![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was wondering how strictly one must comply with figure requirements as long as one sticks to the list. I am wondering what reaction the following would have at a tournement?
(Examples from least to most extreme) 1. I only plan on putting 3 figs on the Aux base to represent Greek peltasts. 2. I was thinking of using the Skythian list to create an Amazon army. 3. A Minoan army with a few Minotaurs. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
1. I don't mind.
2 & 3. Why not do these as HOTT armies? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would have to agree with The Last Conformist - 1 is ok, 2 and 3 - not so much, especially in a tournament setting. I would certainly play you in a game, but I wouldn't be that thrilled with it.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
For me....
No problem with 1. No problem with 2 in most instances. For example, using Inuit figures fielded as a NE Indian list. Or mixing women warriors in your Sarmatian army, which was most likely historical. Minotaurs in the camp...no prob. Minotaurs in the army...then I'd suggest HOTT. In a friendly game, I wouldn't truly be offended by any of these. At a convention game, I wouldn't take umbrage as long as the army matched a legal list, but would probably think it was somewhat strange. Some people thrive on eccentricity. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#1: Seems fine by me
#2: Rainforest or Feminine type Amazons? Neither would be really a tournament thing, but I am curious. #3: Minotaurs make good Barker Marker Scenery too, but I don't want them squishing my Romans. As for eccentricity, I have thought about persons who would use the costumes from a Hollwood epic to model their figures and personalities on, such as Spartacus, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and so forth. I realized I might actually be one of those persons (*shudder, giggle*), but up until now I have kept my inner DeMille in check. I would like to try Hott, but I am still looking for LOTR in 15mm, which could take some time. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have used the Skythian list for my Amazon army and have fielded them in a competition with no angst from my opponents. Here is a link to the Amazons http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armieso...ons/index.html Regards, |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
No problem with #1.
Sometimes altering the number of figs for Aux or Wb can make it easier to distinguish them from Sp and Bd. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like it when opponents have lovely figures totally compliant and well presented but understand when they do not. I would not object to playing you in any of the situations outlined. I only care if there is some functional difference of some kind.
Adrian |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
For example I use the same figures for both my Early and Late Crusaders, even after having Ian point out that this is not correct as the armour of the knights changed during the period. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't mind variation in numbers of figs per base. I put four figs 0n my Early Hebrew WB general so that I can better tell him apart from the other AX stands.
Some fellow (only some)wargamesrs frowned on my bringing the army of Prestor John to a crusades theme some time back. I used the list for one of Alexanders armies (which was historically fitting) so I had a number of pikemen and the Art was represented by a stone throwing giant. Prestor John (whom I refered to as the King of India) was Represented by a bearded european knight (Peter Pig's king Arthur) flanked by chinese and Indian Horsemen. I don't mind a little fun. If an army showed up with a few minotaurs in it I would probally take a picture of it. If the minotaurs are small enough they could represent men wearing bull's heads as in the wonderful fight scene from 'Time Bandits'. -paul |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|