|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 27, 2017 23:12:18 GMT
It will depend on the armies you like playing. High factor elements will be nigh on impossible to double (e.g. blades +5; min +7 max +10 versus reinforced pike +6; min +8 max +11). Reinforced pikes would need a double overlap and a 5-2 or 4-2 result. The blades simply couldn't double the pikes. Whether this is more historical or not, I'll leave up to you. Lower factor troops (eg warband v auxilia) would be interesting. I would suggest experimenting between two armies where you think the change would add to the historical results and then let us know! Interestingly, I've pondered average dice for PIPs for regular, professional, drilled armies whilst keeping the D6 for irregular armies. Just a thought at the moment.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 22, 2017 23:58:29 GMT
Jim, good start but why bring in both Pike and Warband? Question: My two rank Pike block are in close combat with an enemy Blade. An enemy Auxiliary is in side edge to side edge contact with the second rank Pike. Does this second rank flank contact impact the front rank? Answer 1: The side to side contact on the second rank does not effect the front Pike rank. Answer 2 The side to side contact on the second rank gives the front Pike rank a -1 in combat. I believe that 1 is the correct answer. goragrad and primuspilus -- nice discussion of historical referents, but what do the rules mean Thanks Bob. That's why it was a draft. It was supposed to say Pike "or" Warband! Maybe it should've said "Pike, Warband or Light Horse" to cover the types allowed to give rear support in close combat. I was trying to make the question as broad as possible but still based on a game situation rather than directly quoting the rules. I don't think there is any practical possibility of the rules being rewritten any time soon and I don't think that is required. They are what they are and we obviously like them or we wouldn't spend so much effort playing them, discussing them and then playing them again! I like the idea of the FAQ that has been developed by experienced players that were involved in the playtesting. I think it will help bring more people into the game by helping inexperienced gamers navigate the rules. Your insights into Phil's reasoning for many of the rules has been invaluable. So when a situation pops up on the tabletop and then is discussed on this forum and causes some debate then it is possibly a candidate for the FAQ and maybe a poll is reasonable way of assessing the community's interpretation. That's the reasoning behind my post. Cheers Jim PS Just noticed that Double Elements are in the rear support section. I assume everybody plays that double elements have their rear support built-in and don't require a second double element to obtain the tactical factor!
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 22, 2017 3:12:14 GMT
Tony Aguilar posted on the thread "Back to mutual flank contact as original thread has detoured" a desire for a consensus on this rule. I posted the following poll idea on that thread so I'm cross-posting it here for completeness:
I agree with Tony. Those who know Phil have suggested that as an "old school" gamer, he would expect opponents to discuss and decide the interpretation between themselves. In the digital age, we could poll the Fanaticus members on how they interpret this situation based on the rules as written. I think the FAQ committee is best placed to perform the poll and use the information. Here is a first draft at a poll question to help:
An element of Pike and Warband is providing a positive tactical factor in close combat to a friendly element by being in front edge to rear edge contact with the friendly element. The supporting element is in mutual side edge to side edge overlap with an enemy element. Based on the rules as written, you would interpret this situation as:
a) No effect b) -1 tactical factor
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 22, 2017 3:06:56 GMT
My head hurts...but what I REALLY want to know is this the OFFICIAL CONSENSUS ruling as illustrated by Bob below: Bob: "Therefore Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not. If this is against a second rank element behind element in close combat giving support = no effect Because of the wording of the top paragraph, it seemed to me at first that any flank contact would apply. However, since mutual flank contact between non-supporting second rank and enemy gives no penalty, such arrangement between enemy and supporting second rank should give no penalty." This is how we have been playing it forever. I agree with Tony. Those who know Phil have suggested that as an "old school" gamer, he would expect opponents to discuss and decide the interpretation between themselves. In the digital age, we could poll the Fanaticus members on how they interpret this situation based on the rules as written. I think the FAQ committee is best placed to perform the poll and use the information. Here is a first draft at a poll question to help: An element of Pike and Warband is providing a positive tactical factor in close combat to a friendly element by being in front edge to rear edge contact with the friendly element. The supporting element is in mutual side edge to side edge overlap with an enemy element. Based on the rules as written, you would interpret this situation as: a) No effect b) -1 tactical factor Jim PS Wow! Just writing this question gave me a headache!
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 22, 2017 2:23:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 19, 2017 21:27:54 GMT
Sometimes it feels like you need an Enigma machine to decode the lists! Take Thracian peltasts: 6 x peltasts (Ps or 3/4 Ax). You can have any combination of Ps and Ax but all the Ax must be either 3 or 4 (fast or solid). Sounds like a good challenge to the readers. What's the most complex list to decipher?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 17, 2017 9:19:13 GMT
Now that's an interesting question. From my point of view my wargame armies have been influenced by (in no particular order):
- heritage and culture - travel (museums, battlefields, etc) - historical reading - movies - quality miniatures - ebay specials - memories of childhood daydreams (Andrew McNeil's Battlegame Books have a lot to answer for!) - opponents for my original army
and that's why I love wargaming so much!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 17, 2017 3:07:32 GMT
Thanks for the kind words Gentlemen. Robert, the tribesmen are Essex Miniatures Zulus. I used some wicker shields from either Museum Miniatures or Tin Soldier Miniatures. I bought them so many years ago I can't recall... I do remember I bought them to use with my Scots Irish. The Witchdoctor is from Splintered Light Miniatures. I have gone back and edited the post identifying the manufacturer of the miniatures photographed. That was a clever idea of swapping shields.
I have been looking for suitable figures to use for the Kingdom of Kongo (1600's), so this may be an option to consider. Unfortunately, I am at a loss finding good African archers for the period. I may have to use Nubian or Berber archers.
Would the West Sudanese archers from Khurasan suit? I'm thinking of a (another) DBA army based on the Songhai. khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/sudanese-tribal-archers.jpgJim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 17, 2017 2:53:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 12, 2017 10:03:28 GMT
Hmmm...HOTT with the classical fantasy races...hmmm...so many shiny figures from so many manufacturers...hmmm...they look so good painted! I must resist!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 12, 2017 9:10:01 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT I'm reading the rules again and getting more confused! The way I read the section "Moving into contact with the enemy" make me think the rules state that overlap is contact (side to side or corner to corner). I'll quote below: At the end of the bound's movement phase the contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group must be lined-up with an enemy element, either....d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap. Having said that, the same section describes four possible contact outcomes as we know: Front edge to front edge, front edge to rear edge, front edge to flank edge and overlap. So it would be reasonable to read the sentence "A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element" as pertaining to the second and third option but not the fourth. If Phil wanted overlap included would he not explicitly state it? So in summary, I've changed my mind! I am more than happy to exclude overlap as affecting the supporting element. The bases are way too deep for the troops represented and the little men from both elements would all be crowding around the front edge in my imagination. So maybe we could have a consensus that as overlap is not explicitly stated then it does not affect the supporting element? Jim PS I've also never liked the massive frontage/depth penalty pikes have to pay to achieve strength; a 3x2 block just doesn't look right!
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 11, 2017 3:26:49 GMT
I think Bob has it right. The only combat is the front-to-front contact. So I think the front warband is: +3 +1 for rear support ( I cannot find a rule that indicates this is negated by side-to-side contact) -1 for side-to-side contact (as per point 3 from Bob) Total: +3
It may help to visualise the warband as a temporary double based element. Or more imaginatively, the chaps behind aren't going hard in support of their friends at the front because there worried about the enemy on their side with sharp, pointy things.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 1, 2017 14:34:45 GMT
I'm sure it must be close. Keep it up Fanatici!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 30, 2017 13:10:35 GMT
They look great! AND the next project is the Saxon shore. I wonder how they'll mix with Splintered Light?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 23, 2017 7:14:51 GMT
Nic Robson at Eureka Miniatures is inviting expressions of interest (and pre-orders) in a proposed 15mm Sumerian range, modeled after Eureka’s excellent 25mm range, which you can peruse on-line at: eurekamin.com.au/index.php?cPath=87_126_738&sort=3aTentative plans call for the 15mm Sumerian range to consist of 9 codes – a Command pack with Gilgamesh, officers and Royal Guards, plus codes for pikemen, axemen, archers, slingers and javelinmen with mixed poses, and codes for Sumerian battlecarts and straddlecarts…plus an option for Akkadian archers. The final list, including any possible additions to the above, will depend on the level of interest. Nic advises advances orders cumulatively totaling approximately 5000 miniatures (estimated at AUD$4000) would be sufficient to launch the project. Eureka is no longer using its 100/300 Club catalog mechanism to log advance orders, but Nic asks that anyone who is interested contact him directly at nicr (at) eurekamin.com.au You can email Nic to express your interest and he will send you a proposed list with prices so you can reply with your pre-order. The list is cross-referenced with the 28mm catalogue so you can get a good idea of what you are ordering. fanatichris gave the email address above but I'll copy it in below, seperately from the text. nicr (at) eurekamin.com.au If nothing else, you'll get to look at some nice 28mm sculpts! Jim
|
|