Nobades/Blemmyes
Moderators: terrys, hammy, philqw78, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:15 pm
- Location: Christchurch Dorset
Nobades/Blemmyes
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!
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!
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:08 pm
- Location: yeovil somerset
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
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
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:15 pm
- Location: Christchurch Dorset
Much obliged
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
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
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:16 am
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:15 pm
- Location: Christchurch Dorset
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.
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.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
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.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.
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.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
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?
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
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
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
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk