|
Post by craig on Jan 7, 2019 21:56:03 GMT
Hello,
I have only recently begun to learn how to play DBA (using cardstock armies) and am looking to build my first few armies. I have decided to buy the Essex pre-built Later Carthaginian II/32b and Polybian Roman II/33 armies as my starting point. I am considering also getting an ancient Spanish army too as a historical opponent of both Carthage and Rome. I'm looking to add variety to my available to play armies not necessarily the best or optimal armies.
Anyway, is there a difference in the Celtiberian army list from DBA 2 to DBA 3? I do not have army lists for version 2 and have not been able to find one online. I am considering purchasing a Celtiberian pre-built army pack, but the one available for purchase is based on the v. 2 army list. Is there a difference in the list between version 2 and version 3 army lists?
Thanks, Craig
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jan 7, 2019 22:48:16 GMT
Hi Craig;
Welcome to the forum and DBA!
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I did a quick search and found this for DBA 2:
(b) Celtiberian, Hilly 1 x 3Cv (Gen) [Large Shield Cavalry] 1 x 2LH [Small Shield Cavalry] 6 x 3Wb [Scutarii] 4 x 2Ps [Caetrati, Slingers]
The DBA 3 army pack on Essex has the following: Cv General 1 x LH 6 x 3Ax 4 X Ps
Looks like Wb to Ax?
Checked the DBA 3.0 book and:
Cv General 1 x LH 6 x 3Bd 4 x Ps
looks like the Essex army pack is wrong.
Hope this helps!
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 7, 2019 23:36:26 GMT
Hello, I have only recently begun to learn how to play DBA (using cardstock armies) and am looking to build my first few armies. I have decided to buy the Essex pre-built Later Carthaginian II/32b and Polybian Roman II/33 armies as my starting point. I am considering also getting an ancient Spanish army too as a historical opponent of both Carthage and Rome. I'm looking to add variety to my available to play armies not necessarily the best or optimal armies. Anyway, is there a difference in the Celtiberian army list from DBA 2 to DBA 3? I do not have army lists for version 2 and have not been able to find one online. I am considering purchasing a Celtiberian pre-built army pack, but the one available for purchase is based on the v. 2 army list. Is there a difference in the list between version 2 and version 3 army lists? Thanks, Craig Craig,
The 18 x MPA109 listed in the DBA3.0 army pack is indeed incorrect. This should read 18 x MPA112 Spanish Celtiberian. You may want to ask them about that before purchasing the army pack.
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Jan 8, 2019 0:25:10 GMT
The 18 x MPA109 listed in the DBA3.0 army pack is indeed incorrect. This should read 18 x MPA112 Spanish Celtiberian. You may want to ask them about that before purchasing the army pack.
Would it be better just to mix the 2 codes ?
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 8, 2019 2:50:37 GMT
Looking at the available Spanish and Caetrati miniatures, it appears the difference is shield shape oval vs a more square and helmet (plume or none) or bare head. All are equipped with javelin. So perhaps it’s just personal preference for the look? The MPA109 is listed as both Iberian 3/4 Auxilia and Celtberian 3 Blade.
I understand the rules are not looking at specific weapon types but battlefield behavior. Perhaps the question I should be asking is whether a Spanish army based on fast blades or one with options for fast/solid auxilia gives a better third option for an army?
Thanks for the help gentlemen. I am really enjoying researching all of the army options and deciphering the rules.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 8, 2019 6:37:18 GMT
The 18 x MPA109 listed in the DBA3.0 army pack is indeed incorrect. This should read 18 x MPA112 Spanish Celtiberian. You may want to ask them about that before purchasing the army pack.
Would it be better just to mix the 2 codes ? I would mix them if using Essex.
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Jan 8, 2019 11:50:08 GMT
Looking at the available Spanish and Caetrati miniatures, it appears the difference is shield shape oval vs a more square and helmet (plume or none) or bare head. All are equipped with javelin. So perhaps it’s just personal preference for the look? The MPA109 is listed as both Iberian 3/4 Auxilia and Celtberian 3 Blade. I understand the rules are not looking at specific weapon types but battlefield behavior. Perhaps the question I should be asking is whether a Spanish army based on fast blades or one with options for fast/solid auxilia gives a better third option for an army? Thanks for the help gentlemen. I am really enjoying researching all of the army options and deciphering the rules. I agree with this, craig. Note that the distinction between Iberian and Celtiberian scutarii isn't as clear cut as we wargamers would like it to be - Celtiberians were a long cultural continuum between the more Iberian-influenced Celtiberians in the Ebro valley and more "purely Celtic" groups in Galicia and northern Castile. The opposite is also true - the typical Iberians in white tunic with red/purple border and sinew helmet are also an extreme (typical of the Mediterranean and Andalusian coasts) in a cultural continuum - in some areas, specially in the Pyrenees, the Ebro valley, the northern mountains and the southern Castilian plateau, nominally Iberian and Celtic tribes lived next to each other and intermingled quite a lot. The distinction that's more relevant and that all classic texts made inside both Celtiberian and Iberian armies is between light caetrati (typically with falcata sword, javelins and small, buckle-like caetra shield) vs. medium troops (typically with falcata, javelins and large oval scutum shield). DBA assumes that Celtiberian scutarii were more adept at individual fighting and more prone to charging and chooses to classify them as 3Bd, while it assumes that the similarly equipped Iberian scutarii fought in loser formation and relying more on their javelins, so classifying them as Ax - but it's a functional difference, not a radical difference in equipment. Minor differences between Celtiberians and Iberians (such as in colours, clothing and decoration, or in Celtiberians using straight swords of Celtic style in addition to the Iberian curved falcata) are largely cosmetic and can be represented simply by how you choose to paint the minis. Note that something similar happens for Lusitanians, which the classical fonts note favoured the caetra over the scutum - all the infantry are caetrati, but DBA assumes some of them fight in loose formation (therefore 3Ax) and some skirmish (therefore Ps), without a real difference in equipment. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to use that Essex code to represent both Celtiberian and Iberian scutarii - even if DBA chooses to depict them as different troop types to emphasise differences in battlefield behaviour. The other code (MPA112) seems to me fine to depict both Celtiberians and Celtiberian elements in Carthaginian or Roman armies, but certainly not to represent Iberian scutarii (due to the shield shapes and the cape - both of which are of clear Celtic origin) - so I'd probably mix both codes if I were to do a single Celtiberian army, and perhaps segregate them if I were to build both Iberians and Celtiberians - reserving the Celtic-looking MPA112 for Celtiberians and the more general looking MPA109 for Iberians. In any case, in both armies the Psiloi would be caetrati (I'd probably use the ones with sinew helmets, MPA110, for Iberians, and the ones with bare heads, MPA111, for Celtiberians, as the sinew helmet is a distinctly Iberian piece of equipment).
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Jan 8, 2019 13:34:36 GMT
Anyone contemplating building DBA II/39 Ancient Spanish should take a look at the figures offered by quickreactionforce.co.uk. Under Ancients they have a Spanish section with figures that IMO are the best around. With accurate armour and beautifully sculpted swords these figures look terrific when painted. Shields are separate but a little Superglue Gel will easily sort that issue. I have painted Celtiberian and Carthaginian armies and QRF do figures suitable for both.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Jan 8, 2019 13:50:47 GMT
Anyone contemplating building DBA II/39 Ancient Spanish should take a look at the figures offered by quickreactionforce.co.uk. Under Ancients they have a Spanish section with figures that IMO are the best around. With accurate armour and beautifully sculpted swords these figures look terrific when painted. Shields are separate but a little Superglue Gel will easily sort that issue. I have painted Celtiberian and Carthaginian armies and QRF do figures suitable for both. Colin Ah - I didn't know them but have had a look at them and they are indeed great figures - lots of variety, seems to have great detail, very competitive price and Romanised commands for the Sertorian War - what's not to like! My only Freikorp15 figures are Koori, but I imagine they are in the same scale - so the only caveat is that they are IIRC true 15mm and might not mix well with larger sculpts, but there's more than enough codes to build an army or three out of them without mixing. Good to know!
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Jan 8, 2019 15:30:39 GMT
The QRF Ancient Spanish are 15mm and work well with an Essex figure and Magister Militum figure I have used in my Celtiberians. The sculpting style and figure size varies at QRF, however, the excellent Spanish range is a consistent 15mm foot to eye.
I think their sale runs for another couple of days.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jan 8, 2019 17:39:15 GMT
Below is a pic of one of the Celtiberian armies Colin has painted (he donated this as a prize at the 2018 Alton DBA). Some of the figures are the QRF ones he mentioned in his posts, I believe - maybe he can point out which (??!!) I think if you click on the pic it gets bigger.
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Jan 8, 2019 20:34:14 GMT
Nice to see those guys again. Thank you for posting, Martin.
The army above is composed of figures from; Donnington, Magister Militum, Essex, Museum and QRF. They were gathered together from my odds and ends box and painted as a prize, as Martin says. The scutarii were based on an unused pack of QRF IB08 and a pack of Magister Militums Celtiberian figures, padded out with a few Essex and Donnington figures. The psiloi are Magister Militum Iberian Spanish Ps and Museum who knows what! The LH are from Essex and the cavalry general has a QRF figure and two from Donnington. All spears have been replaced with steel pins.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 9, 2019 3:11:00 GMT
Vic - Excellent post. Honestly, from your posts and some of the photos I've seen of Spanish armies like timurilank's 2nd Punic War blog, I'm starting to think of just picking up an additional 24 figures to build out the 4Ax for the Iberians. It seems the tunic colors all range from white with red trim to light brown, blue, green for all of the Spanish factions. The major color distinction on most of the painted armies I've seen is the shields but it also an assortment of colors not uniform like the Roman legion scarlet. So why not just base an additional 6 elements have the ability to field two different armies? The Celtiberian or Iberians.
I thought basing would be an issue, but my understanding is 3 blade and 3/4 auxilia all have a 20mm depth base.
Colin your paint scheme on the Celtiberian army is really good.
|
|
|
Post by attilathenun on Jan 16, 2019 11:36:57 GMT
Vic - Excellent post. Honestly, from your posts and some of the photos I've seen of Spanish armies like timurilank's 2nd Punic War blog, I'm starting to think of just picking up an additional 24 figures to build out the 4Ax for the Iberians. It seems the tunic colors all range from white with red trim to light brown, blue, green for all of the Spanish factions. The major color distinction on most of the painted armies I've seen is the shields but it also an assortment of colors not uniform like the Roman legion scarlet. So why not just base an additional 6 elements have the ability to field two different armies? The Celtiberian or Iberians. I thought basing would be an issue, but my understanding is 3 blade and 3/4 auxilia all have a 20mm depth base. Colin your paint scheme on the Celtiberian army is really good. Your correct Craig, 20mm base depth is good for all of those. Additionally, if you were so inclined, you could count an element with 3 figures to a base as either Blade or Auxilia, so long as it was obvious to an opponent. Mark
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 19, 2019 4:43:55 GMT
I am really liking the idea that a simple figure count and base depth generally indicates the type of unit. Much easier than some games I’ve played.
|
|