|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 2, 2018 4:58:25 GMT
Wow Stevie! That's an impressive piece of work. Thank for that effort. Certainly not lazy. Jim Thanks for that…but please remember that it was actually a partnership between myself and Timurilank. In fact he had the hardest job…I just found the errors, he had to propose fixes for each and every one of them. Stevie is not actually human. The Borg assimilated him a long time ago. He is now part man, part machine, ... all genius. What is the leader of the Borg called? He is known as the chairman of the borg. What is their favourite tennis player? Björn Borg. What is their favourite food? Smorgasborg. And while we are at it:- Question: What is the similarity between the starship Enterprise and a toilet roll? Answer: They both get rid of cling-ons… Then a big thank you to Timurilank as well! Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 1, 2018 14:59:25 GMT
Thinking further the average dice for pips would prob make you more effective than less Probably plenty of times you dont really need six pips but never rolling a one would be fab, elephants moves and stuff out of command would never have to worry about the dreaded single dot That's what I was thinking. The more professional army would always have at least two PIPs, simulating training and a command structure but wouldn't get six PIPs as that would require thinking outside the square. If you wanted to add Alex or Julius as general, you could go back to the D6 to allow for brilliance (6 PIPs) but also for confusion/failure/tantrum (1 PIP). Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 1, 2018 14:49:56 GMT
Wow Stevie! That's an impressive piece of work. Thank for that effort. Certainly not lazy.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 1, 2018 14:39:54 GMT
Thanks. Need to upgrade my NKE army.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 27, 2017 23:18:44 GMT
It depends on the model. My advice would be to put it together before priming to see how it works. Look at which parts will rub together (particularly wheels and axles) and which parts will be hidden from view. Also mark your base where the horses and the wheels will attach. That will help you sort out the order. In general, I've painted everything then assembled the model as follows: assemble chariot, attach horses to base, attach chariot to horses and base and finish with passengers.
Jim
|
|
|
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
|
|