|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 15, 2019 12:16:02 GMT
True, David. But Tullius' reforms - hence the name chosen for this army - lived on after him and into the early years of the Republic following the deposition of Tarquinius Superbus in 509BC. If you want to be picky, Polybius wasn't a Roman either - and he never commanded an army of any nationality.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamilcar on May 15, 2019 12:28:49 GMT
Since Tullius was a King, does that fit the definition Republic?
Not in my book.
David Constable
P.S.- He was also an Etruscan.
2nd P.S. - Without rules difficult to check, however, a lot of lists might well begin or end at 400B.C., if so it would be better to start at 399 or 395B.C. Yes, he was a "king" of course, so taking that at face value the list would not fit into the Republic. However, the list covers the period up to 400BC, whereas the republic was established around 509BC. It is the first time we are running a tournament, so I don't want to be too restrictive. I/59 Tullian Roman is fine and so are their enemies. |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 15, 2019 14:24:05 GMT
The traditional date of 509B.C. is fine and allows the use of the hoplite army, that does not become "restrictive", the date of 400B.C. is then avoided if you drop the Tullius army, so good all round.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by hamilcar on May 15, 2019 15:05:15 GMT
The traditional date of 509B.C. is fine and allows the use of the hoplite army, that does not become "restrictive", the date of 400B.C. is then avoided if you drop the Tullius army, so good all round. David Constable I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the problem. Rome was a republic from 509BC (or thereabouts), whereas I/59 Tullian Roman list applies in the period 578-400BC. There is a significant overlap, so I would allow it. As you say, this is effectively a hoplite army and there are similar Greek versions. I don't think it will imbalance the army selections and don't understand why it should be excluded. |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 15, 2019 16:09:13 GMT
The traditional date of 509B.C. is fine and allows the use of the hoplite army, that does not become "restrictive", the date of 400B.C. is then avoided if you drop the Tullius army, so good all round. David Constable I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the problem. Rome was a republic from 509BC (or thereabouts), whereas I/59 Tullian Roman list applies in the period 578-400BC. There is a significant overlap, so I would allow it. As you say, this is effectively a hoplite army and there are similar Greek versions. I don't think it will imbalance the army selections and don't understand why it should be excluded. In itself the army does not become a problem, unless you drop it.
That is when 400BC comes in, without the rules I was not able to check how many lists ended in 400BC that you might not want to include, if you started in 400BC the situation of the Roman controlled area is different, and enemies might become more complicated.
I have ordered a copy of DBA3.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by hamilcar on May 15, 2019 16:38:00 GMT
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the problem. Rome was a republic from 509BC (or thereabouts), whereas I/59 Tullian Roman list applies in the period 578-400BC. There is a significant overlap, so I would allow it. As you say, this is effectively a hoplite army and there are similar Greek versions. I don't think it will imbalance the army selections and don't understand why it should be excluded. In itself the army does not become a problem, unless you drop it.
That is when 400BC comes in, without the rules I was not able to check how many lists ended in 400BC that you might not want to include, if you started in 400BC the situation of the Roman controlled area is different, and enemies might become more complicated.
I have ordered a copy of DBA3.
David Constable
Thank you for that clarification. I would rather include than exclude armies, so will allow Tullian Roman and any of their enemies. In the future I would prefer to run a more focused event, but am keeping it broad for now. |
|
|
|
Post by mustrum on May 29, 2019 17:58:52 GMT
Many apologies, definitely can't make it now, bloody kids!
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 29, 2019 19:08:38 GMT
Many apologies, definitely can't make it now, bloody kids! That’s a pity, Oli.... if there’s a change of plan, get in touch! |
|
|
|
Post by hamilcar on May 30, 2019 10:24:24 GMT
Many apologies, definitely can't make it now, bloody kids! That's a shame. I hope to run the tournament again next year, so there will be a second chance! Enjoy the kids! |
|
|
|
Post by mustrum on May 30, 2019 18:46:33 GMT
Just moaned at them about it. My eldest's response was good, you never win anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by hamilcar on Jun 3, 2019 15:40:42 GMT
Just moaned at them about it. My eldest's response was good, you never win anyway... Maybe in a parallel universe you will play at Valhalla 19 and win! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by hamilcar on Jun 3, 2019 15:56:11 GMT
A little less than two weeks to go.
If you'd like to take part, but have not confirmed your attendance please do so asap. At the moment I have a single spare table (or maybe two, if I can get the show organiser to squeeze things a bit), so people can still join in the day, but it will be first-come, first-served.
I am for some reason unable to upload the tournament pack, but if you are interested (even if you're still not 100% sure) drop me an email or a message and I'll send this out to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 8, 2019 5:37:21 GMT
NB...a note to any attending - it’s ‘no allies permitted’ at this one, so worth bearing that in mind for your army choice.
See y’all there next weekend, then.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 8, 2019 7:23:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 8, 2019 16:35:03 GMT
Thanks stevie
M
|
|
