Slitherine

Now that Blood and Gold is shipping apparently to everyone, may I ask about the Chichimec list? I make these and the army has been a so-so seller so far, due largely to a lack of a FoG list (FoG drives miniature sales these days, I've noted), so I'm wondering what people think of the list for the new book. My book is on the way but I'm quite keen to get advance word on the list.

Are these chaps Superior? Heath's commentary on them suggests they might warrant it, saying that four Chichimecs had no trouble overthrowing 50 tarascans or Tlaxcaltecs.

Any surprises in the list? I make archers, warriors with hand weapons, and a chieftain.
http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/chichimec.html

Any cataphracts or rocket artillery?

All unprotected undrilled. There's an early, non bow army but the post 900 version is:

- lots and lots of average LF or MF bow
- up to 56 MF Lt Spear, Sw, Bw* average
- up to 32 MF Lt spear, Sw, Javelin average
- some LF Light Spear Javelin average and some average LF sling

(javelins are all atlatl)

up to 20 veterans. MF Superior, Bow*, Lt spear, javelin
A few subjects - some poor LF bow, a BG of poor MF light spear.

So big army, good in terrain, reasonably fast, lots of missiles. Swords handy but lack of armour will mean part of the line will take a pasting.

Graham

Generally, the Blood and Gold armies should be more viable than their equivalents under, say, DBM but hopefully not the supertroops of 7th edition. Points value per base is low, so the armies will be large. Whiile they don't get mounted the atlatl gives a lot of the MF 'javelins' shooting which is handy (being free).

There are a few armies in there that seem to me to have real potential, and there are some comedy entries too. A few manufacturers do figure ranges but there's plenty of gaps, largely I suspect because the equivalent DBM armies were rubbish.

G

grahambriggs wrote:...There are a few armies in there that seem to me to have real potential, and there are some comedy entries too. A few manufacturers do figure ranges but there's plenty of gaps, largely I suspect because the equivalent DBM armies were rubbish.

Just about all of these armies would be hard sells to me. Not impossible, but hard. I have no real identification with them, there is nothing like the amount of information available on Mesopotamian or European wars and culture. There is more available even for the ephemeral Central Asian steppe cultures.

Perhaps the book will pique my interest. For a goofy mass army, they would have to edge out Nubians and Libyans though, even Old Kingdom Egyptians. Possible but unlikely.

Thanks Graham, appreciated!

Am also making Chinantecs for this book, they are being made now ....

khurasan_miniatures wrote:Thanks Graham, appreciated!

Am also making Chinantecs for this book, they are being made now ....

Hurrah! Pointy spears a-go-go!

Skullzgrinda wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:...There are a few armies in there that seem to me to have real potential, and there are some comedy entries too. A few manufacturers do figure ranges but there's plenty of gaps, largely I suspect because the equivalent DBM armies were rubbish.

Just about all of these armies would be hard sells to me. Not impossible, but hard. I have no real identification with them, there is nothing like the amount of information available on Mesopotamian or European wars and culture. There is more available even for the ephemeral Central Asian steppe cultures.

Perhaps the book will pique my interest. For a goofy mass army, they would have to edge out Nubians and Libyans though, even Old Kingdom Egyptians. Possible but unlikely.

Well, each to their own. I'm surprised you think there's more information available on ephemeral steppe cultures - since there are oodles of codexes and first hand conquistador, etc accounts. But hey ho.

Graham

grahambriggs wrote: I'm surprised you think there's more information available on ephemeral steppe cultures - since there are oodles of codexes and first hand conquistador, etc accounts. But hey ho.

Yes, thought the same thing about the Libyans and Nubians for instance.

"Grand" Chichimecs fought naked so there's a benefit -- spray paint tan, dunk in minwax woodstain, start rolling dice! They make the Nubians look challenging to paint by comparison.

And yes, my models are anatomically correct.

I think this is a potentially interesting list from a play perspective, but I think a higher level of attention to "don't make them so crap they aren't worth bothering with" was applied to these lists than in some other cases.

I don't want to open Pandora's Box here and I applaud the philosophy being taken here, I just wish it was applied more universally. I am a big proponent of under-used and disliked troop types, but there are a few armies here and there that look pretty hard done (and they are not all peripheral to the period).

Ethan - too late.

You of all people should remember the 17,000 post threads on the DBM list 'army x was historically significant but the list is a dog because of ...'

I would like to start (as is traditional) with why aren't Principiate Romans world beaters, able to take on all comers in all terrain, after all they conquered the known universe? :)

timmy1 wrote:Ethan - too late.

You of all people should remember the 17,000 post threads on the DBM list 'army x was historically significant but the list is a dog because of ...'

I would like to start (as is traditional) with why aren't Principiate Romans world beaters, able to take on all comers in all terrain, after all they conquered the known universe?

Believe me I remember. I know there have a been a couple of quotes about makin sure these lists in particular were not unplayable and I think it is a good general philosophy.

I would like to start (as is traditional) with why aren't Principiate Romans world beaters, able to take on all comers in all terrain, after all they conquered the known universe?

While I appreciate your sentiment, it was actually the Republican Romans that did most of the conquering. Early Imperial enemies were by and large pretty weak. Even the Parthians were really only strong on the defence.

On the other hand, the Republican Roman list of opponents were pretty formidable: the Carthaginians , Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemaics, etc.

But your point is well taken, it would be nice (for a change) to see the most powerful empires have at least an even chance in most games. It seems obscure armies (or armies at their weakest military point) are usually given the benefit of the doubt from most ancient rules writers.

grahambriggs wrote:

Skullzgrinda wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:...There are a few armies in there that seem to me to have real potential, and there are some comedy entries too. A few manufacturers do figure ranges but there's plenty of gaps, largely I suspect because the equivalent DBM armies were rubbish.

Just about all of these armies would be hard sells to me. Not impossible, but hard. I have no real identification with them, there is nothing like the amount of information available on Mesopotamian or European wars and culture. There is more available even for the ephemeral Central Asian steppe cultures.

Perhaps the book will pique my interest. For a goofy mass army, they would have to edge out Nubians and Libyans though, even Old Kingdom Egyptians. Possible but unlikely.

Well, each to their own. I'm surprised you think there's more information available on ephemeral steppe cultures - since there are oodles of codexes and first hand conquistador, etc accounts. But hey ho.

Graham

Loeb translations alone would do it, exclusive of Chinese, Persian and Indian accounts. Hey nonny nonny.

Delbruck wrote:...On the other hand, the Republican Roman list of opponents were pretty formidable: the Carthaginians , Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemaics, etc.

But your point is well taken, it would be nice (for a change) to see the most powerful empires have at least an even chance in most games. It seems obscure armies (or armies at their weakest military point) are usually given the benefit of the doubt from most ancient rules writers.

I think this is often due to proportions. The Romans were for generations able to field a military colossus with reliable, trained troops. Some Dark Age marauder surrounds himself one summer with a warband of a few hundred, of whom several score are Egil Skallagrimsson headcases (in one manuscript fragment). The armies are then scaled up - the Romans are mediocre grunts, the warband are epic heroes.

I've often thought about the ironies in the typical wargames representation of Rome over the years and at this point decades. The healthy Republic which broke the powers you mention is usually represented as an odd and ineffective thing, like Etruscans on steroids. The late empire -which actually lost the empire to so-so invaders - is often presented as everything the Byzantines wished they were. It sort of reminds me of those sad WWII games which feature the Germans with Koenigstigers and Me 262s as a 'typical' kampfgruppe.

Which is better, Late Republican Romans or Aztecs?

There's only one way to tell.

FIGHT!!!!

------------------

(My money is on the Romans)

I am putting my denarius on the Senate and People of Rome in that matchup!

khurasan_miniatures wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: I'm surprised you think there's more information available on ephemeral steppe cultures - since there are oodles of codexes and first hand conquistador, etc accounts. But hey ho.

Yes, thought the same thing about the Libyans and Nubians for instance.

"Grand" Chichimecs fought naked so there's a benefit -- spray paint tan, dunk in minwax woodstain, start rolling dice! They make the Nubians look challenging to paint by comparison.

And yes, my models are anatomically correct.

You, uh... "raise" a good point there . . .

Other than buck nekkid and with red heads, what do these boys look like? Any tattoos? Are the quivers plain leather or painted?

What are we looking at besides a bunch of angry, nekkid guys? These sound like the culprits who did for the Anasazi BTW.

>The late empire -which actually lost the empire to so-so invaders - is often presented as everything the Byzantines wished they were.

Hold on a moment there...they lost half the empire (to a collection of several different sets of invaders who had been troubling the empire for a couple of hundred years), at which point (by definition) the remaining half of the empire is exactly what the Byzantines were!

Skullzgrinda wrote:Other than buck nekkid and with red heads, what do these boys look like? Any tattoos? Are the quivers plain leather or painted?

What are we looking at besides a bunch of angry, nekkid guys? These sound like the culprits who did for the Anasazi BTW.

Gran Chichimeca painted thier bodies, mostly red, black and yellow, and painted linear tatoos on their bodies, especially their faces. The quivers were deerskin by and large. The Guayachil, the largest and most aggressive of the Gran Chichimeca tribes, painted their faces and/or hair red.

Hmm, not sure they had anything to do with the Anasazi.