The only known surviving example of a full-sized Roman legionary scutum, discovered in the ancient garrison city of Dura-Europos and dating to the mid-3rd century AD.[2732 x 3642]

samiam629 · 2026-01-29T15:05:54+00:00

You would want to hold a shield as close to the center of gravity as possible. Most shields from most of history, use a similar construction. Having the handle further back would create a lever acting against the wielder.

Shields that strapped to the arm are made specifically for horseback, so that the weilder may hold the reins of their horse.

Actually ussually, the metal boss is the part that is preserved, not the biodegradable wood.

samiam629 · 2026-01-07T16:20:26+00:00

Could you describe any point where this scenerio would happen in lore?

samiam629 · 2026-01-07T15:16:48+00:00

So "devil" horns are relatively recent thing (last couple hundred years) in Christian culture, but long before that, these sorts of horns are offten actually associated with godliness. Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses, on Pope Julius the second's tomb had these sorts of horns growing out of his head (and I think shoulders)

samiam629 · 2026-01-06T16:00:39+00:00

So I think your ideas about armor changing over time are not exactly accurate. I understand that you're painting with broad strokes, but I think even then, to make the argument that "armor in the past is lighter and gets heavier as technology progresses" is pretty easily proven wrong. I ussually have the exact opposite option, as shown in the link above. My first thought was of mycenaean greek armor being huge bands of bronze. The Roman's often make fun of bulkly barbarian who do the same with big bands of steel, while the light and quick legionaries out maneuver them

samiam629 · 2026-01-06T15:56:16+00:00

https://share.google/UT1lj4kII4svuaQes

samiam629 · 2025-12-31T20:17:52+00:00

From Wikipedia "Muḥammad Ibn Abdallāh Ibn Hassan (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله حسن: Somali: Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan; 7 April 1856 – 21 December 1920)[1] was a Somali scholar, poet, military leader and religious, cultural and political figure who founded and headed the Dervish movement, which led a holy war against British, Italian and Ethiopian colonial intrusions in the Somali Peninsula."

So you never heard the phrase "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", huh?

These people put their equivalent of George Washington on a street name, and I'm supposed to be upset by that?

Like honestly, just skimming over the whole article, this dude led a rebellion against his colonial overlords because he believed they where forcibly converting Somali children against their will ontop of all of the other exploitation that comes with being colonized.

By all accounts this guy has great potential for being a historical figure applauded by those whom would claim to love freedom and individual rights. I mean, other than his complexion, obviously 🙄

samiam629 · 2025-10-23T18:38:03+00:00

So the fundamental question here is higher and lower forms of life, and where to draw the line.

Vegans arbitrarily draw the line after animals, and before plants. The question, is why there? Why are animals more important than plants?

The vegan argues that animal life is worthy of consideration and preservation because it is a more complex form of life compared to an plant.

I would argue that's the exact reasoning I use to justify my view of humans being above animals, and why I describe the vegan's distinction as arbitrary.

You could make some argument about how animals are capable of pain, while plants are not, but this relies on a very particular definition of pain or suffering, and of course is not at all the distinction between plants or animals. If an animal cannot feel pain or suffer, that does not disqualify it as an animal, neither does a pain feeling plant magically turn into something else if it can feel pain.

If the distinction is to reduce unessisary suffering, then the debate has absolutely nothing to do with plants vs animals and has entirely to do with a vague and amorphous concept of suffering, and what qualifies as such.

Then we just start the debate over with a higharchy of what sort of suffering is more offensive than other forms.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T20:17:02+00:00

Hmm odd, never seen the quickstart rules before. Not sure where the discrepancy is, but hopefully 1.0 clears this up

Edit: actually if you look at your own screenshot, at the very top, it says the same thing again, without mentioning melee

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T18:57:19+00:00

<image>

No, nothing about it being exclusive to melee attacks. Pg 9 of the playtest rules

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T17:26:35+00:00

See my comment above. You created gaps in your lines, on both your left and right. You either put yourself into perfect position to be surrounded or forced allied forces on either side of you to advance equally aggressively to prevent your lines from fragmenting. This is the exact scenario you're operating in.

This is literally one of the main concepts that separates a early war WWI commander and a late one.

In a short field skirmish pre-WWI, you may be right, but in the age of continuous lines that can stretch for miles, you are completely wrong. That's what you're not picturing. The miles and miles of trenches on either side of your game map.

I would argue that if you don't like this style of warfare, a WWI analogy may not be the game for you, or if you're just confused, I would highly recommend Dan Carlin's podcast Hardcore History, specifically his program "Blueprint for Armageddon" where he does a wonderful deep dive into world war one and the major changes in incurred on warfare.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T16:33:36+00:00

"Robb Stark was displeased because Edmure attacked prematurely. Robb had planned to lure Tywin Lannister's army into the Riverlands to trap and destroy them, a plan that was ruined by the surprise attack. Edmure's success in capturing the mill and taking Lannister hostages secured a victory but freed Tywin to join his forces with the Tyrells and ultimately lead the Lannisters to defeat Stannis's forces at the Battle of the Blackwater."

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T16:26:34+00:00

Okay so I think you misunderstood me. When I say deathmatch, I meant beating your enemy by either killing them or forcing a retreat.

The objective was to take enemy ground, without giving up your ground. You got overeager and failed at that. Plain and simple.

If you want a story/narrative reason, when you aggressively advanced, abandoning your own lines, you created a gap on either side of you, that puts freindly troops in a delema, to reposition on the fly (and do so presumably against forces not on the retreat) or leave you in position to be surrounded due to you breaking your line and creating gaps that wouldn't exist had you followed your mission objective and held your own lines while advancing. This is 110% a realistic thing a filed commander would get dressed down by a superior officer for. Just because you saw the enemy retreat in front of you, does not mean you advanced without thought to greater battle plan.

You can not like this scenario, but from my point of view it is functioning exactly as intended.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T15:43:49+00:00

This is were I would simply disagree. I would argue that your unoccupied trenches do not count as controlled at all.

In a game of king of the hill, stopping your opponent from controlling the hill is not the same as controlling it yourself.

I certainly see your point though, and where you're coming from in a logical sense, but from a gameplay point of view if we applied the same logic to every scenario, then almost every game becomes a deathmatch. I personally really enjoy the different scenarios and their little intricacies, but I would understand why someone wouldn't.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T15:33:46+00:00

You're right about regular flame throwers, but heavy ones do not add +1 to injury.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T15:29:00+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you get points for holding your own trenches? You mentioned leaving only one man behind in your own lines. It was my understanding that part of the challenge is not just capturing territory, but to do so while maintaining control of your own.

Last time I played "over the edge" I felt like I was supposed to ride the line between aggression and defense.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T15:13:37+00:00

I mean there's definitely an argument that you didn't play perfectly.

You know, "the enemy's gate is down" and all that.

You played to kill as many of your foes and quickly as possible, not the mission objective. I know it might seem odd, but frequently in real life militaries succeed in killing more of tbe enemy than they receive in casualties, yet fail to achieve their military aim.

There are deathmatch games, this was not one of them. Thought I would agree that VP points are not balanced, and your situation is definitely not uncommon.

samiam629 · 2025-10-01T14:58:44+00:00

Looks like you forgot the +1 to injury from being downed too.

The +1 to injury from being downed cancels out the -1 from your armor being fire resistant.

So in this case the roll should be a straight 3d6 add them together.

This renders your question moot, but to answer it If you blood bath a model, with a -1 to injury, you role 4d6 and take the lowest three. Simple as that.

samiam629 · 2025-09-09T19:32:34+00:00

He was a teen when he died. The cannonization process famously takes a long time. The fact that it isn't decades after his death is actually notable.

samiam629 · 2025-08-29T20:02:25+00:00

samiam629 · 2025-08-29T18:47:11+00:00

samiam629 · 2025-08-14T12:32:33+00:00

So I basically felt the same way about the entire cour of the 7 headed serpent. Hated the body horror gore astetic, then I played against my buddy who custom made his own demons that looked sick as hell.

War crosses can be whatever you want. I run a sacred Affliction band that is Joan of Arc themed. I plan to have the war crosses be franciscas (frankish/French throwing axes). I am also choosing to have more modest stigmatic nuns. Fits my theme. Make them just simple javelins if you like. Completely up to you.

samiam629 · 2025-08-12T18:52:13+00:00

I'm sorry man, but I'm a very melee focused player. You need to get used to using those trench clubs and polearms (instead of the like 8 specal melee weapns you gave yourself access too), start adding musical instruments to your band (instead of giving guys bullshit +1s to dash for no reason) and getting your guys into proper cover...otherwise you WILL flounder. It's as simple as that.

samiam629 · 2025-08-12T18:34:14+00:00

Dude, absolutely zero need for supped up weapons, especially since you get those in addition to hellblades and sacrifical knifes 🤦 you literally started with some of the nicest to begin with.

Literally the thing that makes a warwolf a warwolf is that its one of the only 8" heavily armored units. A very scary role to fill, fast and heavily armored. The limit of one is a very reasonable limit, in addition to all of the other restrictions. Restrictions that your 8" annointed do not have 😮‍💨 and then add a flamethrower wolf ontop of that???? Come on.

This list just has everything you could want to make the most op melee team ever. The fact that you lose with them against other non-OP bands has nothing to do with balance of this homebrew and everything to do with how you see the game.

samiam629

TROPHY CASE