The Loose Association of Wargamers

I think he is not experiencing contest.

But he is certainly getting a lesson in the lack of a second prize in war.

Time for the Ukranians to publish their ar aims.

Paul wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:33 pm Almost inevitably I have a copy on my shelf

I think that they are very good (purely from a read through and some solo trial games many years ago!!).
Rob Broom says that he took them in the direction that he feels WAB would have gone had GW not killed it off. Rob ran Warhammer Historical so he probably knows what he's talking about in that respect.

I would love to play some more "real" games of W&C as I think it's an under rated set of rules for ancient and medieval games.

Even better, after a of couple of years in the wilderness it's starting to get the online support again that it deserves and better still all the army lists are free.

Shame you're clinging onto the bottom of the world as i'd certainly travel to play the game....just not 20000+ miles

I've finished trawling through the internet & found out as much as I need except about unit size.
I have quirky units of 8 & 12- individually based. Will these work? I've left messages at SCARAB but no replies.
Could I ask you to check out what the rules say? Or even scan the relevant page & email it to me?

If this works for me, I'll buy a copy.

cheers, donald

I've posted this question on the SCARAB forum.....it doesn't appear to be monitored anymore (which makes me wonder about ordering a rule book there....).

Sadly, no matter how good the rules, if they don't accommodate my existing unit size, I'll have to keep looking.

donald

ochoin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:39 am I've finished trawling through the internet & found out as much as I need except about unit size.
I have quirky units of 8 & 12- individually based. Will these work? I've left messages at SCARAB but no replies.
Could I ask you to check out what the rules say? Or even scan the relevant page & email it to me?
cheers, donald

The minimum Unit size is six for infantry and four for Cavalry. Figures rank up in units so square/rectangular bases are best but using sabots or just winging it for friendly games means you could use any shape.
I'm not sure how active the Scarab forum is I tend to go to the FB page for the rules.

You deserve good things to happen to you : thanks.

So this sort of organisation should work:

2 x 8 figure units of Gothic noble infantry in the foreground.

3 x 12 figure units of Gothic tribesmen in the foreground

1x 9 figure Late Roman unit

1 x 8 figure Sramatian cavalry unit

donald

I can't see why not (apart from perhaps base sizes which stick with WAB standards??) However in a friendly game with everyone using the same base sizes I can't see why it would matter much.

If you are in any doubt about that you might find it necessary to either increase the ranges and movement to reflect the larger footprint of your units or work on "strength points" to reflect how many figures a unit the size of the footprint of yours should have. (ie it looks like your cavalry units are based on c. 110mm x 110mm sabots so in strict basing that size would hold 8 x cavalry based on 25 x 50mm bases so it would have 8 strength).

From Rob, at SCARAB Games:
" you will probably want to combine the infantry into units of 24 for more durability. this is easy to do by making a new movement tray to the correct frontage and putting the models on there rather than physically rebase them."

Well, sadly, I don't want to make new movement trays. And units of 24 infantry upset my present organisation too much.
I could, of course, discard the trays completely, but moving single figures, one by one, would be time consuming (Holy HG Wells!).

Hmm. Starting to look a bit impossible.

donald

Shame because it is a nice set of rules. Personally i'd go with your current trays and Strength points. Conveniently it looks like your tray size might mean that each figure = 2 so fairly easy.
However there might be better options out there. Have you thought about using GW's War of the Ring rules (Not the still in print Lord of the Rings rules)? Although it's now OOP the base sizes are the same as yours and the it's easily adaptable/very good for late antiquity/Dark Ages.
Getting hold of it might not be the easiest thing though
Mantics Kings of War Historical is still in print and base sizes are Unit footprints only and number of figures don't matter.
The last alternative, which is always the first one for me, is to write your own rules to get exactly hat you want.

The book is quite cheap &, by all accounts, very well done. P&P, as usual to OZ, is a bit awful but I think I'll buy it & see if anything can be done.

cheers donald

The rules should arrive between 3-5 weeks......yes, the post takes that long to OZ. I hope to read & absorb the rules, run a few solo games & then host an introductory game for my pals say in September. There's a bit of work to do before then, though.

Today, I spent a very enjoyable afternoon "auditing" my Late Roman & Hun-Goth armies. This was largely a rationalisation & re-organisation of existing units. The barbarians were fairly easy but moving & combining the L.Romans more difficult because of uniform shield patterns. Ultimately, I'm going to have to combine two infantry units with different shield patterns into one WaC unit.....vexallations?
Although I'm still not sure about unit sizes, by combing 2 existing infantry units to create WaC units of 16-24 figures I'm hoping to be in the ball park. The cavalry can't be combined & remains at 8-10 figure units. I'll need a few more figures to make up numbers & I'll order a couple more movement trays as I've worked out a way to make only skirmish infantry use the "wavy edged" ones & all other infantry will have the rectangular ones. Mostly, I have enough stuff to have a few solo games already, using the free QRS but I think I'll wait until the rule book arrives.

One issue will be identifying the different troop units on the table as even the same type of unit might have slightly different stats. Easy for me (they're my figures) but hard for my pals.

Anyway, I have high hopes for the project.

donald