|
|
Post by j on Mar 30, 2019 18:34:45 GMT
Just updating my Gallic Army. Is it possible to mix 3Wb & 4Wb in the same Army?
Regards,
j
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 30, 2019 18:38:21 GMT
Just updating my Gallic Army. Is it possible to mix 3Wb & 4Wb in the same Army? Regards, j No. The list says "3/4Wb" and the "/" symbol means they have to be either all 3Wb or all 4Wb. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 30, 2019 18:41:22 GMT
That said, I'd see no harm in a player declaring at the start of a battle/campaign "all my Wb are 3Wb", even if they have the wrong number of troops on them.
I for one will NOT be painting and basing 2 of everything for my Gauls. Too much work. My wife says I spend far too much time on this nonsense already as it is!
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2019 19:24:00 GMT
Just updating my Gallic Army. Is it possible to mix 3Wb & 4Wb in the same Army? Regards, j You could have a Gallic army (3Wb) supported by 3 x Germanic warband (4Wb) as allies. |
|
|
|
Post by pat1958 on Mar 31, 2019 5:13:14 GMT
Isn’t the 3/4 restriction on a group of elements basis? For example, II/11 says general can be a 3/4 Wb, a second group of two elements can be 3/4 Wb, and the main group of six elements is a 3/4 Wb. So within each of those groups could you not have all of the units in a group be either a 3/Wb or 4/Wb, without affecting the 3Wb or 4/Wb choice for the other groups?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 31, 2019 6:17:14 GMT
What Pat says is how I understand it. “/“ means “either choice for all members of the set. And in II/11 there is a set for the General, a set of 2 and a set of 6.
Unless we are playing an inclusive “/“ interpretation or ignoring the consensus......in which case I have no idea and you can do what you like!
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 31, 2019 6:40:19 GMT
Isn’t the 3/4 restriction on a group of elements basis? For example, II/11 says general can be a 3/4 Wb, a second group of two elements can be 3/4 Wb, and the main group of six elements is a 3/4 Wb. So within each of those groups could you not have all of the units in a group be either a 3/Wb or 4/Wb, without affecting the 3Wb or 4/Wb choice for the other groups? <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 22.660000000000082px; height: 3.5600000000000023px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_86566847" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_74028559" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 118px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_38348710" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: 118px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_25804288" scrolling="no"></iframe> Possibly, but given that the switch from 4Wb to 3Wb is to reflect the change caused by the nobles fighting as cavalry, I think it more likely that all the warriors are meant to be the same over the entire army. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 31, 2019 8:03:11 GMT
To quote from the II/11 Gallic Army description:- “They lived in open arable farmland rather than forest and are best represented as 4Wb. An exception
were the Gaesati, a community of mercenary infantry based in the Alps, best represented by 3Wb.”At the Battle of Telamon in Italian Etruria in 225 BC, the Gauls (4Wb) had a contingent of mercenary Gaesati (3Wb). So I see nothing wrong with having say:- 1 x Cv General, 2 x LCh, 2 x 3Wb, 6 x 4Wb, 1 x Ps (And as has been discussed before in other threads in the past, 3Wb and 4Wb can rear-support each other)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 31, 2019 8:34:32 GMT
With respect to the point that the switch from 4WB to 3WB is entirely due to the nobles converting to CV - the second subset of the army list giving a 2 CV option also lists the warriors as being 3/4WB. Based on that I would see a list of -
1 x CV General, 2 x CV, 2 x 4WB, 6 x 3WB, 1 x PS
as reflecting a group of nobles foregoing their mounts to lead/stiffen some groups of the warriors.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 31, 2019 9:55:20 GMT
Isn’t the 3/4 restriction on a group of elements basis? For example, II/11 says general can be a 3/4 Wb, a second group of two elements can be 3/4 Wb, and the main group of six elements is a 3/4 Wb. So within each of those groups could you not have all of the units in a group be either a 3/Wb or 4/Wb, without affecting the 3Wb or 4/Wb choice for the other groups? That's how I play it. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by dolphinless on Oct 9, 2024 13:58:29 GMT
Also, am I correct in thinking that the "/" if used between mounted & foot elements (eg IV/64 it's 3Kn/4Bd), the replacement can be made before deployment......which means after terrain has been placed.
So if the terrain that's been placed is more suitable for 4Bd, the player can choose those rather than 3Kn??
|
|
Mr.E
Beneficiarii
New comer to DBA
Posts: 80
|
Post by Mr.E on Oct 9, 2024 15:53:16 GMT
the replacement can be made before deployment......which means after terrain has been placed. You are Correct is a Yes |
|
|
|
Post by claudermilk on Oct 10, 2024 13:13:48 GMT
I would think if the intent were for the 3WB vs 4WB choice to be all or nothing it would be listed at 8x 3/4WB.
|
|
