home

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Konrad von Richtmark

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
The Brush and Palette / Battlegroup Fuchsenwald
« on: September 02, 2018, 08:59:57 PM »
BATTLEGROUP FUCHSENWALD

The standing military forces of the Imperial Princes are organized into battlegroups, semi-permanent formations meant to balance the competing requirements of operational flexibility, combined arms integration and organizational constancy. Each battlegroup is commanded by a colonel commissioned directly by the Prince. A battlegroup is intended to have sufficient number and variety of forces to enable it to conduct independent operations, while having a sufficiently flexible command structure to allow for it to be temporarily combined with other battlegroups as needed. Most battlegroups have an infantry core supported by cavalry and artillery, though colonels are given wide leeway in composing their battlegroup as they see fit, and resources to carry it out.

Every battlegroup has a nominal home region it is named after, and where it is intended to be stationed when not on campaign. Battlegroups are expected to primarily recruit from their home regions, though rarer troop types tend to be recruited from elsewhere or assigned and sent by the Prince. Feudal entities that owe military service to the Prince are generally requested to provide their troops to the local battlegroup, and a particularly prominent vassal might be required to raise and maintain an entire battlegroup.

This is Battlegroup Fuchsenwald, commanded by Colonel Ernst Adlerhof, scion of the most prominent landed noble family in the region. Fuchsenwald is so named because centuries ago, it was largely a forested wilderness infested by forest goblins and best known for the silver foxes whose precious furs were harvested by roaming hunters and trappers. Since then, Fuchsenwald developed into a wealthy, populous region with much of its forests turned into farmland, but the history of the region still shapes the identity of its people.

Colonel Adlerhof prefers to organize his battlegroup around a main infantry battleline consisting of relatively small, maneuverable infantry companies in close support and capable of performing rapid, coordinated maneuvers. His preferred tactic is to used massed shooting to force the enemy to rapidly engage, then launch counterattacks into openings appearing in the enemy advance or created through shooting.

COMPOSITION OF BATTLEGROUP FUCHSENWALD

COMMAND
Commander: Colonel Ernst Adlerhof
Deputy Commander: Lieutenant Colonel Maximilian Warsteiner

LINE INFANTRY COMPANIES
Fuchsenwald Lifeguard Company: 250 infantry
Fuchsenwald 1st Halberdiers: 250 infantry
Fuchsenwald 2nd Halberdiers: 250 infantry
Fuchsenwald 1st Gunners: 150 infantry
Fuchsenwald 2nd Gunners: 150 infantry
Fuchsenwald 1st Crossbowmen: 150 infantry
Fuchsenwald 2nd Crossbowmen: 150 infantry

CAVALRY SQUADRONS
Crown of Victory Squadron: 30 griffon cavalry
Black Panther Squadron: 30 griffon cavalry
1st Fuchsenwald Reiters: 50 cavalry
2nd Fuchsenwald Reiters: 50 cavalry

SCOUTS
Fuchsenwald Poachers: 100 infantry

ARTILLERY
Katarina: Cannon, 30 crewmen
Agnes: Mortar, 30 crewmen
Nebelwerfer: Rocket Launcher, 30 crewmen
Schwefelorgel: Rocket Launcher, 30 crewmen

TOTALS
1450 infantry
160 cavalry
120 artillerymen operating 4 pieces

Total manpower strength of 1730 men.

2
9th AGE / T9A Lecture on Orcology - why does the Orc fight?
« on: August 24, 2018, 09:31:48 PM »
I just wrote the following fluff piece in the T9A forum, for consideration. I thought I would share it here too.

Also: Ding! 3000th post!  :happy:


Transcript of lecture held at the University of Alfhaven in 973 A.S. by Gerhard Diamantberg, Professor of Orcology


Orcs. Savage, brutish and relentless in destruction. Despoilers of civilized lands, the Scourge of the Gods upon the sinful. What makes the Orcs into what they are? Most are content to say that that is simply the nature of the Orc, perhaps because that is all they think they need to know, or because viewing the world in simple absolutes and dichotomies of good and evil provides existential certainty and comfort for the soul. It thus falls on us academics to view past such notions, and attempt to discern fundamental causes.

Myself, I have concluded that the Orc can be understood to a remarkable degree by consideration of the implications of a simple biological fact: The Orc is fully carnivorous, uniquely among socially organized sentient creatures.

As a thought experiment, imagine what would become of mankind if we were fully carnivorous. We would be unable to feed ourselves on crops obtained by working the land. Nor could we raise livestock on fodder produced through agriculture, the achievable production levels would not even be sufficient to feed the population employed in food production. All that would be left to us would be herding of livestock, which can be done in a highly labour-efficient way. Herding is, however, a highly area-inefficient method of food production. Thus, we would be unable to have anywhere close to the population density of present-day Sonnstahl. Large population centres would be all but impossible to maintain, and consequently, there would be scant possibility for the specialization and social organization required for an advanced civilization to develop.

That is essentially the situation the Orcs are in. At this point, it should be mentioned that an advanced Orcish civilization did exist in ancient times, during the Second Age, disproving any notion of the Orc being intellectually or ethically incapable of such. While the exact nature and development level of this civilization is hard to determine accurately, its historical existence is beyond doubt. Contemporary Elven and Dwarven societies recognized it as an advanced civilization and treated with it on fairly equal terms, a courtesy they did not extend to our own barbaric ancestors. It is however likely that due to the problems caused by carnivority, the Orcish civilization was always precarious and only made possible by the exceptional peace and prosperity of the Second Age. No mentions of any Orcish civilization are found in primary sources from the Third or further Ages. It is likely that the sudden and violent emergence of the Beast Herds that ushered in the Third Age destroyed the precarious economical basis of the Orcish civilization, causing Orcs to devolve into what we know them as nowadays.

The main food source of the Orcs is the boar, which they keep large herds of that roam the land and devour all vegetation in their path. The need for large areas for pasture drives the Orcs to be belligerently territorial, as the growth of the population of an Orcish tribe creates a direct proportionate need for more territory. This population pressure acts as a catalyst for conflict with neighbouring tribes. While the Orc is no doubt belligerent by nature, I believe this belligerence is a consequence of and an adaptation following from the demographic pressure they are under more often than not. An Orcish tribe that fails to obtain sufficient land will find its boar herd shrinking, pressing it to take ever-greater risks. The most extreme outcome is a full-scale Orcish migration, where an entire tribe takes up arms in a desperate gamble to win or die. When a critical number of proximate Orcish tribes feel simultaneous demographic pressure, a strong and charismatic warlord might succeed in uniting the tribes into a horde for the purpose of conquest of civilized lands. If sucessful, such a horde will not only obtain critically needed new lands, but further get to victoriously gorge itself on the inhabitants of the conquered lands and their livestock. Contrary to popular belief, such hordes seldom continue rampaging until defeated. More often than not, sated for the moment by their victory, they settle in the conquered land. Often, the horde turns into a tribal confederacy, held together by common abundance, goodwill created by their common victory, and the prestige and standing of the warlord.

Simply put, the Orcs do what they do out of necessity caused by their biology. They are a species dependent on an ecosystem of their own creation, and on expanding it to feed their growing numbers. Are they, however, so different from us in that regard? Do we not also cut forests and drain swamps to obtain more farmland, destroying ecosystems and displacing species in order to expand our own? If we fight back against Orcs invading our lands, is that really so different from when the Sylvan Elves or the Beast Herds resist our efforts to expand our farmlands at the expense of their native forests?



Rector's Note: Shortly after holding this lecture, Professor Diamantberg was detained by the Inquisition, on suspicion of sedition. While this does not per se render the lecture or any of his works proscribed, it does make the matter highly sensitive. Proper discretion is advised in the dissemination of this lecture.



edit: typos

3
9th AGE / The Empire in T9A 2.0
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:58:09 PM »
It seems like the publicly available beta version of T9A 2.0 will be out in December. So far, a fair amount of information has already been released to the public. All the major changes to the army books, it seems, have been released, even if final details and points costs are still being worked out. Has anyone else been following the news on that? I recently took the time to catch up.

The thing that caught my eye the most was that detachments got buffed. Detachments (or "support units" in T9A terms) that are within range of a parent unit get to shoot and fight close combat in an extra rank! I can see that being a significant buff to a more "classical" 6th/7th edition infantry playstyle. Granted, static combat resolution is nowhere near what it used to be, but getting that extra fighting rank hitting a flank can be a nice force multiplier.

What's more, I'd say it means that, for the first time during any edition of Warhammer, halberdiers become the preferred melee detachment for hitting enemies with flanking countercharges. As support attacks can only be made to the front, those halberdiers would be fighting in three ranks against the enemy's one, giving them the ability to grind on favourable terms, in case the static CR they bring won't be enough. As for the other options, swordsmen would stick around for longer, but not contribute anywhere near as much in kills in case you'd need that, and spearmen would, due to fighting in an even extra rank and 20 being (assuming that point hasn't changed) the max size of a support unit, be losing damage output from the first casualty on.

Imagine an offensive close combat infantry army with an alternating line of parent units as anvils and 20-man halberdier support units as hammers, stretching far enough to envelop most enemies, give way before the enemy when needed and simply have enough units that some will inevitably get the desired combined charge. Empire detachment goodness, becoming more viable than it's been for ages. Opportunities, opportunities. Need to theorycraft.

4
edit: Thread title changed 2.3.2018

So I'm going to make some war chickens. I have a rough overall idea of what I want to do, but I could use some help brainstorming.

All the knights in my collection that aren't White Wolves are Reiksguard, not thematically but I'm using those models. In-game, I've used them for both T9A Knightly Orders and Electoral Cavalry. Thus, I want to carry over the same look to the war chickens, and I have a large surplus of 6e plastic knights to use for the purpose. The general idea is that I want them to have a recognizable Reiksguard-ish look, but much more ostentatious to set them apart from the horse-riding knights, even a bit blinged out and overdone.

It'll be 3 models, with standard bearer and musician, but no champion. They'll be armed with lances and shields. I want a proper standard, not just a pennant on a lance. There should be a proper standard in the middle, with a raised lance on each side, nice and symmetric. For maximum symmetry, the musician shouldn't look that different from the third guy. I'm thinking that a horn suspended from the side of the demigryph should be all that sets him apart.

For the standard, I'm thinking of using the 7e greatsword banner. As standard pole and arm holding it, I'm thinking of using the 6e knight couched lance, only raised straight upward. That way, it looks to me like an entirely plausible arm holding a banner upright, supported against his arm and couched into his armpit, though I wouldn't really know, I have never ridden around with a cavalry banner. It shouldn't be too hard to file down the tapered lance into a cylindrically shaped banner pole. Using that bit gets me the correct knight arm too.

The fanciest Reiksguard helmet is, I'd say, the one with the two-tiered plume, so that's what they'll have (also, the fact that it isn't an obvious jousting helmet like one of them is helps too). Also, the demigryphs have some kind of armoured headgear with a spike. I'm thinking of taking away that spike and adding a plume there. Because why not?

I'm also thinking of using the headless pelt cloaks that come with the 6e box as lion pelts for the riders. I'm not entirely sure though they fit, I want them to reach down along the back of the rider, not flutter in the wind (I want these to give more a "riding in style" impression than charge at full tilt). If that turns into an issue, I might either have to cut down the cloak, or use some other bit, but I don't know which. They wouldn't necessarily have to be lion cloaks, but some kind of fancy cloaks they should be.

Various random stuff should hang from the saddles too, because more is more, and because why not? Should a cavalry sword be worn in a sheath at the left hip, or would it be more sensible to have it hanging on the right side of either the saddle or the barding? Also, if I manage to find spare pistols that aren't attached to arms, I could let them have a pistol or two at the ready, because pistols are cool, and (sense a pattern here) why not?

I think you're getting the point of what I'm trying to make. Does anyone have any ideas, or see any possible issues?

5
The Brush and Palette / HW+Shield Imperial Guard [T9A]
« on: March 08, 2017, 01:39:47 PM »
Or Reiksguard Foot Knights for ye grognards.

So yeah, fielding Imperial Guard with sword and shield in smaller units might be emerging as a new thing in T9A Empire meta, and the idea has caught my interest too. Now, how would one make such a thing?

I think the current GW plastic greatswords aren't bad at all:


They are, however, imo slightly too sparsely armoured considering that they're supposed to have full plate armour. Thus, any kitbashes should preferably not further down-armour them, so 6e swordsman arms I'd prefer not to use. Maybe the shield arm could do as unarmoured since it's supposed to be protected by a shield, but the sword-arm is a different matter.

I'm currently thinking of two armoured sword arm bitz that should work well: The sword arm from the 6e command sprue, and the unit champion's sword from the 6e knightly orders box. The command sprue also has a matching armoured left arm. On the knightly order side, left arms aren't so abundant, but anyone who has made White Wolf knights (which have their own arm bitz) should have some to spare.

Other than that, maybe armoured knight arms holding lances upright could be converted by cutting off the lance and putting in a suitable sword in its place?

What else?

6
9th AGE / Vanilla knights in T9A 1.3?
« on: March 01, 2017, 09:06:34 PM »
How should one outfit a unit of vanilla knights in current T9A? Old 6e/7e wisdom is to just buy a musician, but that was at the time when musicians were cheap, helped you rally and decided draws.

Musicians in T9A give a bit of mobility by allowing an advance move after a reform, I'm not so sure that's really useful for vanilla knights. If they need to relocate fast, they may as well march, getting another 7'' of movement that allows them to turn pretty well anyway, even if not pull off some particularly dastardly moves.

Also, standards look like a lot more attractive proposition on units they were hardly ever used on before. All standards add CR, not just the first, and the opponent doesn't get bonus VPs from capturing them anymore. I'm thus thinking standard only might be the new proper way to run vanilla knights.

7
9th AGE / Konrad tries out T9A! Battle report
« on: February 19, 2017, 09:19:12 PM »
On popular demand, a battle report of my first ever T9A game, and my first Empire game in ages. Game finished just hours before I type this. Prepare for intensely crappy mobile phone camera photos. So I wanted to test a defensive, gunnery-heavy army along the idea in this thread, and further theorycrafted on at the T9A forum. My army list was as follows:

Marshal [General]: Hero's Sword, Dragon Mantle: 256 pts
Marshal [BSB]: BSB, Great Weapon, Blessed Armour of Frederick the Great: 238 pts
Wizard: Pyromancy, Wizard Master, 4 spells, Sceptre of Power: 400 pts

30 Spearmen: Command [350 pts]
30 Swordsmen: Command [320 pts]
30 Swordsmen: Command [320 pts]
15 Handgunners: Standard [230 pts]
15 Handgunners: Standard [230 pts]
15 Handgunners: Standard [230 pts]
15 Handgunners: Standard [230 pts]
10 State Militia: Pistols, Skirmishers [150 pts]
5 Reiters: Brace of Pistols, Heavy Armour [200 pts]
5 Reiters: Brace of Pistols, Heavy Armour [200 pts]
6 Knightly Orders: Command [390 pts]
Cannon [260 pts]
Volley Gun [235 pts]
Volley Gun [235 pts]

Total of 4474 points, 182 models

My opponent graciously lent me his list for this battle report. He played a very elite-y Highborn Elves army:

High Prince [General]: Ancient Dragon, Giant Sword, Divine Icon, Lucky Shield [1140 pts]
Commander [BSB]: Master of Canreig Tower, Druidism, 4 spells, Great Weapon, Mithril Mail, Charm of Cursed Iron [586 pts]

13 Highborn Lancers: Command [678 pts]
13 Lion Guard: Champion, Skirmish [357 pts]
10 Sword Masters [260 pts]
10 Sword Masters [260 pts]
12 Archers: Musician [236 pts]
12 Archers: Musician [236 pts]
Sea Guard Reaper [180 pts]
Sea Guard Reaper [180 pts]
Sea Guard Reaper [180 pts]
Great Eagle [100 pts]
Great Eagle [100 pts]

Total of 4493 points, 77 models

Yeah. I put down more than twice the number of models than he did. In case you don't know, that's an Ancient Dragon. A monstrosity with 7 in Strength, Toughness and Wounds. I had thought this list could make do with just one cannon, I figured that the volley guns with their S5 and their bonus to hit against large targets would be sufficient to bring down monsters. Just. Not. Toughness. 7. Monsters.

Since I was new to the game, I let him randomly pick one of the official pre-determined terrains. We rolled for deployment and objectives. We got the diagonal deployment 18'' apart, and a secondary objective of holding the middle of the table. I won the roll for choosing which corner to deploy from. Here's the game immediately after deployment and vanguard moves:



My line is, from left to right: Reiters, Knightly Orders, Handgunners, Swordsmen, Handgunners, Spearmen, Handgunners, Swordsmen, Handgunners, Pistol Militia, Reiters.

General is in the middle with the spearmen, and the BSB is in the rightmost swordsman unit. I expected at this point his main push to come on the right, so I focused my characters there.

Volley guns are in the most obvious place for them to be. The cannon is intentionally let back to keep it safe, its main job is to snipe the dragon, and it has enough range of its own not to need to expose itself to enemy counter-battery shooting.

His line is, from (my) left to (my) right: Archers, Sea Guard Reaper, Sword Masters, Archers with BSB (behind swordmasters), 2x Sea Guard Reaper, Dragon, Sword Masters, Great Eagle, Highborn Lancers, Lion Guard, Great Eagle.

Note the big grey base his dragon is on. It's a 100mm x 150 mm base. The Ancient Dragon is yuuuuge.

To be continued...

8
The Brush and Palette / Konrad makes pistol militia!
« on: February 18, 2017, 11:53:08 PM »
Because of near-term gaming needs, and for the sake of variety, I took a break from the spearman conversions. Skirmishing pistol militia are apparently something you should have in T9A, apparently almost all Empire tournament lists have them. So apparently I need myself some.

I had a look at my old Free Company models from the good old 6e times. I have 8 models armed with a pistol (or in the case of one of them, two pistols). Not enough for a unit, min size is 10. Apart from those, I seem to have 17 other Free Company models. I decided that the pistol guys would get reassigned to become skirmishing pistol militia. The rest could be reformed into a Militia close combat support unit, maybe 15 strong or so. I already decided to give them a standard bearer (in T9A, all standards count towards CR, not just the first and the BSB), and that the emblem on the standard should be a hanging noose. Yeah, this will be a penal unit.

As for the pistol militia though, I'd need at least 2 more guys to get a playable unit. Since fielding two such units of 10 models is entirely viable and something you might do much of the time. Also, it lets me dilute the original 8 between two units. Most of them aren't bad at all, they're just rather limited in their selection of used bitz, I apparently didn't do kitbashing much back in the day. So, 12 extra skirmishing pistol militia guys is what I'll make.

I looked through my supply. I have a couple 6e militia pistols left, both the ones in the outstretched right hand and couched in the left hand. Also, it seems like I have plenty of the 7e handgunner box pistols, an outstretched puff-and-slash left arm holding a pistol, and another one held in a right hand, leaning against the shoulder. I should use those. Only that if I use the puffy ones, too many guys will have puffy arms. Better just cut it off by the wrist and stick the pistol-holding hand on another arm. When kitbashing isn't enough, convert!

Six first guys have been put together:





Note to self: When using a crappy mobile phone camera, flash is your friend, even if it isn't dark. The upper picture was taken with flash, and it just has better colour depth and shows detail better.

So I'm going to make just a few guys with two pistols, and the rest with one pistol each. Just to keep it WYSIWYG. I'm using a mix of the state troop puff-and-slash clothes and the militia. Being militia, these guys have to equip themselves using whatever, but some have managed to scavenge second-hand puff-and-slash clothes, or even bought some to be fancy. The middle guy in the bottom picture, him I envision as some kind of wannabe swashbuckler hero, therefore he has the full puffy set, breastplate, two pistols that he dual-wields, a sword and a buckler on his left hip, and (not seen in this pic) a long dagger on the right hip. My favourite so far, though, is the guy on the right in the top picture. Waist up, he wears an outfit as proper as any state trooper, though below waist, he has the most ragged pants found in the 6e militia box. I guess he blew all his money on a fancy outfit, managed to ruin the pants, and had to make do.

9
9th AGE / Shooty centre, close combat wings - viable formation? [T9A]
« on: February 11, 2017, 07:27:44 PM »
More theoryhammer while waiting for an actual chance to play  :happy:

As you might have figured out, I want to see if I can make a semi-MSU, core-heavy, parent/support unit based Empire army work in T9A. Might it work to deploy in something like the following kind of formation: A centre of shooty support units, wings of close combat infantry, artillery somewhere in the junction between the centre and the wings.

I was thinking that against an enemy with significantly fewer units than you (i.e. most opponents), he'd be in a bind as for where to go. If he moves against the centre, the centre will fire on him while approaching, flee before him, while the wings pivot inwards to flank him. If he instead does a refused centre and would go for the wings, the units on the wings would maneuver around to delay contact as long as possible, flee where they safely can so and rally farther back, while the centre would get free reign to shoot for as long as possible, maybe even swing towards the wings for a final outflanking when close combat becomes inevitable.


10
9th AGE / Maxed-out unit of Knightly Orders? [T9A]
« on: February 10, 2017, 07:43:28 PM »
Would a maxed-out unit of Knightly Orders be a viable hammer unit in T9A? That'd be 690 points for a 12-man unit with a full command group. Another 30 pts for a War Standard would be a straightforward choice. Such a unit would put out a whopping 19 lance attacks with S6 WS4 on the charge. Charge being the keyword, so it would be more meant to land a decisive killing blow than slog it out through protracted combat. Not that it'd be helpless in protracted combat either, having all those attacks at S4 would still be quite significant, and it'd resist incoming damage mightily with its grand 1+ armour save.

Conventional wisdom back in 6e/7e day was that a second rank on knights is an expensive extravagance not worth it. In T9A though, that second rank does add some killing power, and perhaps more importantly, lets the unit preserve its killing power in the face of casualties much better than a single-rank unit. Also, having two full ranks (and a guy to spare) gives the ability to negate steadfastness, if that should become relevant.

The main drawback I could imagine, just theoryhammering here, is that you'd be rather reliant on getting the charge, rather than being charged, which might not be easy when there's other cavalry in the world with faster horses.

11
9th AGE / Revisiting the Richtmark Battalion [T9A]
« on: February 08, 2017, 11:26:49 AM »
When I returned from my 10-year break, I was happy to find that my contributions were still remembered, that I had left a mark on the community. That said, I got thinking, would a modified Richtmark battalion be capable of working in T9A?

The core of the original battalion is a formation consisting of a steam tank with an infantry block on each side, each infantry block further having a close combat detachment. The idea being that the steam tank can support either infantry block through a combined charge, whereby the tank provides kills and the tank the static CR.

Would the same basic idea work in T9A if you had the tank, two parent units to its sides in deep bus formations of maybe 40 models, and an additional 20-man close combat support unit for each parent unit? With T9A detachment rules being the way they are, you could rack up a load of static CR even with a combined frontal charge of parent and support unit, counting the standards and rank bonuses of both. That, while the tank brings terror and a can of grinding attacks.

12
The Brush and Palette / Konrad's State Troops
« on: January 31, 2017, 02:42:37 PM »
edit: This thread evolved to be about state troop painting and building in general, while starting off as being about converting spearmen. Thread subject was changed accordingly.

edit2: I've now set up an Imgur account to re-upload stuff that went down with Photobucket stopping being free. I uploaded all the finished stuff, but not every little intermediate step that I'd originally posted.

I just decided I want another unit of 30-something spearmen. Now I need to find out how to do it. 6th edition spearmen are unfortunately unipose, so while I might mix in a bunch of those, I'd rather not use them for the whole unit. 7th edition Empire close combat infantry, I don't like those at all, I want my guys to have puff-and-slash clothes. Also other, less diplomatic things about how those models look.

I took stock of my inventory, I have an abundance of bitz from the 6e swordsmen/halberdiers box, that'll get me proper arms and torsos. I apparently have 30 7e spear points that could be stuck on appropriate shafts, if I can find something. I have 16 7e pairs of arms holding a spear/halberd shaft, plus another 10 that can be cannibalized from an aborted project. I have 11 loose 6e spear bitz.

I'm thinking I should mainly do it by cutting off the arms from the 7e spear shaft bitz, leaving just the shaft and the hands. Then, they're in pretty much the same shape as the 6e spear bitz, and I can build the rest of the body largely from 6e swordsman bitz.

That would actually be sufficient for 27 spearmen, and with 3 guys being the command group, that'd be all I need. However, I'd still have 7e 14 spear points left, so I wouldn't have to make it that easy. Is there any other suitable bit that could be turned into a spear by sticking that spear point on it? I would, in particular, for the sake of variety, like to make a few spearmen hold their spears one-handed overarm style.

Any ideas?

13
9th AGE / Konrad's attempts at playing gunline-TVI [T9A]
« on: January 30, 2017, 07:42:16 PM »
edit: The topic of this thread changed over its course, updated the subject accordingly.

It's theoryhammertime!

As those who noticed my returning post, I have no actual experience of either T9A or 8e, I've just followed them at a distance. Now, though, I'm as interested in getting back into the action as I'm uninterested in what (in my limited perception) seems to be the usual Empire paradigm of halberd hordes, demigryph knights and buff wagons. No, I want detachment tactic goodness. After some head-scratching, I came up with the following idea for a "core" battleline, for a T9A army which isn't quite shooty enough to be a real gunline, but shooty enough to be able to play defensively and force enemies to assault my line. I'd like feedback and see if I could interest someone in discussion, if not else then to find out where I've gone wrong for having no practical experience. I'd rather get trashed here than on the gaming table.

So, here is:

30 Swordsmen [Heavy infantry], Full Command: 320 pts
30 Swordsmen [Heavy infantry], Full Command: 320 pts
30 Spearmen [Heavy infantry], Full Command, Spears: 350 pts
15 Handgunners [Light infantry], Handguns, Standard: 230 pts
15 Handgunners [Light infantry], Handguns, Standard: 230 pts
15 Handgunners [Light infantry], Handguns, Standard: 230 pts
15 Handgunners [Light infantry], Handguns, Standard: 230 pts
Total of 1910 pts

The idea is to deploy everything in a line, each unit five models wide, as follows:

H S H S H S H

with H being handgunners and S being Spearmen/Swordsmen. This way, each heavy infantry block can draw on two handgun blocks for supporting actions, and the handgunners get to use the depth of the heavy infantry for steadfast. The handgunners are 15 strong and outfitted with standards primarily to make them able to act as flankers on supporting charges, to be able to lose a few guys and still provide rank bonuses and the ability to disrupt steadfast. Being handgunners rather than militia, they serve to force the enemy to assault the line, to shoot at the enemy while approaching, and join the fray when close combat happens.

I just provided the basic core of the line here to keep things simple. In real battle, the line would likely be supported by a general and/or a BSB, to stiffen the line locally if needed. Those orders would also come in handy for extending handgun range just enough to be able to shoot into the enemy deployment zone if necessary.

I'm thinking that if the enemy would attack such a line on a narrow front with hard-hitting units, I'd outnumber the enemy unit-wise and be able to eventually (or rather quickly, even) outflank the enemy. If they'd rather go for a wide-front assault with a larger number of cheaper units, I'd instead use my firepower while the enemy advances towards me to create a suitable shot-up weakness in the enemy line to exploit and break through, then start the outflanking from there.

14
Anyone here remember me? Heck, is there anyone active here who was here when I was here last time? That would, apparently, be pretty close to 10 years ago.

For those who don't know me (which I'd estimate to be 90% to 99% of everyone reading this), I used to be one of the more prominent regulars here back in the day. Then stuff happened. Historical wargaming happened. Expatriate job happened. Wife and kids happened. 8th Edition happened, which seemed too much of a time investment to get into, especially with the disappointment the Empire armybook was to me.

For a year and a half now, I've been sporadically watching 9th Age from a distance. Just this Friday, having a weekend all for mysef, flash of inspiration happened. Military reforms were enacted, and my old 7th Edition Empire army was brought up to the 9th Age. As I write this, I'm still reeling from the aftereffects of that flash of inspiration and all that followed. I'm looking to get back into the fray, so I thought this place would be as good as any to start.

15
The Count's Tavern / WFRP forums?
« on: January 27, 2007, 04:25:00 PM »
Hulloh  :happy:

I have recently got into Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (officially abbreviated WFRP, not WHFRP, WFRPG, WHFRPG or any other nonsense!) but I haven't been able to find any good web community on it. Does anyone here know about any? Or, do any of the regulars on this site have any experience of WFRP? I'm very enthusiastic about it at this time, though I've only played through the intro campaign in the 2nd edition rulebook.

16
WHFB The Electors' Forum / 1999 points tournaments?
« on: May 09, 2006, 11:19:48 AM »
Hulloh!

Another club tourney has passed over here (I came second out of ten), and we've started thinking. No real power creep reared its ugly head, but let's face it, 2000 allows for a relative proportion of cheese, being the threshold for lords, the 2nd rare choice, and the 4th special choice. This being the reason for why some tourneys like to lift the points limit to, say, 2150 or 2250.

How about this, then? The points limit is 1999 for all intents and purposes. One hero choice may be exchanged for a lord choice, but the lord is unable to choose any options that would use up more than his lord choice.

17
The Count's Tavern / We're famous!
« on: May 08, 2006, 07:59:10 AM »
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?p=527067

Look, the pixies have discovered TVI!

18
The Count's Tavern / GW LotR - any good?
« on: May 01, 2006, 04:06:47 PM »
Hulloh!

Has anyone here tried out Lord of the Rings? When I last visited the local GW store I got curious and tried out a demonstration game. I got the impression that its rules are fairly simple and narrow, but still allowing for tactical depth. So, you who have tried it out, is it any good?

19
This is something I have pondered since the 40K club tournament at which it happened. What happened was the following: The game was one of orks vs tau. Both players deployed in common order. The orks got the first turn, moved, and then came the shooting phase. What followed was:

Ork player: My big gun shoots at your Ethereal.
Tau player: You can't, he's joined the fire warrior unit.
Ork player: Uh, you didn't say so during deployment.

And, the Tau player being sportsmanly to the point of grovelling, stoically accepted the loss of the single one most important character in his army. However, imagine that, what instead would have followed, would be the following:

Tau player: Wtf, I never said he didn't deploy with them! I thought it was obvious, you should've asked if there was something unclear about my deployment.

And a judge is summoned. If you'd be that judge, what would your decree have been? For those unfamiliar with 40K, it can very safely be said that there is no rational reason to have an Ethereal in the front line without having joined a unit.

20
The Count's Tavern / Civilization 4
« on: November 07, 2005, 02:51:38 PM »
Unless you already noticed, it's released.

General Helstrom I know to be a fan of the series, BAWTRM should be one judging from his avatar, and I'm sure there are several more among you.

Has anyone here already picked up Civ4? And, the important question, is it any good? Is it playable, or still too buggy to be enjoyable? And, do you need a dreadnaught of a computer to run it?

21
The Imperial Office / Funny interviews with characters, check this out
« on: September 16, 2005, 04:18:14 PM »
This is something I found on druchii.net, and I laughed my ass off several times over:

http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=13539

Got to say it even inspired me to make one myself, here goes:

Konrad: Good evening folks, welcome to the first part of our series of interviews with famous Imperial citizens. Tonight's guest is the renowned heretic Luthor Huss.

*appalus ring in the studio while Luthor walks in, taking a seat diagonally opposite Konrad*

Konrad: So, Mr Huss, what would an arch-heretic such as you be doing in these times?
Luthor: Well, with the Storm of Chaos over and done with and Valten belonging to the annals of Imperial history, I've more or less gone back to the usual.
Konrad: The usual, which is?
Luthor: Well, you know, the usual. Preaching, rousing the rabble, and killing off corrupt clergy. On the way here, beat up Lector Reinhardt Fromm rather badly. He won't be sitting for weeks. Though, I barely got away from the Witch Hunters they sent after me, otherwise you wouldn't be interviewing me now.
Konrad: Right. So, been figting Chaos on the battlefields lately?
Luthor: Fighting Chaos on the battlefields? You have to be kidding me!
Konrad: Uh, wasn't it you who said "Fighting Chaos on the battlefield is the purpose of our cult!" ?
Luthor: Well, don't you think I'd like to? Though, try convincing any sensible Empire general to include me in their army. I'm either ridiculously overpriced or ludicrously underpowered, depending on which you want to look at it.
Konrad: You seem rather sound in my opinion, having EC stats and improved warrior priest abilities all in one model.
Luthor: The same as this new Arch-Lector chap has at a waaaay lower price and the expense of one hero choice less, eh? And being customisable too, for that matter. They put me on this stupid horsey too, to make sure I have to cruise around with knights not really needing my help, while it is the infantry which needs my Ld 9 badly.
Konrad: Actually, the legendary Imperial tactician Graf T.V.I. considers it favourable to let characters leading infantry regiments be mounted.
Luthor: You talking about the guy who keeps his characters cheap and relatively expendable, apart from turning them into fortresses of armour and ward saves to be able to attract and survive massive fire?
Konrad: Umm, yeah.
Luthor: No chance you'll have anyone do that with a 300 pts character with a measly 3+ armour save.
Konrad: Okay, but... don't you have some unique abilities?
Luthor: Yeah, but try auto-breaking anything with fear and US2.

*door cracks open, two witch hunters storm in*

Witch Hunters: Nobody expects the Templars of Sigmar!

*Luthor rises to engage in battle, witch hunters firing their crossbows and locking blades*

Konrad: We will return after a commercial break...

22
Campaign Battle Report Forum / Stirland, dammit!
« on: August 23, 2005, 11:32:42 PM »
Which faction did you fight for? Stirland

Which race did you fight against? High Elves

At which location did you fight?  The Uneasy Watchman

What was the outcome of the battle?  Massacre

Did you use one of the location's Scenarios? Nay

Did you use the Campaign Army List appropriate for your faction? Nay

23
The Town Square / How about a restricted trading forum?
« on: August 23, 2005, 09:13:42 PM »
I know the reason why the trading forum was removed, and understand your concerns.

However, I recently got an idea. Would it be possible to have the trading forum only visible and accessible for members over a certain limit of, say, 500 posts? After all, a forum regular who's a part of the community is way less likely to cheat on a trade, I think, as this place does develop a sense of community between the regulars here.

24
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Looking for a 4th shield motive
« on: August 16, 2005, 12:19:13 PM »
I'm thinking of using swordsman shields for both my swordsmen and spearmen. Partly to give my force a standardized, unified look and partly out of practical concerns (swordsman shields come in separate sprues, need shields to fix my old spearmen whose shields got ruined by paint solvent).

So, I have two units of swordsmen and two units of spearmen. Already having made the shields for all the swordsmen and wanting to distinguish the units in some way, I want a different shield motive on all the units. Which brings us to the problem, there are only three different ones in the shield sprue.

Meaning I have to get an odd shield motive from somewhere. Not just a decal, a raised emblem like the other three units' shields. Has anyone any ideas of possible emblems not too difficult to acquire?

25
The Imperial Office / Demand for a Steam Tank mini-tactica?
« on: August 14, 2005, 02:11:08 PM »
Being as controversial as it is, nobody seems to have bothered to write a tactica about this thing, and only a few mentions are made of it in other tacticas (including my yet-to-be-published Richtmark Battalion). Therefore I wonder, would a stank mini-tactica written by me have a place in the War Room?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11