Nobades/Blemmyes

discok3 · Post by **discok3** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:48 pm

Evening gentlemen,
May I enquire as to the possible inclusion of a list for these tribes/peoples?
I have a large army with oodles of cavalry,much of which is armoured,and I want an excuse to paint them and scare Romans
Your answers will be gladly received as long as they say yes!

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:22 pm

And good evening to you! Whilst waiting for any book with these armies in to arrive, here's a best guess!

These folk would be largely Cav Light Sp/Sw in rules terms, I guess, most of them average/protected with a BG or two superior/armoured. These in BGs of 4 or 6 bases and maybe four to eight or so BGs.
The foot would be mostly bow, LF and/or MF in BGs of 6 to 8 and probably also four to eight BGs. These would be unarmoured/average or poor.
Spearmen would be MF with Light Sp in BG of 6 to 12 bases, maybe two to six BGs, and unprotected/protected and average/poor.
Late on, post 200AD, some cavalry could subsitute camel riders.

Martin

discok3 · Post by **discok3** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:35 pm

Hello Martin
You are a fountain of knowledge sir and it would seem the hardest working member of this discussion group.
Many thanks for the input...I'll give some thought to how marvellous an army( or not) this might be and see where it takes me..it will however need to be included in one the future books or I'll sell it on E-Bay to the DBx crowd.
Thanks again for the game the other day..I loved it and am now becoming somewhat obsessed by the whole genre!
I will get back to you soon with some other dates for the next game so talk to you soon
Cheers
Kevin

Rudy_Nelson · Post by **Rudy_Nelson** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:47 pm

Information has been discussed. Some suggest two army lists. One for the tribes of the Nile Valley and one for the wilderness of the Red Hils and Desert.

discok3 · Post by **discok3** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:18 pm

Discussed somewhere on this forum?..if so could you point me in the right direction?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:48 pm

I would strongly suspect this army is weaker in FoG relative to DBM or Warrior.

discok3 · Post by **discok3** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:01 am

OH...Shame...but their history would suggest that they were relatively successful at raiding...and they did cause the Romans some headaches..although they were left alone due to more pressing conflicts elswhere so perhaps that would explain their survival...anyway perhaps one of the moderators could confirm their inclusion(or not) and their possible structure.
If they are included then I'm sure they will be playable as these rules seem to give all armies a chance rather than just having historically correct but relatively weak fighting capabilities...the move away from killer armies lets us all indulge our individual passions for a particular army and still stand a chance against any opponenet...also makes the competition circuit a more eclectic and colourful place.

PaulByzan · Post by **PaulByzan** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:10 am

Remember the most important distinction. If they win they're Blemmyes. If they lose they're Nobades!

Paul G

discok3 · Post by **discok3** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:56 pm

Very drole!

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:29 pm

discok3 wrote: OH...Shame...but their history would suggest that they were relatively successful at raiding...and they did cause the Romans some headaches..although they were left alone due to more pressing conflicts elswhere so perhaps that would explain their survival...anyway perhaps one of the moderators could confirm their inclusion(or not) and their possible structure.
If they are included then I'm sure they will be playable as these rules seem to give all armies a chance rather than just having historically correct but relatively weak fighting capabilities...the move away from killer armies lets us all indulge our individual passions for a particular army and still stand a chance against any opponenet...also makes the competition circuit a more eclectic and colourful place.

Well I suspect you are right they will still be fun to play. But I would argue that these armies punched above their real historical weigth in the dbm warrior rules. And therefore correct my view of that makes them "relatively" weaker. That does not mean they become dog food. Based on points I would certainly expect them to be large and numbers have a quality of their own in this system.

I see Christina Nubian in the byzantine book on the FOG site. That will certainly give us hints to their thinking down this way. But it appears not to be explicit list in 2008. We can hope in 2009.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:29 pm

The best you can hope for for Blemmye/Nobades is, I think, a Lost Scrolls list.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:40 pm

Nik, particularly where official lists for them are well beyond the horizon, is there any reason why well researched, copiously cited, and conservatively designed army lists that have been subjected to "peer review" (e.g., forum review and hopefully unoffiicial comments from the design team) should not be acceptable for casual games, as well as tournaments at the discretion of the organizer?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:49 pm

In casual games anything that the players agree on is OK

I am personally not in favour of competitions using anything other than the official lists, however, you might find an organmiser that is OK with it, I can certainly recall DBM comps where unofficial lists were used for example.

As for posting possible lists on the forum please go ahead - its one of the things it is here for

discok3 · Post by **discok3** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 pm

Cheers Nik,
I'll leave'em in a box for a bit then and re-visit them later this year...unless some hard working boffin can come up with a list that I can play with...lots of other armies to tweek and dust off so no particular hurry.

Nobades/Blemmyes

Nobades/Blemmyes

Much obliged