|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 17, 2016 20:17:49 GMT
Again, I'm willing to try, but let's not act like I haven't been in a siege yet.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Feb 17, 2016 22:25:52 GMT
It's tough to compare against Dwarfs, as their infantry is a VERY strong option to compare to. Especially with regards to being the defenders of a siege.
The comparison of 2.3 hammerers for every base ogre made me throw up a little. If you offered me (option 1) attack dwarfs in a defended citadel, over walls or (option 2) get in a fistfight with a 1400 lb anvil... I would take my odds against the anvil.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 18, 2016 0:33:05 GMT
I try to make sure that my comparisons match what I am very familiar with. I think the comparison is apt, however. If anything, it shows the huge cost of ogres, and in siege I am giving up these advantages: maneuverability, impact hits, stomp, and generally hitting on 4s. A real ogre would just rampage the countryside and leave, never looking at the castle.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 18, 2016 23:28:24 GMT
What do you guys think...
Back in 5th edition siege, my friends a I were always annoyed that spears were useless in siege. Especially since some troops auto equipment was spears (i.e. like Elf warriors). This matter in particular to defenders because every point matters.
What if in siege games, models both attackers and defenders equipped with sears gain Always Strike First? This would mean that attackers with spears would strike at Initiative order (ASF cancels ASL), representing their longer reach. While Defenders would have the advantage of striking before models that have the ASF rule (which is canceled by ASL, and hence attack in Initiative order).
I think it is a subtle yet effective rule for spears.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by TheREALricksalamone on Feb 19, 2016 2:01:35 GMT
No for me. This sounds like a 9th age rule or something. Some troop types will be less relevant on the walls...and guys attacking with spears should not gain any advantage. Imagine climbing a ladder with a spear.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 19, 2016 4:19:35 GMT
Ok, rick, but imagine a guy with a spear on the wall - a longer reach to hit you coming up the latter...
|
|
|
Post by TheREALricksalamone on Feb 19, 2016 4:27:25 GMT
Eh, I think it overly complicates things. I see a spear as useless on a wall anyway, it's like a press of bodies up there, your best bet is a sword and board...or a big hammer.
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Feb 20, 2016 10:53:53 GMT
No for me. This sounds like a 9th age rule or something. Some troop types will be less relevant on the walls...and guys attacking with spears should not gain any advantage. Imagine climbing a ladder with a spear. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 20, 2016 14:15:59 GMT
No for me. This sounds like a 9th age rule or something. Some troop types will be less relevant on the walls...and guys attacking with spears should not gain any advantage. Imagine climbing a ladder with a spear. ----------Fair enough. And it is a good point.
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Mar 6, 2016 19:23:02 GMT
Kevin - I am reading through the siege rules again and I have one more question.
In your rules appendix at the fortress garrison part it talks about a castle being 3 wall sections and three towers and for the castle 4 of each. Maybe I am just failing to properly visualize this but I don't see how you can deploy 3 wall sections and towers and have a courtyard. I tried to make a diagram where 0 would be a tower and a line (either - or l) is a wall section.
0---0 l l l l
This would be using three wall sections and two towers. If you add a tower on to one end but not the other there would be a gap into the courtyard.
With a city the only ways I see to make this work are by putting two wall sections together without a tower between or putting the castle in the middle of the table instead of against an edge.
0------0 l l l l 0 0
or
0---0 l l l l 0---0
I guess for the city this works. With the second city layout you couldn't move a unit off of the table edge which is an extra point for the attacker.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Mar 7, 2016 3:43:43 GMT
You would use the corner of the game table:
__[]__[] | []
Key:
__ wall
[] tower
Long line is table edge, you're deploying in the corner.
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Mar 9, 2016 22:39:03 GMT
Sounds good. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by pendrake on May 1, 2017 6:22:38 GMT
I have one of those 5th edition Siege Books. Just one suggestion: please use the word properly, if something is ever written up.
SIEGE = it does not mean attacking gates or climbing walls.
ASSAULT is the correct word for a battle that involves scaling the walls.
An Assault is what puts an end to a Siege. A Siege is that long boring process where the army outside tries to starve the garrison inside. The original book contained about 8 scenarios, but people only ever play the final assault (last scenario).
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on May 1, 2017 22:33:48 GMT
I have one of those 5th edition Siege Books. Just one suggestion: please use the word properly, if something is ever written up. SIEGE = it does not mean attacking gates or climbing walls. ASSAULT is the correct word for a battle that involves scaling the walls. An Assault is what puts an end to a Siege. A Siege is that long boring process where the army outside tries to starve the garrison inside. The original book contained about 8 scenarios, but people only ever play the final assault (last scenario). ------Pendrake, I fail to see your issue (or point). A siege is a military operation to capture a fortification, and it may or may not include a full assault. Where is the word being used incorrectly?
|
|
|
Post by pendrake on May 2, 2017 19:22:42 GMT
I have one of those 5th edition Siege Books. Just one suggestion: please use the word properly, if something is ever written up. SIEGE = it does not mean attacking gates or climbing walls. ASSAULT is the correct word for a battle that involves scaling the walls. An Assault is what puts an end to a Siege. A Siege is that long boring process where the army outside tries to starve the garrison inside. The original book contained about 8 scenarios, but people only ever play the final assault (last scenario). ------Pendrake, I fail to see your issue (or point). A siege is a military operation to capture a fortification, and it may or may not include a full assault. Where is the word being used incorrectly? Unfortunately just about everywhere. Scroll up 3-4 posts. DannyTee is asking how to set up the walls and towers for..., which: a Final Assault scenario or "Siege Rules"? Every time I hear a Warhammer player say, Let's fight a Siege Game they always mean set up a quadrangle of walls and towers, defend with one army, assault with the other. Siege is one of four [five?] techniques that might be used in "a military operation to capture a fortification". There is such a thing as taking a fort without a Siege: A dwarf army can roll up on a stronghold, bombard it for twenty hours straight and then just walk into the rubble without ever laying siege (besieging). The OpFor could scarper under fire, if it wanted, and there would be no assault either. Admittedly, it is a pet peeve, but that book somehow confused the language among Warhammer players. btw: Any idea why I can't download PDFs from the forum?
|
|