Army lists

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:52 am

I have not seen "the bowcase is wrong" I'm a little busy (& lazy) to go hunting for it!! could someone be so kind to point me in the right direction????!?

I think that I may have had something to do with this. There was a "discussion" ongoing regarding Seljuqs, I basically said since I already had 50 elements of Skythians then they would do fine for Seljuqs. You would not believe the amount of abuse that was forthcoming over this seemingly trivial matter

Mr Gaukroger, being perfectly reasonable, pointed out that they shouldn't be used as Seljuqs because the bow cases were wrong.

At a later point (on this forum) I got my own back (I think) by probably pointing out that some troop type couldn't be morphed (probably offensive spearmen or something) because the bow cases were wrong...

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:06 pm

So less flexibility in army choice? Why bother? Let's keep things as they are. The only things I'd change would be the cost of a TC to either 34 or 36 pts. At the moment they are the only thing in the whole game that costs an odd number of points. I also think the FCs are a bit too expensive at 50 pts as the advantages over a TC aren't substantial enough.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:04 pm

We also have to hold our hands up to the fact that the bowcases issue is a bit of an in joke amongst old DBMers.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:13 pm

carlos wrote:So less flexibility in army choice? Why bother? Let's keep things as they are. The only things I'd change would be the cost of a TC to either 34 or 36 pts. At the moment they are the only thing in the whole game that costs an odd number of points. I also think the FCs are a bit too expensive at 50 pts as the advantages over a TC aren't substantial enough.

Actually that isn't true. Portable obstacles can end up costing odd numbers of points as can BGs of 9 elements where there are 3 supporting light foot.

That said most of my lists end up a few points short of the specified total.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:38 pm

Okay but both are not that common, unlike the TCs.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:39 pm

carlos wrote:Okay but both are not that common, unlike the TCs.

Well if having a 799 point list offends you just have either 4 TCs, an IC and 2 TCs, and FC and 2 TCs, 2 FCs and 2 TCs etc.

I can see a use for an army with an IC, FC and 2 TCs, the FC to lead an outflanking march.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:46 pm

I don't know where I wrote that 799 points lists offended me. I have lists I consider competitive at 800 pts ranging from 796 to 800 points. Some armies are just not very good at spending the odd 3 or 4 leftover points.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:01 pm

carlos wrote:I don't know where I wrote that 799 points lists offended me. I have lists I consider competitive at 800 pts ranging from 796 to 800 points. Some armies are just not very good at spending the odd 3 or 4 leftover points.

I don't see how TCs at an even price would make much difference other than meaning that armies with 3 TCs being able to get to 800 points on the nose.

As people seem to not really value FCs that much there could be an argument to making TCs cost 40 points I suppose.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:02 pm

Nik
Slightly off topic but as a long time Nappys player, I can tell you that some people in this little hobby get very fussed by wrong colour button lace loops on a 25mm dolly.

marty · Post by **marty** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:32 am

the FC is a better option in 25mm where the extra 4 inches of command range really matters because of the bigger base sizes

Martin

TheeMadone · Post by **TheeMadone** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:53 am

Haha true, all true.

Ally generals are not standard issue for all lists where troop commanders are, well, I have not seen every book. So I could well be wrong

There never was any issue:

Just highlighting how differing views really are the same if looked at closely enough

Cheerz

I came I saw I played

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:49 am

I think the design concept of making players pay for what they want to have (commanders, troops, defenses) and not what they would as soon do without (unfortified camp) remains the right place to draw the line.

Also, if TCs were at an even points cost you can still end up with an odd total as 9-base BGs and 3-point obstacles can take you there.

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:18 pm

MikeK wrote:I think the design concept of making players pay for what they want to have (commanders, troops, defenses) and not what they would as soon do without (unfortified camp) remains the right place to draw the line.

Also, if TCs were at an even points cost you can still end up with an odd total as 9-base BGs and 3-point obstacles can take you there.

FWIW I agree. I think the point system seems very well calibrated. If I'm under by a point or two I try not to sweat it. Almost any base worth its salt costs more than two points

Dale