Slitherine

Sadly, although all Incas trained with the sling, our interpretation of their battlefield behaviour led us not to give Sling capability to close combat troops (MF).

You may disagree but that was the position arrived at after research in their battles.

marty wrote:

Sadly, although all Incas trained with the sling, our interpretation of their battlefield behaviour led us not to give Sling capability to close combat troops (MF). They do, however, have very large numbers of LF slingers

.

Large numbers of LF sling backed up by lightly equipped MF is going to have a very tough time indeed against pretty much everything

Why? Isn't this just a variation on the all powerful Dominate Roman swarm tactics but with more missile troops?

Slingers are very effective missile troops. When Richard says very large numbers he really means it.

hammy wrote:

marty wrote:

Sadly, although all Incas trained with the sling, our interpretation of their battlefield behaviour led us not to give Sling capability to close combat troops (MF). They do, however, have very large numbers of LF slingers

.

Large numbers of LF sling backed up by lightly equipped MF is going to have a very tough time indeed against pretty much everything

Why? Isn't this just a variation on the all powerful Dominate Roman swarm tactics but with more missile troops?

Slingers are very effective missile troops. When Richard says very large numbers he really means it.

Well only 80 bases. But there are LF archers, dart and bolas men as well.

Variation of the Dom swarm?!!? What, with no armoured foot, entire army of 4el units (as far as we know) or mountains of light horse. Quite a variation indeed!

I have never before heard anyone express excitement over an army at the prospect of lots of LF sling. ("gee thats a real dog of an army, oh wait, it can have lots of LF slingers!" doesnt really ring true). Personally I dont think it would help if they were allowed 200 elements of LF sling and I hope they aren't saddled with an unusually high minimum of these boys.
weigh these guys up against the MF having sling. 8 points for one dice of shooting as opposed to nothing.

I know I'm whinging, but its just a particular shame as the Inca really cant be "morphed" in to something with more of a chance as they are so distinctive looking.

Martin

marty wrote:Variation of the Dom swarm?!!? What, with no armoured foot, entire army of 4el units (as far as we know) or mountains of light horse.
Martin

LH in South America??

philqw78 wrote:LH in South America??

Inca youngsters using slings from llamaback?

In open ground they might be almost as effective as the same youngsters on foot.

Inca youngsters using slings from llamaback?

In open ground they might be almost as effective as the same youngsters on foot.

It pays to do your research.

marty wrote:Variation of the Dom swarm?!!? What, with no armoured foot, entire army of 4el units (as far as we know) or mountains of light horse. Quite a variation indeed!

OK, they aren't armoured or in tiny BGs but they are still very maneuverable and solid in combat. There are several BGs of 'interesting' MF available which will add significantly to the army in open tournaments IMO.

I have never before heard anyone express excitement over an army at the prospect of lots of LF sling. ("gee thats a real dog of an army, oh wait, it can have lots of LF slingers!" doesnt really ring true). Personally I dont think it would help if they were allowed 200 elements of LF sling and I hope they aren't saddled with an unusually high minimum of these boys.

Well as a BG of 6 slingers could cost as little as 12 points.......

weigh these guys up against the MF having sling. 8 points for one dice of shooting as opposed to nothing.

4 points for a dice and 12 for 3 dice and an extra BG.

I know I'm whinging, but its just a particular shame as the Inca really cant be "morphed" in to something with more of a chance as they are so distinctive looking.

Yes it is whinging

Actually I think that with loads of LF slingers (who can be poor if you want them to be) backed by loads of mostly drilled MF this army will be able to cause problems for a lot of other armies.

rbodleyscott wrote:This is particularly important as "Blood and Gold" theme tournaments are unlikely to occur very often (if at all), so they need to be viable in Open tournaments.

Actually, there was Americon in Australia which was an American (and Pacific Islands if I remember rightly) themed comp for DBx, so there may be one in Australia, but I don't know what's happened with the organisers in the 'DBM/FoG' transfer.

Ian

Rampant speculation aside (which I enjoy!), can anyone shed any light on what armies made the cut? I know its only 2.5 months away but I would like to start shopping for and painting minis as I have no Central Americans painted at the moment.

I really would hate to buy 400-500 Huaxtecs ahead of time if they didn't make the cut!

see the link for your Enter the Dragon question. Also the lost souls are listed as well

philqw78 wrote:see the link for your Enter the Dragon question. Also the lost souls are listed as well

No Huaxtecs .....WHAT! One of the Aztecs longest running enemies!!!!!!! What a loss!

While there is no Huaxtec list, the Aztec list does allow for Central American allies, which could I suppose involve the Huaxtecs in the late 15th century (I'd have to check my sources to see if the Huaxtecs were used in this role, I'd imagine in the wars against Tlaxcalla and friends.

grahambriggs wrote: I'd imagine in the wars against Tlaxcalla and friends.

Wars against friends. That's very modern.

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: I'd imagine in the wars against Tlaxcalla and friends.

Wars against friends. That's very modern.

Well the standard Central American warfare at the time was between confederacies of city states. Some alliances and enemies were a permanent factor but most swapped sides quite easily, particularly if they were far removed from the big povers. Poor roads and no wheels or draught animals meant that it was difficult to maintain firm control over far flung cities.

grahambriggs wrote:Well the standard Central American warfare at the time was between confederacies of city states. Some alliances and enemies were a permanent factor but most swapped sides quite easily, particularly if they were far removed from the big povers. Poor roads and no wheels or draught animals meant that it was difficult to maintain firm control over far flung cities.

Is there some hidden message about americans here?

grahambriggs wrote:While there is no Huaxtec list, the Aztec list does allow for Central American allies, which could I suppose involve the Huaxtecs in the late 15th century (I'd have to check my sources to see if the Huaxtecs were used in this role, I'd imagine in the wars against Tlaxcalla and friends.

After 50 years of warfare the southern 1/2 of the Huaxtex territory was finally brought under control by the Aztecs. The Huaxtecs did indeed then serve as a client state, however they were constantly rising in revolt.

As most who are interested in the Aztecs probably know, the Aztecs adopted the Huaxtec warsuit (the pointy hatted one!). Thats a pretty good honor for an enemy. Its a shame they were not included.

I suppose I will have to come up w/ my own list.

As interesting as all these posts about these southern softies are, I'm waiting to find out how my hard men from the North Eastern Coastal Forests are treated. Any hints?

Am I right in assuming there won't be much in the way of heavy foot in this book.
dug out my Aztecs and might get painting, wondering how to base the suit wearers and other foot (not like DBM please, hordes are what put me off!)

Ben

benos wrote:Am I right in assuming there won't be much in the way of heavy foot in this book.
dug out my Aztecs and might get painting, wondering how to base the suit wearers and other foot (not like DBM please, hordes are what put me off!)

Ben

Everyone in the Aztec list is either medium foot or light foot. There is nary a heavy foot BG in sight, infact I don't think there are any heavy foot in the book.