|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 14, 2018 9:43:06 GMT
Congratulations to winning the 2018 Themed Britcon tournament in Manchester today. The overall rankings were: ….
10. Chris Rigby III/14 Early Bulgar
Was that Christine or Christopher ? Christine - returned from Denmark.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 13, 2018 18:38:23 GMT
Not quite, j2klbs. Camp followers - like Hordes and Scythed Chariots - don't count towards the total of elements lost. (See the first sentence of the section headed WINNING AND LOSING THE BATTLE on page 12.)
Also, troops defending a camp use their combat factor against foot (section headed Close combat against a city, fort or camp on page 10).
So camp followers (fixed or free-moving) have a basic factor of +2 and a further +2 for defending the camp and if they are destroyed and the camp is captured it only counts as one element towards the attacker's victory target.
Incidentally, a lot of UK players have invisible camp followers lurking inside the tent or whatever is used to denote the camp.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 13, 2018 13:53:56 GMT
I would have done even better if Mark had not paid off my dice, three 1's in a row at end of the game. I wouldn't have needed to pay off your dice if you hadn't kept throwing 6's before then! Bribing one's opponent's dice sounds more like a Byzantine tactic than a Frankish one.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:51:38 GMT
We would agree with you both except for one thing which causes some doubt as to what was really intended. Look under "Sequence of Play (3) ...(In case of dispute in the order the moving player decides.) What would constitute a "dispute?" Would this be a "dispute" where BW1 wants to shoot at the Cv and the BW2 and BW 3 want to shoot at BW1, so the bounding (Moving) player decides to do the shot at the Cv FIRST and THEN keep that same die roll which is used to DEFEND against the shot from BW2 and BW3? We have never played it this way, but it did raise a point. <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.660000000000082px; height: 7.079999999999984px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_47394546" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.08px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_83172200" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.08px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 162px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_22467251" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.079999999999984" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.08px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: 162px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_92646247" scrolling="no"></iframe> Except that the rules say "If a shooter whose target does not shoot back is shot at by a third party, that is resolved first....." (page 10, fifth paragraph, final sentence). So Red is shot at "first", forcing the Red Bw to shoot back at the Bw which shot at it and preventing it from shooting at the Cv.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:27:14 GMT
I have already replied to this on Facebook, but for those of you who are not on Facebook, I'm repeating it here. As far as I am concerned, the rules are clear that IF one or other (or both) Blue Bws shoot at the Red Bw, it has to shoot back at them and cannot shoot at the Cv. However, if the Blue Bws decide to gang up on the Red Kn - or even divide their shooting with Bw 2 targeting the Wb and Bw 3 targeting the Kn - then Bw 1 would be free to shoot at the Cv. Not as simple as that... there needs to be some declaration of intent by both sides before rolling, otherwise the conversation goes... Red, who's bound it is, says 'I want to shoot at the Cv'. Red and Blue roll and, let's say, Cv gets recoiled. Blue now says, 'I want to shoot at your Bw with both my Bw'. Blue says 'Oh, crap, that means I can no longer shoot at you Cv...so do we withdraw the recoil result...?' <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.660000000000082px; height: 7.399999999999977px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_62942556" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1057px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_63650888" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 307px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_97417363" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="7.399999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 7.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1057px; top: 307px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_13707540" scrolling="no"></iframe> Agreed. If Red says (s)he wants to shoot at the Cv, Blue has to make his or her intentions clear before the dice are rolled. If Blue says nothing, then, by implication, (s)he is not going to shoot at the Red Bw (and has to keep to that).
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:19:44 GMT
2. Unless you are artillery, you must shoot at a target shooting you. Artillery in their own bound may always pick their target. Joe Collins Where is that stated Joe? Page 10, fourth paragraph, final sentence, for the artillery bit. Slightly earlier in that paragraph for Bows and Warwagons having to shoot back at whatever is shooting at them. However, the latter only apples if the Bows or Warwagons do not have a target in their TZ.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 8, 2018 20:03:03 GMT
I have already replied to this on Facebook, but for those of you who are not on Facebook, I'm repeating it here.
As far as I am concerned, the rules are clear that IF one or other (or both) Blue Bws shoot at the Red Bw, it has to shoot back at them and cannot shoot at the Cv.
However, if the Blue Bws decide to gang up on the Red Kn - or even divide their shooting with Bw 2 targeting the Wb and Bw 3 targeting the Kn - then Bw 1 would be free to shoot at the Cv.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 7, 2018 15:56:55 GMT
Or in Paulisper's case, Hu's painting (Angkor) Wat.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 6, 2018 12:27:05 GMT
My mistake. One place left. You were right but I asked Tim to give us an extra place. That means we can have 12 players and an organiser (me) if required, which I find easier than being a player and organiser. So room for one more and a 50% increase on last year's numbers. Hopefully the paint has dried for the extra person and they can now enter, Simon <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="6.439999999999998" style="position: absolute; width: 22.660000000000082px; height: 6.439999999999998px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_62373761" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="6.439999999999998" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 6.44px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_28407809" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="6.439999999999998" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 6.44px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 259px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_75325528" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.660000000000082" height="6.439999999999998" style="position: absolute; width: 22.66px; height: 6.44px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1074px; top: 259px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_57019989" scrolling="no"></iframe> The paint has dried but they have already booked, so I'm afraid you are still looking for a +1.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 6, 2018 10:11:17 GMT
...........So - two places left and if anyone is interested they had better sign up quick on the Britcon site! Cheers Simon Now sold out according to the website. My mistake. One place left.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 6, 2018 7:52:37 GMT
...........So - two places left and if anyone is interested they had better sign up quick on the Britcon site! Cheers Simon Now sold out according to the website.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 4, 2018 9:31:18 GMT
I know of one more person who is hoping to attend if the paint dries in time.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 3, 2018 12:02:54 GMT
Only two tickets left. Sudden surge of interest or have the numbers been cut?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 2, 2018 20:49:37 GMT
The ones with disguised elements take the prize as far as I'm concerned. The Mu-jung Hsien-pi's dust throwing women with banners mounted on oxen is possibly my favourite. (II/61b)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 29, 2018 16:05:21 GMT
It was a pleasure meeting you, Jim. I'm only sorry that my dice weren't more hospitable.
Safe home - and if you are over again, hoplites will be on offer (and a larger size board if you would like one).
Denis
|
|