|
Post by martin on Mar 4, 2024 14:21:47 GMT
He’ll be hard to catch! (Not that it’ll be me doin’ the catchin’, methinks…🙃).
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 3, 2024 16:13:27 GMT
Lithuanians could be brought, but to avoid confusion they’d all have to remain as the type they start the game as .Does that include the Cv//3Bw ? Yep, to keep it simple. Plenty more fish in the sea/armies in the army lists.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 3, 2024 13:14:11 GMT
Lithuanians could be brought, but to avoid confusion they’d all have to remain as the type they start the game as, Bill. No dismounting Lithuanians , as per my post in this thread on Nov 9th 2023. . If you want further clarification pls send an email, to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 2, 2024 18:01:16 GMT
Sorry if this is a silly question, but what glue do people use for spears, shields etc? Superglue is rubbish, and 2-part epoxy is messy and only manages a few pieces before curing. Has anyone any clever suggestions? TIA! Never a silly question, only daft answers. I use superglue, which works fine if it’s metal to metal eg. Sometimes it’s worth holding the two items in place with blue tack while the glue sets. Otherwise the slightest movement will stop it bonding.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 2, 2024 8:41:54 GMT
Good luck, and have fun, all. ⚔️⚔️🎲🎲⚔️⚔️🎲🎲👍🏼👍🏼
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 28, 2024 13:03:14 GMT
But they are destroyed on a double from mounted etc. basically those troops that can catch them. Personally I think it’s a bending of the the interpretation of the rule and doesn’t mean that at all. Well, it would appear that the rules author, Mr Barker, has specifically referenced the condition that causes the ‘loss if flee on doubled’ , though it took Timurilank to point it out:- ”- From Troop Definitions on page 3:
Light Horse “They typically fought by sending a constant stream of small parties to gallop past shooting several times at close range, then return to rest or change ponies while others took their turn.
Armies with large numbers of horse archers could form up very deep, increasing the frequency of exchange and the effect of shooting, but on a dusty confused battlefield they could make evading a charge risky”. “. It would appear from the troop type description* that this combat result is exactly as he intended, rather than some unintended oversight. Any changes by other post-Barker rules amenders would go against his intent (it would appear). Also, the comment that an active forum is needed where the rules author is involved might have ignored the reality that Mr B. is older than he was and is understandably disinclined to argue the ins and outs with us mere mortals. * I failed to check at the time, so thanks, Timurilank…the Troop Definitions answer a huge number of “why do troop type ‘x’ do that?” queries, though we often fail to reference them. Well worth a re-read now and then.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 28, 2024 7:36:30 GMT
I have decided to do a hott army based on the story of the invisible man.. Very quick to paint. Just moved around well decorated empty bases👍 Great, the invisible men's army. Go for it, I can't wait to see some pictures... Cromwell already posted them…they were in his post, just beneath the text 🙃
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 28, 2024 7:34:25 GMT
To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a “flee” result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. I didn't even know this existed until yesterday (thanks Paddy) - seems totally counter intuitive as to how a swirling mass of LH are supposed too work. As if they haven't gotten enough going against them as it is. We have brought this in as a change to the DBF rules, currently in Beta phase of development P …no chance that the LH destruction might be intentional/realistic? A deep swarm of LH who, in Close Combat, are doubled might accurately represent the front part of the element attempting to flee in severe disorder and they and possibly others being killed in the crush/mayhem which ensues [??]…perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 26, 2024 9:29:05 GMT
Hi Hott persons. We have plenty of interest and the go ahead from the organisers, so there WILL be a Hott tournament at the Colours show, Newbury UK, 14th September.
It will be a five round open event, with about an hour per game. Alternative Armies have kindly agreed to provide some sponsorship.
Full details will follow in a few months, and I’ll be taking names for the event, to allow a list of the players to be held at the entrance desk.
Cheers for now
Martin
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 25, 2024 22:47:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 25, 2024 21:18:08 GMT
Armies seen at the Mercian DBA- (21 players) Nabataeans Zanj Revolt Massagetae Ghaznavids Melanesians Teutonic Order x 2 Samurai Carthaginians West Franks (not Normans 😁).Sumerians Early Polish Spring and Autumn Chinese ie ‘I/32 other’ Sargonid Assyrians Sassanids Bosporans Ottomans Early Egyptians Hyksos Later T’ang Nubians Updated, following Pete’s results post.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 25, 2024 9:05:27 GMT
I took recently repainted Nabataeans (II/22a), with 50% archers (3Bw), supported by a couple of javelinmen units and some random mounted, + Cavalry general.
My games were:-
1. Against Neil M.’s Later Sargonid Assyrians. The archers, holding a village on our left, fought a delaying action against the Assyrian heavy foot, while a big scrap developed on the right. Here Neil’s chariots, cavalry and skirmish foot ramped up the pressure, with more and more units fed into the carnage. Ashurbanipal overran some of our archers and their supporting camelry, then chanced his luck against Nabataean horse archers who peppered him with arrows. The Assyrian general died, and the Nabataeans claimed a narrow victory (3g-2).
2. Using Philip D.’s Samurai (IV/59a) to invade Nabataea. Treachery was suspected 😁, as the Samurai foot (6 x 3Bd) were very reluctant to advance, and then fought extremely poorly (low PIPs and rubbish combat results). The seemingly blunt katanas claimed very few victims, as Philip’s Nabataeans delivered him a 4-2 win. (Well done, Nabataeans….we’ll have words later….).
3. Reclaiming the Nabataeans, I next met Phil S., with his knight-heavy Teutonic Order army (IV/30?). The archers clung to the safety of difficult hills and woods, shooting at anything that moved. One Teutonic light horse unit was pushed off the board, a nearby cavalry unit charged but was stopped in its tracks and then the Grand Master (6Kn) was nobbled by massed archery. Nabataean win by 3g-0.
4. Using the unusual Melanesians (IV/12b, 10 x auxilia, 2 x psiloi) vs Stephen E.’s Nabataeans, who defended. Lack of a waterway meant terra firma only for the Melanesians, who massed asymmetrically on our left to assault the Nabataean right. It was touch and go, but the Melanesian slingers and warriors managed to scrape a win against mainly archer opposition just before the tougher Nabataean centre joined the fray (4-1). Closer than it looks on paper, or in pixels 😳
5. Taking back the Nabataeans, I next encountered an invasion by Connor T.’s Later Carthaginians and their Syracusan ally (II32a+II/9a), all beautifully painted. Elephants and artillery, wotta combo!!! Fighting focussed on a big, rough hill in the Carthaginian right centre, which drew in more and more units, Balearic slingers and elephants included, and took up most of both players’ PIPs. However, neither could rack up kills, and the sun set on a drawn match (2-1 draw to Nabataea).
6. Lastly, I found myself using Ghaznavids (III/64b) in an invasion against Paul H., who commanded the weary Nabataeans. Paul moved his archers off the road, avoiding a threatened elephant charge, and then the Ghaznavids seemed to freeze. Though their swordmen repeatedly hacked at Nabataean archers they couldn’t break them. Finally, the Ghaznavids’ cavalry dithered, delivered a weak charge and died, the general, surrounded, falling to a Nabataean counter attack. (1-4g defeat for my Ghaznavids).
This was an enjoyable event, one highlight being the chance to command Samurai, Melanesians and the Ghaznavids for the very first time. The Nabataeans defended in EVERY game, and did well, far better than I expected, in fact- 4 wins and a winning draw, out of six. How they might perform ‘out in the open’ was my major concern, but that wasn’t tested. Aggression 0 was their greatest ally….
Thanks to all at the Scimitars for a well run tournament, and congrats to the podium placed…all well deserved 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 25, 2024 9:03:42 GMT
Armies seen at the Mercian DBA- (21 players)
Nabataeans Zanj Revolt Massagetae Ghaznavids Melanesians Teutonic Order Samurai Carthaginians Normans Sumerians Early Polish Spring and Autumn Chinese (was this the ‘I/32 other’?). Sargonid Assyrians Sassanids Bosporans Ottomans Early Egyptians Hyksos
…and a few more…any ideas which?
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 24, 2024 18:21:17 GMT
Watch out for the Nabataeans. (The pronunciation can be pretty tricky.) They scored four wins [!!!] and a winning draw, which surprised me, and they defended in every game 😳. BIG THANKS to Pete and ALL THE COVENTRY SCIMITARS for a well run day 👍🏼👍🏼. Great format, lots of variety of armies and some fine opponents. 21 players, a very good turn out, which reflects the high regard players have for the Coventry tournaments 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼. I’ll leave the announcements of podium etc to the organisers, but CONGRATS to all of them.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 24, 2024 18:15:19 GMT
very nice I have the exact same figures for this army in the ‘to do pile’ - was going to get rid of them but seeing how they paint up I’m tempted to keep them now. Thank you, Ken Gordon . > I'm just waiting until there is no risk of getting a 20mm resin Giant Tick as a free gift before I order the elephant figure to serve as the camp element. 😁🫣🤣🤣
|
|