild charges by Knights, Warband etc. would hardly have the same impact likewise charging out of walls would be limited to narrow gates so not necessarily the same effect. So its really just numbers v. walls + defenders.
Of course everything essentially "Shocks" defenders as they can't Recoil.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 15, 2018 10:35:13 GMT
Primuspilus, and any anyone else who may be interested. Jim1973 (who has flown all the way from his native Melbourne to dear old Blighty for a month) and I fought a mapless campaign between the Polybian Romans and the Celts of Transalpine Gaul recently on a Sunday at the North London Wargames Club, and the question of Forts came up. I’ve posted an in depth study of what I think is the correct use of Forts in DBA, which you can find here:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/13722/Have a look...it might give you some ideas... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 15, 2018 10:47:32 GMT
Primuspilus, any anyone else who may be interested. Jim1973 (who has flown all the way from his native Melbourne to dear old Blighty for a month) and I fought a mapless campaign between the Polybian Romans and the Celts of Transalpine Gaul recently on a Sunday at the North London Wargames Club, and the question of Forts came up. I’ve posted an in depth study of what I think is the correct use of Forts in DBA, which you can find here:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/13722/Have a look...it might give you some ideas... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Stevie, Nice write up and one of the upcoming Dark Age scenarios does feature a fort.
Historically, the victors focused their effort on the defenders outside the fort and left a small covering force to impede a sally from the fort’s garrison.
|
|
Another clarification for the FAQs?
