I have bunch of individually based models on 25mm round bases, cav on 25mmx50mm. Is there a way to transition those to Triumph well? For close order Infantry, i can't get 4 models on a 80mm base.
Yes, there are players that use their individual based miniatures on appropriately scaled movement trays to play Triumph! I recommend magnetizing them in some way or using double side foam tape to make it less painful to move them around. If your base is a little too deep, just keep in mind it does impact some aspects of the game like falling back. If possible try to make the movement bases to the same proportion as shown in the rule book, even if you have to go wider. Consistent width and ratio of width to to depth are the most critical aspects. Also make sure your group is using the same convention.
Just had my first demo game last week and immediately purchased the rules. Where do I get the cool measurement tools you use? I looked at the Litko ones, but they don't have the helpful unit types on them.
Pratically dbWhatever...what differentiate the same troop type from different "country". Like, how are spartan hoplites different from athenian? Are there special rules or something?
Not in the historical version of the game, individual stands of hoplites are not different. The Army lists are though. The Spartan army lists has some elite foot available to represent the Spartan trained citizens in the army. In the fantasy rules there are lots of ways to differentiate troop types.
Close order foot are 75% the depth of open order. So for example if using 80mm widths then open order infantry are 40mm deep and close order would be 30mm deep. The depths are covered in the rulebook as well.
Have been doing the same for my 15mm hoplites, worked extremely well, looking for thicker bristles for pikes and lances in my 28mm but hard to find so far.
Never thought to use nylon broom bristles, great idea. I ended up swapping my 15mm romans' pilums with a brass tube, plasticard, and pin concoction. Even more work but at least they all look like pilums now and won't snap.
@@triumphancientandmedievalw3229 Mine too, in GR. I never encounter any historical players locally so I was pleasantly surprised to see the sticker. I enjoyed the video!
@@user-zp6zg7bq6z We will be playing Triumph! (Fantasy and Historical) at Spartacon this Saturday in DeWitt at the VFW hall. There is an all day convention. Should be a bunch of fun Historical games there: tabletop.events/conventions/spartacon-xxxii?fbclid=IwAR0HYc6ZRBBcJDSt5DqTJYyWrQ2BTSFGHEtK-XdsKBGQhWE9OhXeGRSwdAw
@@triumphancientandmedievalw3229 I would love to attend but I work every other weekend and unfortunately the con falls on the wrong weekend for me. Fingers crossed that next year I'll be able to go. Hope you have a great time!
Question on evading. 83.2 states: "However, this move may deviate from a straight line by the minimum necessary to avoid any of the following: a. enemy stands, b. friendly stand that the evading stand cannot pass through, c. a camp, d. impassable terrain" In the video you said that an evading unit stops when contacting something it cannot pass through. In what case would this deviation rule come into play?
Good question, I sort of glossed over that in the video. The deviation comes into play if they have additional movement and could complete it by passing through or around, so in the case I showed they did not have enough movement left to get all the way through or around so they would stop. It comes into play for example when you have a solid line of close order troops behind those skirmishers. My Hastings battle has a lot of examples of that situation. Skirmishers could pass through any other stand on an evade, but if an open order stand is trying to evade through a long line of close order troops it could end up without the ability to go far because the solid line of infantry would make a wall behind it. They Jav Cav in the Hastings scenario run into this issue. If there is a opening to go through they can squirt out of the way, if not they are stuck in front of the line, they just fallback. They key point I wanted to make is the evade move does not destroy them. Thanks for the question, I hope it helps, if not come on by the forum or the FB page for more discussion!
@@triumphancientandmedievalw3229 I think I get it. So a chariot could evade around a friendly spear if there is at least 2 MU of space to go through next to it. I guess he could even evade around an enemy spear, since he ignores an ZOC in an evade move.
@@rob2estonia Correct, if there is room to squirt out between the lines, worst case if they cannot complete the move they stop out of contact with any enemy. In many cases you have a long line of heavies coming up behind the skirmishers, the skirmishers can fallback through and this is what you want. Chariots and other evaders need a gap in the line for them to squeeze through. Unless your line of infantry is open order, Chariots can fallback through open order infantry. Check out the New Kingdom Egyptians with Raiders, Archers and Chariots for example. These troops work well together and can all pass through so a staggered line of chariots plowing into the enemy line with raiders supporting them from behind? Chariots fallback through upon being doubled, then the units that chased them face being double overlapped by the supporting infantry can create some spectacular clashes.
So checking this out since it seems very interesting and saw the sling comment. I do slinging as a hobby and I’ll say that they hurt quite a lot. Just a river rock can pretty easily punch through most wood that I sling it against and a lead bullet can penetrate armor. The Romans actually made specialized medical equipment to get lead bullets out of bone if it got lodged and good amount of the legionnaires where given slings. Throw in you actually out range most archers. Also a lot of the time slingers would carry a long sling which has a ton of power and is what you’d be using with the bullets along with a short sling for much more accurate work at shorter ranges.
When we release an early access you always get access to the final version, sometimes even a price discount because the final version might be higher, but not for the people that already bought in early access form. Most of us play in 28mm for the fantasy tournaments, so the plan for the east coast events is 28mm fantasy, 15mm Historical tournaments. Don't rule out 28mm Historical events in the future though, also many of us have 15mm fantasy too.
Yes the Dwarves rocked, but I was secretly rooting for the underdog Mountain Elephants who defeated all as an irresistible force only to be defeated by your immovable Dwarves!
These armies are all 80mm wide bases standard Triumph! depths so the knights are 80X60. I use a wide angle web camera Logitech 920C and my iphone for the close ups.
This discussion is helpful, but it makes me wonder why the pavisiers are on such a deep base. THey can really mess up a line of Heavy foot when they fall back. Should they be as brittle as bow levy?
Pavise represent a large formation so the base is partially do to that need, but they are much tougher in combat than Bow Levy so technically not as brittle in that they would win more often against many enemies. But yes they need a lot of space to back up.
At 13:28 you mention that skirmishers can’t do a group move through friendly units without paying extra command points, but the rules in section 32.1.b state that “[For the following kinds of tactical moves, calculate the cost normally:] A group move composed entirely of Skirmishers or Rabble in any combination, even if the move is partly or entirely in difficult terrain or passes through friendly stands.”
I will have to look into Triumph. I currently play only Hoplon and Ancient Conquest, neither currently in Print, and only Hoplon having contemporary Army Lists. Hoplon is what DBx SHOULD have been after 7th/Warrior. Ancient Conquest is a Non-WRG set of Rules that has the same concepts as the DBx variants, but implementation is different, and uses an “Orders” system devolved from Generals, Sub-Generals, and other Leaders each responsible for either a specific unit (Leader), a specific Command (Sub-General or Allied General), or the entire Army Generals, of which you have the C-n-C, but also a possible “Lt. General” who can also issue Army-wide Orders if the Commander-in-Chief is otherwise occupied) But I have noticed some similar concepts from both in Triumph. “Rabble” for instance, from Triumph is what Hoplon also calls Hordes.
A pure Deus Vult day this time round. Great battle, did get dizzy from the camera work though. Lol. Thanks for the great explanations of all the different parts of game play.
I'm a former Napoleon's Battles player who has long since departed from the game. Trying to get back into miniatures wargaming more in line with my background studying Medieval Spain. I am wondering what it would take to recreate the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa and if Triumph! would be appropriate for the battle.
I have used it to replay many crusade battles and I find it a very good game for that period. You should find some pretty good lists on Meshwesh online to start planning the troops as well.
@@Apologetic-Reruns I am not specifically familiar with that battle, however I typically adjust troops and implement special rules to represent very specific or unique characteristics of particular battles. In Hasting I use the back up the hill rule, for Hattin the exhausted Crusader archers do not have volley fire. Keep in mind that numbers can be represented by various troop types, i.e. horde and bow levy are significant in numbers (and look so on the table), but not in quality. You can also implement special morale rules.
@@triumphancientandmedievalw3229 Thanks for getting back. It was a bit strange in that the Saracens had a size advantage and the higher elevation. The later seemed to make no difference at all and so I might special rule against that advantage. I'm sold.
@@Apologetic-Reruns Up hill grants the advantaged stand a +1 in combat, on the Hattin Battlefield there is a section of very very gentle uphill that is not significant enough to grant that. The guys in the smoke covered area would get it if anyone attacked them on the slope. The Hattin battle and all my games designed for convention play are specifically designed to be "fair" i.e. both sides could win. So they tend to sometimes be more balanced than the original battle. I find that the point values of the troops and a few special rules allow you to create a fairly historical outcome this way while still making it a fun game for both sides. Sometimes this takes a little tweaking and playtesting.
Thank you for putting this video series together, I am new to these rules and finding these videos very helpful. One question on ZOC. Does a stand that is giving support to another stand in combat still have a ZOC? Thanks.
