|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 19, 2018 21:18:03 GMT
If he's a Roman Auxiliary archer of German origin could it be a spare Thuringian Roastbratbockwerst...just in case he gets peckish?🌭
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 17, 2018 16:06:30 GMT
I would also suggest placing a fort bang in the center of your proposed deployment line...your opponent has to either attack it or avoid it and may not get the overlaps as the rest of your troops could prevent it. If they ignore it..it can be used to attack flanks or rear of advancing enemy elements depending on which facing you place the entrance. Also the TZ of the fort can mess up your opponents attack on your line. The down side of this is that the attacker could concentrate on part of your army and the fort could get in the way of aiding the troubled part of your line. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said Haardrada... ... providing that the defender has access to a Blade garrison, or if the invader has no Blades and Spears in their army. Picts, Caledonians, Ancient Britons, Gauls, Spanish Iberians, Umbrians, Samnites, Italian Hill Tribes, Bruttians & Apulians, Illyrians, Thracians, and the vast majority of armies, only have CF 3 foot elements to use as a garrison (allies won’t help either: they can’t be used as a garrison). And a CF 3 garrison has 15 chances out of 36 of being destroyed by a Blade assisted by two other assaulters. So for these armies the Fort actually becomes a liability rather than an advantage. The defender has effectively thrown away one of their elements, leaving only 11 to face the invader’s 12. In these cases, a piece of bad going near the centre of the battlefield would be far better for the defender than a Fort in such a position. A Note To Tournament OrganisersIf you think that a 1½ by 1½ BW City or Fort tucked right up in a battlefield corner so that it prevents more than two invaders to assault it is a bit ‘cheesy’ (even if legal), then I suggest not banning Cities and Forts, but banning the tiny ‘postage stamp’ terrain. (Something I’ve always hated: see fanaticus.boards.net/post/8552/ ) However, it won’t make much difference. A City or Fort with a curved 3 BW front and 1½ BW deep crammed into a table corner will have the roughly the same effect... ...the invader won’t be able to assault on the first bound, two elements could assault for two PIPs on the second bound, and it will take three bounds to get the third assaulting element into position (assuming they all have a move rate of 3 BW that is). 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
thats when I would choose a hamlet or edifice instead.😉
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 17, 2018 10:05:41 GMT
Just spent the last couple of days painting 🎨 the Grenadine Mounted elements while watching El Cid....very inspirational if a tad out of period.😊
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 16, 2018 19:26:39 GMT
I have a couple of thoughts on using Forts or cities I'm prepared to share with you...firstly, the obvious one to choose a fort rather than a city as it costs only the loss of the defending element and nothing if you abandon it.
I would also recommend placing a fort on a waterway in some situations...it acts as a flank guard as any landing troops have to assault it or run the risk of flank or rear attack if they avoid it.Either way it could help protect your flank...it could also put off a possible flank attack leaving the garrison racing to rejoin the fight!
I would also suggest placing a fort bang in the center of your proposed deployment line...your opponent has to either attack it or avoid it and may not get the overlaps as the rest of your troops could prevent it.If they ignore it..it can be used to attack flanks or rear of advancing enemy elements depending on which facing you place the entrance.Also the Tz of the fort can mess up your opponents attack on your line.The down side of this is that the attacker could concentrate on part of your army and the fort could get in the way of aiding the troubled part of your line.
The best defenders are fast foot elements...the range of their possible movement should they sally out can be a threat.
Lastly,If you place the fort on a road with the entrance facing your opponents baseline and he does not block the road your garrison has a free move into middle of his rear.😉
...oh the cheese.🧀
|
|
|
Hussites
Jun 9, 2018 10:56:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Jun 9, 2018 10:56:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 9, 2018 10:45:54 GMT
Finally completed 4×3Cb,1x4Cb and 2×2Sp of the Grenadine army....next up 4×Lh and 1×Kn/Cav(General) element.
The fun starts with the flags too as found some illustrations from a 1284AD manuscript.😉
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 8, 2018 23:11:09 GMT
Impressive.👍😊
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 8, 2018 17:43:49 GMT
Thanks guys! But see I'm looking SPECIFICALLY for Corinthian Helmets. If I could cartoonify the figs to be just a big nose sticking out under a nose guard, with a crest, spear, feet, and a shield I'd do it (actually would love a DBA army that looked like that came off the pages of Asterix) Old Glory is close, and Xyston look nice, but not sure if my phallanx will look like 300 with armor (as opposed to thongs) You could contact Xyston and ask if they could supply you with packs containing only figures with Corinthian Helmets?If they do figures in bronze armour,linen corselet and unarmoured maybe with some in slightly different poses would that meet your needs? I know Essex have allowed me to request specific figures per pack before, maybe Xyston may be as obliging?
|
|
|
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 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 Haardrada on Jun 5, 2018 8:36:38 GMT
As I was wanting to do an early Nasarid army (pre 1300AD) I finally decided on the (mainly) essex figures for the army.This allowed me a mixed choice for most elements and allowed plenty of conversion opportunities.
General (Kn/Cav) AEA1 with MID113a followers.
Jinets (LH) mixed CRU18 and MID104.a
Horse Crossbow (LH) converted MOG6 and CRU17...I swapped the bow for a Crossbow to give a firing pose for a MOG6 figure and clipped the spear and shield arm from a CRU17 figure.
Mercenary/Town militia (Sp) mixed CRU7 and MID21.
Crossbowmen (4CB) My take on these are that they are mercenary types so they are mainly Mailed CRU42, but I mixed a CRU9 and MID106 to add variety in equipment.
StaffSlingers (Ps) I used Some Outpost Crusader Period Islamcs CI18 Dailami spearmen for these.They come with separate shields in the pack so I just clipped the spears from the figures and made the slings with wire and model putty...not bad and I varied the firing poses.😊
Peasant Crossbow (3Cb or Ps) the need for 4 elements of each helped with the variation...using a mix of CRU9,CRU42,MID106 and MID121 I had more than enough choice of pose which I was more than happy with.
I chose to add IV75 Islamic Berber Allies to the army to add a little weight and as of the choice of this allied army the General could be Cav,LH or Sp. I still had a spare MID113a and used the remaining CRU17 figures for the Cav and LH element choices.
With Spearmen being the most numerous element in the army I knew I needed at least one element so used CRU58 for the Sp element and the Sp General element (converting one figure by replacing his Sp with a sword).
The Third element could be a variety of choices but I opted for the Spanish Mercenaries (Kn or 4Cb) MID80 and the remaining CRU42 figures and Peter Pigs beautiful Tauregs...a mix of packs 31 and 33.
On the whole I am pleased with the variety in the army and have avidly started painting it...which is unusual for me!
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 2, 2018 11:03:57 GMT
In recent years I think Biblical armies have become more popular and have appeared as tournament themes which have had no shortage of participants...even though the more popular armies have been more prolific.However,I don't think I've seen any I/14 Early Northern Barbarian armies? The old Big Battle army assessment were a good guide to the least popular armies...but I leave it to each individual to choose how far they relate to armies in DBA 3.0...if anything its an interesting guide. legacydirs.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/BBDBA/ArmyAssessment.html
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 30, 2018 21:48:31 GMT
80% the way through painting Ploybian Romans as well.....but fell out of love with them temporarily......why does this happen?
Paddy Doesn't everyone get that!...maybe it's the distraction of the other armies on your paint list? I have Islamic Berber allies to paint for my Grenadines...but have deliberatly scheduled them in as the last elements to paint for the army...the carrot and stick approach and it's working so far.😉
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 27, 2018 19:47:13 GMT
I continued work on the Grenadines today, I was going to only kick off with the 4 ×3Cb elements and then follow with the 2×4Sp and 1×4Cb...but went for the lot!Done the basic colours plus armour base coat and starter flesh tone....not a bad start plus it lets me chose a basic colour blend that is continuous throughout the army.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 26, 2018 9:28:27 GMT
A rather productive morning...undercoated 4×3Cb,1×4cb and 4×4Sp of my Grenadines today...inspired!😊
|
|