|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 18, 2019 6:57:53 GMT
Presuming you dry brushed with Chainmail, can you further drybrush it with something lighter? GW Mithril Silver or Shining Gold, for example.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 17, 2019 20:31:03 GMT
Basic Impetus. Is that the one starring Sharon Stone?
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 13, 2019 16:25:35 GMT
Hmmn, not sure what happened there! Just trying to effect a minor edit (successfully , as it happens, but don't waste time trying to spot it)!
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 13, 2019 16:23:44 GMT
Thanks, Simon. Another great tournament. Thanks to all the players too. Good natured fun as always. I went along to enjoy what is always an excellent day out rather than to play test the house rules, so any opinions I formed on them were largely co-incidental. I took Feudal English against Naverrese. I weakened the English slightly by taking two bows options rather than two spear elements, and thereby missed some opportunities to play test the amendments, but it did lead to a better balanced game. much to my surprise, I won all three games with my own armies, although all three went 4-3, suggesting the pairing to be good. Twice I was given the English, and on both occasions, crucially, I got to choose terrain. The first one was a true billiard table, the second a wet week in the southern Angevin empire (plough retained as rough going), but in both cases, once the knights got up to speed, they ran the auxilia down. In the third game, Gascon psiloi group moving through bad going were too much for the English and Welsh bowmen. There was little impact of the amendments as there were no heavy infantry, let alone solid pikes, and not much hand to hand contact with the bows. My two draws were games where the bow rules were relevant. In the first game against Baldie, my Spartans were prevented from close combat with the Persian bows, partly by low PIP dice and partly by terrain, but the extra PIP requirement also played a part. When Simon gave the five minute warning of "last bound" being called, we raced through four bounds in five minutes in a desperate attempt to produce a result, but still ended up 2-2. There is something of a paradox here, due to the rules, not the amendments, in that elements are safer close up to bows as they tend not to get ganged up on because of TZ related target priorities. Heavy infantry (or at least blade and spear) are then pretty immune. So the game is to get your line within one BW and wait for a big PIP throw. This was even more pronounced in the last game against Kevin Casey, Tudor English against Lambert Simnel rebels (Blade and longbow) where despite our best efforts we were still 0-0 after 55 minutes. We went a bit wild in the last couple of bounds to finish on 2-2, but again the effect of the bow modifications seemed to be to increase the chance of a draw. And I lost 7-1 to Pete Duckworth, so congratulations to him on his tournament win. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 13, 2019 15:00:11 GMT
Thanks, Simon. Another great tournament. Thanks to all the players too. Good natured fun as always.
I went along to enjoy what is always an excellent day out rather than to play test the house rules, so any opinions I formed on them were largely co-incidental.
I took Feudal English against Naverrese. I weakened the English slightly by taking two bows options rather than two spear elements, and thereby missed some opportunities to play test the amendments, but it did lead to a better balanced game. much to my surprise, I won all three games with my own armies, although all three went 4-3, suggesting the pairing to be good. Twice I was given the English, and on both occasions, crucially, I got to choose terrain. The first one was a true billiard table, the second a wet week in the southern Angevin empire (plough retained as rough going), but in both cases, once the knights got up to speed, they ran the auxilia down. In the third game, Gascon psiloi group moving through bad going were too much for then English and Welsh bowmen. There was little impact of the amendments as there were no heavy infantry, let alone solid pikes, and not much hand to hand contact with the bows.
My two draws were games where the bow rules were relevant. In the first game against Baldie, my Spartans were prevented from close combat with the Persian bows, partly by low PIP dice and partly by terrain, but the extra PIP requirement also played a part. When Simon gave the five minute warning of "last bound" being called, we raced through four bounds in five minutes in a desperate attempt to produce a result, but still ended up 2-2. There is something of a paradox here, due to the rules, not the amendments, in that elements are safer close up to bows as they tend not to get ganged up on because of TZ related target priorities. Heavy infantry (or at least blade and spear) are then pretty immune. So the game is to get your line within one BW and wait for a big PIP throw. This was even more pronounced in the last game against Kevin Casey, Tudor English against Lambert Simnel rebels (Blade and longbow) where despite our best efforts we were still 0-0 after 55 minutes. We went a bit wild in the last couple of bounds to finish on 2-2, but again the effect of the bow modifications seemed to be to increase the chance of a draw.
And I lost 7-1 to Pete Duckworth, so congratulations to him on his tournament win.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Sept 30, 2019 8:44:53 GMT
Except, of course, that LCm are LH (designed by a committee)! Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Sept 22, 2019 8:52:12 GMT
I think it's perfectly legal. It wouldn't be if the advancing element had to do any manoeuvre such as turning or sliding laterally, but if it's just moving straight ahead and it's moving towards the element generating the TZ (so that it would eventually contact it if it kept advancing), it's legal to stop at any point inside the TZ. Does it even say that? (i.e that it can't manoeuvre) In Bob's diagram element A seems to be almost but not quite in a position to form a side to side contact with B, but moves slightly to its left before moving directly forwards into the TZ to line up exactly and form a side to side contact. I have never seen anybody object to this. What if it were within the TZ of Y but in a position where a direct advance would leave a gap between it and element B? Can it still move diagonally forwards to make a group with B if when it does it is actually closer (in millimetres) to contact with Y at the end of the move than at the start? Is there anywhere in the rules where it says it has to move directly forwards towards contact? Is there anywhere where it says that the element has to be at least as close to lined up at the end of the move than at the start? I think it should, but Stevie's interpretation suggests not. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 25, 2019 19:38:40 GMT
here we are: (in DBA 2.2)
Hordes: Destroyed in BUA or camp or by elephants, knights or scythed chariots if in good going, or by warband not in a BUA or camp, or if shot at. If not, no effect.
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 25, 2019 10:16:00 GMT
Were horde not destroyed if beaten by shooting? I might risk the wildlife under the bed to find the old copy of the 2.2 rules.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 12, 2019 15:13:57 GMT
Extraordinary. I would have thought about twice that. Must be a buyers market.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 5, 2019 17:35:44 GMT
A nice looking army you got on sale there Paulisper. Many thanks - first time I've sold a DBA army on eBay, so I have no idea what it will fetch... P. In my limited experience, always on the buying side, all off the action takes place in the last minute. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 3, 2019 7:56:18 GMT
Tom,
North Welsh have South Welsh as allies, even outside the dates listed for South Welsh stand alone army. Is that not an attempt to address your request?
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jul 29, 2019 15:36:45 GMT
So camp followers are only 0 against mounted should they sally forth. Thanks. Indeed, but the best use for them is to ‘hard flank’ an enemy who are busy fighting one of your elements - no risk to the camp followers, and a chance of ‘destroyed if beaten’ for the enemy 😊. Have done that, and had it done to me, too.... And is it the case that it takes three PIP's for a camp follower element to do this if sallying from within the camp (an initial 2 PIP's to move plus an extra one as they are garrisoning the camp)? But also only two PIP's for denizens in the same situation, as they cannot "garrison" a city? Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jul 13, 2019 19:32:04 GMT
Thanks, Bob.
Most comprehensive. Just what I was after.
Goragrad, In the combat outcomes section, "mounted" and "infantry" are at opposite ends of consecutive lines, which is why I missed it when scanning through. But it is there!
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jul 13, 2019 16:17:52 GMT
I am planning to use an element of mounted infantry on Monday in my HYW English army. As far as I can see, the Mtd4Ld functions as ordinary 4Lb except it can move at 3Bw per PIP and for up to three moves per bound (with the usual conditions). I am pretty sure there is at least one other difference, related, perhaps, to being recoiled in bad going, but can I find it??? Could anybody please give me a summary of the other differences, if any? Thanks.
Scott
|
|