|
Post by hobgoblin on Jul 26, 2021 17:37:39 GMT
Does anyone use double-based warband elements in either version of the game? I recall there was a house rule floating around on the web a while back with double-based warband ('brutes') and spear ('phalanx') elements. D3H2 eliminates the need for the latter with pikes, but there does seem to be a bit of an opening for the doubled-up warband - to represent large-than-man-sized nasties that aren't behemoth-sized: ogres, bugbears, gnolls, non-gigantic trolls and so on. We fielded a 3AP 'brute' element of bugbears in our first game of D3H2 yesterday, and it seemed to fit in just fine.
We really enjoyed the inaugural D3H2 battle; doubled warbands don't seem hugely out of place. While some larger creatures might work as 6bd, the doubled warband seems more appropriate for creatures of the wilds.
Is there any particular way in which these might upset the balance of the game?
|
|
|
Post by ammianus on Jul 27, 2021 21:28:32 GMT
Back in 2010, Paul Potter combined a double base of warriors to represent a general's comitatus which he fielded as a Behemoth. His Germanic HotT army had two such quasi-behemoths. I've played a number of HotT games copying off Paul. Please see: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/641/open-letter-paul-potter
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 27, 2021 22:02:40 GMT
I use both Monstrous Warbands (my name for them) and Phalanxes...
Both are 3pts.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by hobgoblin on Jul 28, 2021 17:06:44 GMT
Thanks, both, for the replies!
Interesting idea, that behemoth-as-comitatus. It might work especially well with the D3H2/DBA version, in which the behemoth is more a trampler of infantry than a startler of horses. And the big base gives you plenty of room for an appropriately formidable-looking formation.
I suppose the double warband's absence from D3H2 just reflects its absence from DBA.
'Monstrous warband' is a good term, and there's certainly a niche for figures that don't quite convince as behemoths. If there's an aesthetic weakness in HOTT, it's that one player's behemoth can sometimes be a fraction of the size of another's. So the 'monstrous warband' gives troops of modestly sized trolls, etc., an appropriate role.
|
|
|
Post by ammianus on Jul 28, 2021 17:15:13 GMT
My "Drighten" army"
Left to right: Heavy cavalry, hero, warbands, Behemoth (comitatus), behemoth (Comitatus--free general), warbands, beasts, heavy cav....two psiloi with wardogs out in front.
|
|
|
Post by hobgoblin on Jul 31, 2021 8:18:40 GMT
My "Drighten" army"
Left to right: Heavy cavalry, hero, warbands, Behemoth (comitatus), behemoth (Comitatus--free general), warbands, beasts, heavy cav....two psiloi with wardogs out in front.
Looks great! One of the joys of HOTT is fitting figures to the element types, and that's a nice way to do it. Wardogs as psiloi is a great idea too.
|
|
|
Post by derrickthewhite on Aug 7, 2021 12:01:09 GMT
I use both Monstrous Warbands (my name for them) and Phalanxes... Both are 3pts. Joe Collins I only have HotT 2. Are you reducing the cost by 1 because a single attack takes out the full element? Is there anything else I need to adjust? I've been using trolls, ogres, ect as warband, but this double sized element sounds really good for them.
|
|
|
Post by robgoblin on Aug 9, 2021 11:00:55 GMT
Presumably also because of the inability to split them into two elements. You have slightly fewer tactical options with them over using just two stands of Warbands.
I like the idea, but I know others won't!
|
|
|
Post by hobgoblin on Aug 9, 2021 16:55:25 GMT
I think the case for three points an element is that there's much less flexibility. As warband columns can advance quickly through bad going, they're very handy to use to support troops that are already engaged. So you can split the column up to support friendly elements in two directions: perhaps flanking an enemy element in one direction and overlapping one in another. And while the eggs of two warbands are all in one basket if you engage with rear support, you don't have to do that, and there are times where you might prefer not to (e.g. providing an overlap on either side of your general or simply fighting as a line so as to be able to 'close the door' with a flank contact if the opportunity arises).
Against that, the double warband retains its +1 even in bad going.
For D3H2, I have a dilemma as to how double warbands should work. A double HOTT warband is simple: +4/+4. But a notional DBA/D3H2 double warband would be +4/+2. That seems a bit weedy for ogres, etc., against cavalry, so I wonder if a compromise of +4/+3 is about right. Any thoughts much appreciated!
Edit: started writing this before robgoblin's post, hence the duplication!
|
|
|
Post by hobgoblin on Aug 12, 2021 21:03:44 GMT
I've been thinking a bit more about fitting these into D3H2, and I reckon the +4/+4 'super-warband' is probably the best fit for giant orcs or beastmen, agile-looking ogres or smallish trolls - like Tolkien's olog-hai:
Now, those are more than your average warband - but they're fast and agile like warbands, and they ignore bad going like warbands. (As an aside, Tolkien's uruks - which seem to make up the vast bulk of Sauron's and Saruman's armies - are probably warband in small encounters but diminished to hordes in the very big battles.) So a super-warband is a better fit than behemoth.
In standard HOTT, 3 AP seems fair enough for these at +4/+4; they gain the support factor even in bad going, but they lack the manoeuvrability and options of two separate warbands. But in D3H2, they're much better than warbands against cavalry (appropriate, but a real advantage) and have the edge on behemoths in ease of use (1 PIP vs 2). So perhaps a +4/+4 monstrous warband should be a full 4 AP.
Any thoughts or experiences much appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by derrickthewhite on Oct 11, 2021 21:56:58 GMT
I'm running a test battle (against myself) that didn't mean to test "super-warband", but seems that it will center on them, and being true +4/+4's seems to matter a LOT in this battle. Specifically when they are being shot at. Normal warband would have +3 against the shots, but if these get a true +4, they're a lot more resistant to the pair of cannon being trained on them. They're holding out in a wood, and they feel safe until they come out and expose themselves to the shooters next to the cannon.
so do they truly act like doubled warband, or do they get an extra point of resistance vs. shooting?
What would you folks say?
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 12, 2021 16:24:02 GMT
If you limit the army to 12pts of 3+ elements... then use them as +4/+4. If you allow an unlimited number... then make them +4/+4 in close combat and only +3 in distance combat.
I prefer the latter as it fits better for my uses of the troop type... but I use HoTT primarily to play full fantasy battles... not the standard 24pt game.
You may also want to try Berserks... Foot Paladins... also nice for representing out of control robots, gobo berserkers twirling wrecking balls, and other such madness.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by derrickthewhite on Oct 13, 2021 15:43:12 GMT
The trolls are all dead now... I don't think having them be +4 instead of +3 mattered. The distance that they recoil mattered a lot though. I decided to treat them as the +4/+4's limited to 12, because Trolls and Ogres should probably count as specialty troops.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 14, 2021 21:50:28 GMT
In D3H2 I only put in those Troop Types that are covered by HOTT or DBA 3.0. Hence you get Pikes so don't need the 2.2+ guys addition of "Phalanx". I prefer to stick to DBX types that we already have rather than add new types which often just duplicate what we already have.
They also added some sort of Monstrous Warband which I assume is the double Warband. Warbands already get a +1 for a second rank so this seemed to be sufficient - just double mount on deeper bases.
But if players want more in A Game of Knights & Knaves we have Light Beasts (+2 MA 3, Evade); Medium Beasts (+3 MA 3; Shock v. Light & Medium Foot); Great Beasts (+3, MA 3; Shock v. Heavy Foot & Knights), Huge Beasts (+4 MA 3, Shock v. Heavy Foot & Knights but Light Foot & Heroes gain Cry Havoc against them (Destroy them on Equals). Any can be Fast except Huge (+1 MA but Recoil on Equal from non-Fast). Any can also Fly raising MA to 10.
Glad you are enjoying the D3H2 stuff and always interested in any additions players would like to add.
Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
Post by hobgoblin on Oct 20, 2021 22:56:54 GMT
In D3H2 I only put in those Troop Types that are covered by HOTT or DBA 3.0. Hence you get Pikes so don't need the 2.2+ guys addition of "Phalanx". I prefer to stick to DBX types that we already have rather than add new types which often just duplicate what we already have. They also added some sort of Monstrous Warband which I assume is the double Warband. Warbands already get a +1 for a second rank so this seemed to be sufficient - just double mount on deeper bases Yes, I assumed that was the case. And certainly, Pikes remove the need for phalanx. I don't think just doubling up Warband as you suggest quite works for ogre-type creatures (those in the "too big for Warband, too small for Behemoth" category). There are a couple of things at play here. First, in D3H2, Warband are only +2 against cavalry, rather than +3 as in HotT. So our ogres - which look as if they'd be quite a challenge for cavalry (and horses probably don't like their smell!) - are unsuitably weedy against them. Second, a Warband element only gets the +1 for rear support against foot and then only in good going. But I think we can reasonably expect our ogres to retain their size advantage permanently and to be at least as dangerous in dark places as they are in the open. After all, their "+1" comes from their being big and fierce, not their numbers. At the weekend, I'm running a game for friends that will include huge trolls (one to a base; Behemoth), ogres (two to a base; 6Bd) and 'giant orcs' (three to a base; +4/+3, fast). I'd have made the last of these +4/+4 for 4 points each, but I needed them to be 3 points for points-balancing purposes, so I've bumped them down to +4/+3. I'll report back on how they play out! They'll essentially be double D3H2 Warband but with permanent, rather than situational, advantages to compensate for their permanent column arrangement. So they aren't exactly duplicating Warband x 2. I must have another look at Knights and Knaves, which I bought ages ago. In the meantime, D3H2 is terrific - for which, many thanks!
|
|