Summary
Foot troops. Cost 2AP. Move 400p on road, 200p in good going*, 200p in bad going*. Combat factors are +3 vs foot or Stronghold, +3 vs mounted.
If they lose a combat to Knights in good going, or to Behemoths they are destroyed. Otherwise they recoil.
If they are doubled in combat they are destroyed.
They follow up a destroyed, recoiling, fleeing or breaking off enemy.
An element of Warband may give a +1 rear support bonus to an element of Warband in front of it if neither is in bad going.

*Semi-official amendments have increased this to 300p.

Alan Saunders writes:
It is my opinion that warband have the distinction of being one of the worse value troop types in the game. Fighting foot? blades offer a far better bet as the warband 'quick kill' is more than offset by their equally 'quick die'. Against mounted? Forget it - go for spears, or even blades again. Clearing bad going? Shooters move faster and can attack at range. So what are warband good for? Even hordes offer better value as army filler.

The only reason I can think of as to why I perceive warband to be so puny is that the kind of troop type choices favoured by the majority of players give rise to armies against which warband are less effective. It is possible that they would enjoy more success against armies made up of spears and hordes, possibly even the odd blade, say, rather than those that rely on Knights and Behemoths.

I think warband may be viable if the rest of the army works well in bad going, and you get to be the defender! And they do eat hordes for breakfast as long as they don't get too many bad combat rolls.

One problem with massed warband is that victory in the game can often depend on the first combat roll you make. With a factor of +3, warband suffer terribly from overlaps, so if you lose your first combat your battleline can be devastated in a single bound. Win your first combat, though, and the overlaps you open up can sweep you to victory.

Be that as it may, I will still use Warband, and continue to lose spectacularly with them.

Note: The unofficial change that gives warbands a 300p move, whilst dropping shooters to 200p, does much to rectify the shortcomings of warband. They can now swoop down rapidly on the enemy, as they should, although they still need to win that first combat ...

Colin Hagreen writes:
I like warband armies in DBA - Ancient Brits, Gallic, Galatian - but that is when opponents are historically chosen. However, warband are the sort of element you put into a HOTT army because it fits the background, rather than because you want it.

They are okay in bad going - but beasts are faster and shooters are ranged. They have average/weak CF's and they are impetuous.

Chow Li writes:
I have a couple of warband heavy armies. Absolutely not a choice for the faint of heart. Not good for players who are locked into linear tactics either. Shooters, magicians and riders make good combination troops, if you have the choice. They all move fast and have good average strength points. When on the defense be sure to deploy plenty of bad going. Then run for it (very important).

If forced to attack, spread the warbands out into sort of tribes. Then run them as little commands. It takes a lot of PIPs but it affords the chance to isolate and kill the occasional lone element or two sent out to get them. If you can keep the elements in support of each other they are deadly. Otherwise, find what little bad going your opo's placed and run for it.

Warband also follow up. This can be good or bad depending on the situation. It wreaks havoc with command control but is great for breaking up the opo's lines.

Back to The Stronghold