|
Post by sheffmark on Nov 5, 2016 16:50:32 GMT
Thanks both.
I wouldn't want a Lego kit anyway as it's wanted as a Stronghold for a HOTT army, so would probably look out of place, however the Fantasy Boutique idea is a good one, which I'll bear in mind. Cheers
Terry - the chess piece sounds very interesting. I don't think he's too worried about which version he has. Can we explore the Chess option, if you could send me a picture and details such as price, postage etc? If he doesn't like it I'd be interested in what you're planning with Irregular Miniatures. (How do I contact you directly?)
Thanks again
Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Nov 4, 2016 17:40:58 GMT
Hi
Anyone know of anyone who sells a Tower of Orthanc in 15mm or something that looks like it?
I've been asked to try and source one for a Christmas present and can't find one anywhere. It also looks particularly difficult to try and scratch build!
Thanks
Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 26, 2016 12:59:26 GMT
Just a quick heads up that, further to conversations with Martin Myers, I will be carrying forward the Midlands Open in Bakewell next year, following the format that was used previously. I am looking at dates between mid-May and mid-June 2017 (avoiding 1/2 term). Does anyone know of any DBA or other wargaming clashes during that period? I will put out some date options in due course to see if I can find a date that suits as many people as possible. Regards, Simon Hi Simon Is this as well as or instead of the Summer Bakewell tournament last year of LH and Art? Cheers Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 21, 2016 12:19:18 GMT
Thanks everyone for the views.
It seems there is no definitive agreement on this one, though as Bob has quoted, the rules seem to imply that supporting ranks shouldn't be counted as in close combat, at least for this example. However if there is any official clarification in future that would be great.
In the meantime I think we'll carry on playing it this way.
Cheers Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 14, 2016 12:43:03 GMT
Hi. Posting this on behalf of Martin Myers, the tournament's organiser:- "DBA Tarrington Tourney 2016 Saturday 12th November 2016, 1000 until 1700 Lady Emily Community Hall Tarrington Herefordshire HR1 4EX Tarrington is halfway between Hereford and Ledbury; approximately 11 miles from junction 2 of the M50. Format: “Scramble” • Each player brings any valid 12-element v3.0 army on 15mm base sizes (40mm frontage), camp (camp follower element optional), and terrain for a legal battlefield as the defender. Note that the army will be used by other players; a small tray to hold your army will facilitate movement between players and tables. ****2016 CHANGE- the defending board size may be stipulated by the army's provider, but if not a 2 foot board will need to be provided***** • Players will play AGAINST their own army only in the first round. • Players will use their own army only in the final round. • Players will be matched using Swiss chess format. • Armies will be matched as far as possible to maximise variety (of army used and fought against) for players. • The 12-element army and terrain choices cannot be changed between rounds. • Players must use all terrain pieces supplied. The aim is to have 6 rounds, but may be revised on the day. Depending upon the number of players and the time to arrange the pairings for each round, there is no guarantee of non-repetition, but priority order will be given to: 1. New opponent each round 2. New army used each round 3. New opposing army each round Cost will be £5 per player. In previous years a basic lunch was provided, if there is enough interest it will be again! " (Results from this tournament are fed into the SoA DBA League scoring system). Cheers Martin I'm hoping to be able to make it this year as I like the format. The challenge of playing with completely different armies is akin to that of the Northern Cup. Tom may be considering attending as well. Presume we'll have a list of runners and riders nearer the time?
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 14, 2016 12:24:26 GMT
This may seem a daft question, I know but, the other night we played our first BBDBA game (Gauls v Romans).
When one of the Gallic commands became demoralised the rules say that you can hold a group or individual elements for a PIP, however it also says, "Other elements not in close combat immediately flee......" So presumably elements in close combat don't flee but carry on fighting.
Our query is, do you count supporting ranks, i.e. second rank warband fighting against foot (except Ps), as being in close combat, or is it just the front rank units that automatically hold and the rear ranks flee unless held with PIPs?
If you do count rear ranks as being in close combat, (because they are actually contributing to the fight), does that also mean you should count elements that provide flank support as well??
We played that only the front rank held automatically, but wondered what others play?
Also, a Roman command lost a third of it's total elements part way through its own bound, but it didn't appear to suffer any minus tactical factors in the following Gallic bound, because it only becomes actually demoralised at the start of its bound. Is this correct?
Cheers Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 13, 2016 12:52:53 GMT
Thanks guys, really interesting and honest feedback.
I was thinking along the lines of maybe any uncovered TZ still exerted influence, but it appears this is your 'Flashlight' version which was already considered.
Cheers Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 1, 2016 14:57:01 GMT
Mark: I'm lost somewhat with your remark/example... ZOCs became xray to prevent intervening elements from blocking threat zones... and some of the moves that allowed. Elements in a threat zone are not allowed to move to one corner contact because it allows an element to "leave" a threat zone (and this is very easy to abuse). It also helps align the game with DBMM... though that was a minor consideration. Joe Collins Hi Joe Not sure what some of the moves were that this rule change wanted to stop? However I'll, take your word for it that people were abusing it. Come to think about it, I vaguely remember someone once nudging a corner in front of an enemy element and claiming that broke the TZ, was that the sort of thing? It just seems weird looking at it on the table top, don't you think? I agree that in the middle of a battle line you probably have back ranks holding firm/shoving to provide support to the troops in front. But with an open flank surely the temptation would be to flow around, (provided you'd got troops that were occupying the enemy in front) and attack that unprotected flank? I doubt they'd back off first. One of the other effects of this rule is that if you have two elements behind each other and they are attacked by two elements in line, the second element in the column can't come out and stop the enemy hard flanking them, again which seems a bit strange given the often dire consequences of being hard flanked! However I really like DBA as it got me back into Ancient wargaming when I just couldn't get on with 6th Edition and I must admit I've benefitted from this rule, as well as being caught by it on occasions. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 30, 2016 12:45:56 GMT
Tony has quoted the exact rule, and highlighted the phrase, "has also lost more such elements than the enemy." How can anyone possibly think that it's over at a 4 - 4 tie. At that point neither side has lost more! After that it's not quite sudden death in that the first player to lose an element beyond four loses the game. Complete bounds are still played, not stopped at the first loss, during the bound. At the end of a bound the losses are counted, and a player who has lost four and more than his opponent, loses. It's possible during a bound after both have lost four, that one player loses another element, and then the other player loses another element, so at the end of the bound neither player has lost more. Then play another bound.. I suppose if you wanted to be picky you could say that the rules don't actually say you should continue after you get to 4-4! Maybe the thinking is.... when you've got to 4 elements you've lost. If the other person has also got to four, then they've lost as well! As you've both lost, that's a draw!!! Though must admit I've never heard of this before and the only games I've fought in which were draws were due to competition games timing out.
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 30, 2016 12:33:32 GMT
Can I ask what options the top most Sp has? Presumably it is in the TZ of the Bd so does anyone play that option b) of TZ moves allows it to move out to the side and then come forward to form an overlap by providing corner to corner contact with the Bd? (Option b says "to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy"). When I asked about this in a game I was told, that's not allowed as it's moving it out of the TZ. If true it doesn't seem to work well in this situation as it would take two bounds to do that, one to move back out of the TZ and two to move back in, which looking at the situation seems a bit of a nonsense? I understand that it is as you were told (and yes, it does seem like a bit of nonsense.) That is just how the rules are written in this case. At least in DBA 3.0 that Sp can fight someone to its front if they contact them as they are in that configuration. Surely they can only fight someone to their front if they are in that element's TZ? So if the flanking Sp was an enemy blade they couldn't contact it because that isn't one of the allowable options for an element in a threat zone? I never understood why this rule was changed from 2.2 as I would have thought that an intervening friendly element took away any potential threat from an enemy?
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:58:46 GMT
If there is no Fast or Solid, why do the lists specify Mtd-3 or 4Bw for different armies? (Scots Common Mtd-3Bw, Bugundian Mtd-4Lb)
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:44:28 GMT
Sometimes the dice just aren't with you!
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:42:23 GMT
Can I ask what options the top most Sp has?
Presumably it is in the TZ of the Bd so does anyone play that option b) of TZ moves allows it to move out to the side and then come forward to form an overlap by providing corner to corner contact with the Bd? (Option b says "to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy").
When I asked about this in a game I was told, that's not allowed as it's moving it out of the TZ.
If true it doesn't seem to work well in this situation as it would take two bounds to do that, one to move back out of the TZ and two to move back in, which looking at the situation seems a bit of a nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:26:06 GMT
Strange position but looks right from what the rules say, (I think).
Though those Ax look like Bw to me, which if true means the LH were facing a 1-4 if they stayed? Also the Ax/Bw presumably weren't bothered about stopping the other Ax recoil as they've be destroyed by Kn anyway?
What actually happenend?
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 25, 2016 13:22:21 GMT
I think the LH now has to conform OR fight as if overlapped. If it chooses latter it would still remain in Flank Lock position. You would want to resolve the LH fight first to try and push off. TomT Thanks, Tom. That is "what made sense" but as you know that is not always "correct."
|
|