|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 5, 2024 13:21:28 GMT
Both Haardrada and diades have this army. However, I don't know whether or not they have included the dust throwing women.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 2, 2024 21:16:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 2, 2024 10:03:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 1, 2024 11:19:00 GMT
Not (to return this thread to its origins) if (a) half of them belong to an ally general and (b) in any case, you have only rolled 1 pip for movement. I'm beginning to feel a little remorseful that my army choice appears to have caused deep emotional scaring on some players! Remorseful? Yeah, right! First an elephant army, then crocodile tears.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 27, 2024 18:11:16 GMT
I managed to miss the news that this handy little one-man operation was closing until today when it finally closed. (The one man in question - Steve - has now retired.)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 27, 2024 15:37:35 GMT
Some UK companies don't add VAT for peoples in the EU . Some EU based companies are , Baueda , Mirliton and QR miniatures . Those are the three companies I was going to mention. None of them has an extensive range - compared to, say, some of the larger UK companies - but if what they have meets the niche you are looking to fill, they are all nice figures.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 24, 2024 11:21:20 GMT
Thank you, carll. The basing style started out as a straight lift from Peter Berry's Baccus miniatures basing kit, but has evolved over time. The final lighter shade, Vallejho Pale Sand, was included following a comment by someone either here or on Facebook and the tufts - which are what really set it off - are from Tajima1 Miniatures (https://www.tajima1.co.uk/) which paulisper recommended. It was someone on Facebook who commented on the changes to the army lists which prompted me to look again at the Alternative Armies website. The elephant figure seemed too nice not to use and the camp seems the perfect solution. PS Surely one too many beers would result in pink elephants rather than grey ones?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 23, 2024 17:03:21 GMT
A camp for my Blemmye using the Alternative Armies elephant casting.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 23, 2024 7:57:16 GMT
It's a fine bright morning dahn sarff, but the forecast for Sheffield is wet and windy. I'd stay indoors and roll some dice if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 18, 2024 20:57:58 GMT
A query to Fanatici, an Alamanni general (Cv//4Wb) has a second warband element directly behind in contact forming a column. Dismounting, does the second element automatically close the distance to remain in column or must the adjustment cost a pip? How would you play this? I seem to recall that when v3 first came out this was discussed at some length (specifically relating to dismounting Mycenaean charioteers), and the ‘decision was ‘no, they end up separated’: just the front edges remain in place as you replace the LCh with the 4Bd, or in this case the Cv with the 4Wb. That is my recollection too.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 8, 2024 15:37:26 GMT
Verleihnix = Unhygenix
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 5, 2024 8:14:40 GMT
Some interesting reverse trash talk going on here. "You and whose army?" "Well certainly not the army I'm bringing. Hasn't a prayer."
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 2, 2024 8:04:57 GMT
Though small, they shall this day perform mighty deeds.
Have a good day, chaps.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 28, 2024 11:09:55 GMT
…no chance that the LH destruction might be intentional/realistic? A deep swarm of LH who, in Close Combat, are doubled might accurately represent the front part of the element attempting to flee in severe disorder and they and possibly others being killed in the crush/mayhem which ensues [??]…perhaps. No, and why are we to assume they have to be in close combat and you are assuming a swarming maelstrom of LH archers are ordered in nice neat rows in the first place. To myself they now both form part of the same tactical unit (same as pike or Wb when in two ranks) so flee as one, hence why they are destroyed by mounted because they catch them. Rather than looking at historical justifications, might it not be an idea to look at this in terms of the mechanics of the game? If the worst result one can get against most foot troop types is a flee, using the LH in two ranks and getting a bonus for rear support is the obvious course of action. Unless they are contacted on the flank edge as well, the LH have a basic combat factor of 3 and are effectively invulnerable. Whereas at the moment the player has to choose between fighting at a basic factor of 2 and being able to flee or putting in a second rank and upping the combat factor, but risking being destroyed in the event that the outcome is flee. You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?"
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 27, 2024 13:04:08 GMT
I think we need to distinguish between where the rules as written need supplementing and where they might need changing. There seem to be plenty of examples of things in the rules that need supplementing. Having no definition of “uphill” for close combat is clearly an example. Players have to decide how to interpret this and it is good that a common definition has been reached. There are also, in my view, plenty of things in the rules that could advantageously be changed. To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a “flee” result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. But I think that the advantages of playing the rules as written, of having a single reference point that everyone can turn to, outweigh the advantages of changing them on particular points. Concerning the way in which gentle hills affect shooting and command distance, I think the rules are clear. Hills are required to have “a centre line crest”. You can’t shoot, and command distance is reduced, if the element you are measuring to is “entirely beyond” a crest. Up to now, I have found it helpful to think of hills in DBA as being shaped like cornish pasties. The crest line runs all the way from one end to the other, rising to a bulge in the middle and then falling. This has seemed to me a natural interpretation of “a centre line crest”. With hills shaped like this, the shooting rule as written certainly produces an anomaly. An element at one end of the hill can shoot, over the bulge, at an element at the other end, provided that both are on the same side of the crest line. But I think this is quite a rare case, and not worth changing the rules for. Maybe I’m reading the rules wrong, and they are not as clear as I think. Maybe they’re clear but the anomaly, for example in the case of conical hills, is bigger/more serious than I think and is one of the cases (which should presumably be rare if at all) that could justify moving away from the rules as written. In any case, interested to hear your view. Depends slightly which way the pasty is pointing, hodsopa. If the crest (?crust) is roughly parallel to the base edge troops can hide behind it. However, if it runs parallel to the side edges, one could get some improbable results, including Artillery being able to hit troops on flat ground (Good going) on the far side of the hill.
|
|