My opponent Corey and I are gearing up to run a Siege scenario. We are looking at page 259 of the Big Red Book and I am fortunate enough to have a nice little castle set that is approx 1 foot by 1 foot.
We have a standard sized Warhammer table, 6' by 4'. Page 259 of the BRB instructs us to have a 'killing zone' outside of the castle in all directions that stretches for 24 inches. No terrain, no attackers can deploy.
This... doesn't really work. The picture on page 259 is like if someone is playing on a GIANT table. Our table is 48 inches across. Even if the castle was 0 inches across, the attacker still has 0 inches in the 'north' or 'south' to work with on the table for deployment, and only 6 inch slivers on either of the 'eastern' or 'western' sides.
We understand that the 2002 Annual Book released some updates and corrections and I looked into that- I'm not seeing anything on pages 112-115 that would address this deployment and table spacing issue.
Have any of you guys tried playing a Siege Scenario? If so, how did it go? How did you handle deployment zones for the attacker?
Corey and I are thinking about handling it this way- the attacker can deploy anywhere within 6" of the table edge. In addition, the attacker can keep a given unit off the table and roll to attempt to bring each unit held back in this way onto the table during the Compulsory moves phase. Does this seem reasonable/fun for both sides?
The only other thing I can think of is to put the castle on one end of the table and have the attackers all come from the other side of the table. This kind of a funnel setup is NOT what is pictured on page 259 though, where the attackers have the castle completely surrounded with their deployment zones.
Siege Scenario
Re: Siege Scenario
I have some experience in the art of siegecraft, yes.
It went well enough all things considered, a tactical loss but a strategic windfall.
I handled deployment by using forward parties of swift and cunning scouts to pre-empt some of the undermining activities of the defenders around the castle, allowing my army to get further forward - 18 furlongs instead of 24. The defenders were still able to fully undermine the approaches on the castle's direct flanks, but it did open up enough space around the periphery to encircle the castle on two fronts using a pincer of two wedge formations.
Avoid at all costs allowing the castle defenders to completely undermine the rear approach to the castle. Use all means at your disposal to prevent this. If the rear approach to the castle is completely undermined then it will force your army into a single broad axis of advance that the defenders can concentrate against. Your key to seizing the castle lies in being able to flow like the river around the fort such that you spread the defending army thin enough that it tears openings for you as it stretches, and this action relies on being able to reach the rear of the castle so you can threaten and cut off the essential baggage caravans supplying the defenders.
A defending army that can face all its force to the castle front is a formidable wedge. A defending army that must look both ahead and behind is far more preferable to an effective siege.
It went well enough all things considered, a tactical loss but a strategic windfall.
I handled deployment by using forward parties of swift and cunning scouts to pre-empt some of the undermining activities of the defenders around the castle, allowing my army to get further forward - 18 furlongs instead of 24. The defenders were still able to fully undermine the approaches on the castle's direct flanks, but it did open up enough space around the periphery to encircle the castle on two fronts using a pincer of two wedge formations.
Avoid at all costs allowing the castle defenders to completely undermine the rear approach to the castle. Use all means at your disposal to prevent this. If the rear approach to the castle is completely undermined then it will force your army into a single broad axis of advance that the defenders can concentrate against. Your key to seizing the castle lies in being able to flow like the river around the fort such that you spread the defending army thin enough that it tears openings for you as it stretches, and this action relies on being able to reach the rear of the castle so you can threaten and cut off the essential baggage caravans supplying the defenders.
A defending army that can face all its force to the castle front is a formidable wedge. A defending army that must look both ahead and behind is far more preferable to an effective siege.
Please stop calling it "Middlehammer"
Re: Siege Scenario
First things first, Ashley and I play on a 6-ft by 5 ft table.
Second I would probably try having the opponent come at the castle from the short edges
Second I would probably try having the opponent come at the castle from the short edges
-
Alarantalara
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:16 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Siege Scenario
I think the biggest thing about the deployment zone is that it's shown as an example, not as something prescriptive. They call it, "one possible way". I think this is because it's centred around whatever gets modelled, so variation is expected. See for example the Bastion of the Old Ones scenario from the Albion campaign which shows a different deployment with a wider castle.
The General's Compendium has a section on sieges, and while it repeats the same description (with the implication of finding a wide playing area), also offers yet another way to deploy forces for a full-size siege along with some smaller variations that should fit anywhere.
Given Kakapo's comments, while I haven't tried it myself, it sounds like the important bit is the section on how to adjust the castle size to the defending army. That is: a gatehouse + tower, plus a tower and section of wall for each 500 points of defenders. So you could shove the castle against the side of the board to give space, but then you'd be a wall section short and thus only play with 1000 points of defenders (or maybe a bit more since the extra tower would still be there). If your board is long, you could stretch it out and have a 2'x1' castle with no rear and go back to 1500 points of defenders, and so on.
The General's Compendium has a section on sieges, and while it repeats the same description (with the implication of finding a wide playing area), also offers yet another way to deploy forces for a full-size siege along with some smaller variations that should fit anywhere.
Given Kakapo's comments, while I haven't tried it myself, it sounds like the important bit is the section on how to adjust the castle size to the defending army. That is: a gatehouse + tower, plus a tower and section of wall for each 500 points of defenders. So you could shove the castle against the side of the board to give space, but then you'd be a wall section short and thus only play with 1000 points of defenders (or maybe a bit more since the extra tower would still be there). If your board is long, you could stretch it out and have a 2'x1' castle with no rear and go back to 1500 points of defenders, and so on.