|
Post by Simon on Aug 28, 2019 11:17:38 GMT
I also wonder that if troops can cross a paltry river as if in good going, then perhaps they could fight in it as if good going - and perhaps even shoot from one!
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 27, 2019 8:33:21 GMT
A one hour lunch break...4 pubs to visit...so 15 minutes per pub...knock off 3 minutes for walking... ...so only 12 minutes drinking time in each pub... Hmmm, probably won’t have time to craw around all four of them then (shame)... ...at least, not in the lunch hour alone. I think i will need to have a handicap system for anyone playing you after lunch!
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 27, 2019 7:23:20 GMT
<snip>
In brief, Joe's ideas are as follows:
Bows - An extra PIP is required other than in first round for a foot element, or group containing foot, to move into frontal contact with Bow.
Pikes - In the case of equal combat scores, non-pike solid foot are recoiled by solid pike.
Auxilia- if total is less than opponents' but more than half, Auxilia are destroyed by Knights if in good going. Recoil 1BW from Pike or Blade, else recoil.
The above doesn't exactly match the suggestions in that Slingshot article (which not everyone will have access to). Can you spell out exactly what changes to the rules as written will be used in this competition? Will do but have a hectic couple of weeks coming up. In the meantime, the summary should give people enough of a picture for now and crib sheets will be provided on the day. In the meantime, let me know if my summary is misleading! Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 27, 2019 6:40:53 GMT
There is free parking just outside and we are very close to numerous places where you can get breakfast, sandwiches and take-away lunches. Free tea and coffee is provided. Simon
Are there any pubs nearby? I regret that there are only 4 pubs - including a real ale micro bar - within a 3 minute walk!!
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 26, 2019 19:02:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 25, 2019 13:55:28 GMT
I hope you are being supervised by a responsible adult!!
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 25, 2019 13:09:34 GMT
As we are well into double figures as far as entrants are concerned, I thought it would be useful to provide some detail about the event so that people can decide on which pair of armies they would like to bring along. We will be trying out, and feeding back on, Joe Collins' ideas for improving the game as published in the recent May/June 2019 Slingshot magazine. More on this at the bottom of this thread - so read on! The tournament will start at 1000 on Saturday 12 October at the Medway Centre Bakewell. Directions are here www.medwaycentre.co.uk/contact/ - scroll down to the bottom of the page for the map. There is free parking just outside and we are very close to numerous places where you can get breakfast, sandwiches and take-away lunches. Free tea and coffee is provided. So far, I have the following down as attending - please let me know if you would like your name added to the list as I will soon need to make a call on whether we need the hall or another room. - Phil Johnson
- Mark Johnson
- Tim Rogers
- Tim Kohler
- Jesse Schoor
- Stevie Andrews
- Frank Shaw
- Martin Myers
- Baldie
- Scott Russell
- Craig
Allen - Pete Duckworth
- Colin Alcock
- Paul Murgatroyd
The format oif the day is matched pairs. This means that you will need to bring along any pair of historically matched armies (as defined by the army lists) from any of Books I-IV. Allies are allowed as long as they fit the same time period as the matched pair. You are advised to make the pair as balanced as possible as, when your pair is being used, your opponent will generally get to choose which army to play with. If you want to bring along two armies that are the same number, they should differ by at least 2 elements. You will also need to provide terrain for both armies when defending. Although I expect that most people will be using 15mm armies on 4 cm BW, you are welcome to bring along other scales such as 6mm, 10mm or 25/28mm. 2 x 2 ft boards will be supplied but please bring along your own board if a different size is required. There will be 6 rounds.
The rules we will be testing concern Auxilia, Pike and Bow. Although I am not insisting that players have to bring along armies with these types in them, I would really encourage everyone to consider a pair of armies that does contain them as the matched pairs format is a great opportunity to perhaps pitch armies against each other that would not normally be close fought. Thanks Baldie for getting the ball roliing with an EAP v Hoplites match-up! There will be a prize for the player who scores the most points and who brings along an army with at least six of Pike, Bow and/or Auxilia.
In brief, Joe's ideas are as follows:
Bows - An extra PIP is required other than in first round for a foot element, or group containing foot, to move into frontal contact with Bow.
Pikes - In the case of equal combat scores, non-pike solid foot are recoiled by solid pike.
Auxilia- if total is less than opponents' but more than half, Auxilia are destroyed by Knights if in good going. Recoil 1BW from Pike or Blade, else recoil.
AND - PLEASE DON'T USE THIS THREAD FOR A DEBATE ON THESE CHANGES - USE THE HOUSE RULES SECTION!!!
Otherwise, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or want to come along.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 23, 2019 8:34:35 GMT
Bakewell (Sheffield) Leg will be Saturday 16 November at the Medway Centre 1000 start. Please let me know if interested.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 23, 2019 7:25:21 GMT
I have a thing for dark age British armies, which in DBA can be rather single dimensional. I stumbled across Dux Bellorum as an alternative for doing some gaming in that era and was wondering if anyone has experience with them? Yes - I ahve played them and the previous set called Glutter of ravens. I really lke them and particularly like the emphasis on leadership. Well worth the price - normally under a tenner on Amazon UK. There is also a forum for all of Dan Mersey's rules. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2019 20:54:36 GMT
I have created a page listing on my blog (which is otherwise in need of resurrecting!). The idea is to help those planning tournaments to avoid clashes and for others to get an idea of what is coming up. I will do my best to keep it up to date from what I pick up on the forums and other sources but it would be a great help if people, particularly organisers, could let me have their dates - even if these are tentative and to be confirmed. It would also be useful to know about significant wargaming events (eg SOA Battleday) so that organisers are aware of these when planning. Here is the link derwentgamer.wordpress.com/dba-hott-tournaments-in-2020/Kind regards, Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2019 14:52:09 GMT
Thanks Stevie. Unless there is a clear ruling before Bakewell Matched pairs, I will be ruling that troops in a river will count as in the area terrain going that the river is in where they are.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2019 11:38:10 GMT
I am a bit lost as to where we have got to with this discussion! Is there consensus that a river is neither good nor bad/rough but troops wholly in a river count as being in any area terrain that the river passes through?
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 16, 2019 18:28:09 GMT
Thanks Bill. Its July we are looking at not June and it will be 5th July not 6th (my typo above). I hope that works for you guys. The Midland Open will be around 2nd/3rd week in June 13 or 20th and I will try to avoid Phalanx in St Helens. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 15, 2019 17:59:42 GMT
I would have liked to have played the sixth game Simon but recognise that it puts pressure on the management of the day. What do others think? Thanks to BHGS, Magister Militum and especially to Simon. Colin Must admit I too would have preferred to play a sixth game, but understand Simon had said 5 games before the start and so some people had organised to leave at that time. However as we finished around 4.30pm I think we could have fitted another round in to finish around 5.30 and being from 'up north' I like value for money! Maybe 6 rounds next year? I am very open to running 6 rounds next year and would welcome input. The original thinking behind the 5 round format was to give people a good chance to get round the trade show and observe other games. That is easily changed! A format of games at 1015, 1115, 1215, 1345, 1445 and 1545 is perfectly possible. Regards Simon Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 15, 2019 17:45:05 GMT
For this one we are supposed to go by what the rules say. Camp guards, page 7, paragraph 9:- “At the start of the game a camp can be occupied by either (a) 1 only non-allied troop element Note also that page 7 paragraph 7 says that camps can only be placed in your deployment area, as defined by figure 1a on page 15 (the ‘hatched’ zone is outside of your deployment area):- “It must be in GOOD GOING (except Plough) on the rear edge of its side’s deployment area, or on a waterway or beach (that is in that area – see the FAQ)” Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Hi Stevie, It was good to meet you at Britcon on Saturday. After therapy, I am now successfully recovering from the emotional trauma of being faced by one of your infamous T-shirts! As you know, I am not persuaded by your interpretation of "the" deployment area. The second paragraph on page 8 does not refer to a "deployment area" at all - it just specifies the different distances that two groups of different troop types can deploy from the side edges (and the centre line) - two deployment areas? Figure 1a is also open to different interpretations. Although the words "Deployment area" are bounded by the unhatched area , they are area also bounded by the hatched area and the words "Deployment area" are aligned centrally to both. There are no lines with arrows to limit the extent of the deployment area but these are included elsewhere in figure 1a. I am not saying you are wrong and what you are saying may indeed have been intended by the author of the diagram - I am just saying that there is an equally logical alternative interpretation. Cheers Simon
|
|