Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Competitions / Re: Swabian Open 2019
« Last post by Arnim on November 26, 2018, 07:43:21 PM »
Hello All,
Currently we have 20 participants coming from four countries for the Swabian Open 2019. So we can say it will be an exciting event to start the new year. We are happy to welcome several players who never played a tournament before and to welcome back Thomas Faessler from Switzerland!!

We would be happy to haven even more international participation! We have room for demos and for fun/fantasy games on Friday evening as well as on saturday evening.
We will discuss needs for figures, shuttle services etc on:
 https://tabletop-rheinmain.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=2830

Gruß
Arnim
2
Competitions / Re: Swabian Open 2019
« Last post by Arnim on November 04, 2018, 10:28:35 AM »
Just to say - by now we do have international participation!!
But we need more ;-))
3
Competitions / Re: Britannicon 240AP comp - Canberra
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on October 25, 2018, 10:53:29 PM »
1 day comps are popular in the UK, sometimes pulling in around 40 players.

Obviously the logistics are a bit different in Australia.
4
Rules Questions / Re: Fast Troops
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on October 25, 2018, 01:05:06 AM »
People reading what they expect to see rather than what is actually written is a perennial problem.
5
Competitions / Re: Britannicon 240AP comp - Canberra
« Last post by Barritus on October 22, 2018, 11:32:00 AM »
Well, four people turned up last Sunday to take part in Britannicon. This kept the draw simple - as with Wintercon we simply played out a three game round-robin.

Results were:
Tim Montgomery (Normans): 56
Dave Turner (SRB - Strathclyde with Vikings): 38
John Garvey (Dublin Vikings): 30
Anton Verster (Scots Isles and Vikings): 26

Only two of the six games were played to completion. The other four games were unfinished, in game durations between 1h 40m and 1h 50m. The individual scores were: 22-3, 19-6, 15-10 (x2) and 13-12 (x2). Both victories were gained by Tim.

No one took a brilliant general or an inert general, and only one player bothered with stratagems (he took and used both scouts and ambush). That player also took a naval option. Tim's Normans betrayed their Scandinavian origins by including the Ikea flat-pack fort (manned by Bw who achieved nothing).

It perhaps wasn't surprising that the Normans were dominant, given that the Kn had a quick kill against both Bd and Sp. The only Wb element at the comp was the sole Berserker element in the Dublin Viking army. Otherwise the games involved a lot of Bd-Bd and Bd-Sp combat. Not surprisingly the Bd-Bd combat took a long time to go anywhere, while the Sp performed creditably against the Bd.

The format was popular with the players, with a couple of those attending saying they simply weren't up for two or three day comps. In addition, the nature of irregular armies and the cheapness of the troops meant that the games were also visually appealing - long lines of infantry in multiple ranks, with little in the way of fancy footwork.

While the format for Cancon will remain unchanged, the modest success of this comp suggests we might be aiming for more 200-240AP comps in the future. Preliminary discussions with players suggest that we could try two of these sorts of comps next year, probably one with an American/Pacific theme, and the other pre-1600BC (before the rise of massed chariots).

Thanks to Jolt Games for providing the venue and the prize support.
6
Rules Questions / Re: Fast Troops
« Last post by Neil Williamson on October 17, 2018, 09:34:03 AM »
Thanks Lawrence.
So you reckon that , of my 3 options, it is mainly played as option 4 (LOL) Min 160p Max 240p because of version 2 wording.
Fair enough - I think with knowledge of v2 that's how I would interpret the intent of the rule as well.

Its funny how a newcomer can spot a difference isn't it? I guess players of previous additions are reading what they expect to see rather than what is actually written.
A quick discussion and agreement at the start of the game as to the maximum repulse is all that's required for now then.
Thanks again
7
Rules Questions / Re: Spontaneous Advance
« Last post by Neil Williamson on October 17, 2018, 09:24:43 AM »
Thanks Lawrence.
I'm pretty sure I've got it now.
No doubt I'll forget it all again in the heat of the battle for a few times
8
Rules Questions / Re: Spontaneous Advance
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on October 17, 2018, 03:14:11 AM »
So you do the impetuous moves of the heavy infantry first, then you do the impetuous moves of the light horse. So the LH stop when they contact the heavy infantry which have already made their impetuous moves.

But if you did the impetuous moves of the LH first, then they'd pass through the heavy infantry, which would then (second dot point) "follow behind in spontaneous advance".

Does this make sense?

Note that when sponno troops are behind other sponno troops, the ones in front must move first. Therefore the only way this second option is possible is if the infantry in front were halted.
9
Rules Questions / Re: Spontaneous Advance
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on October 17, 2018, 03:09:37 AM »
Just to be strict:

If the Irr LH(S) have moved (or are one of the other exceptions) the Kn(F) stop on contact and face the same direction.

If the Irr LH(S) have not moved and are not one of the other exceptions, then the Kn barge through them, causing them to follow behind in sponno advance.

Note that a tactical or march move by the LH(S) would qualify them as having moved, but a halt would not.


So the rule is:

Barge through anything at any angle, provided it is not an exception case.
If it is an exception case, stop on contact and pivot to face the same direction (if the pivot is less than 90 degrees).


10
Rules Questions / Re: Fast Troops
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on October 17, 2018, 02:55:20 AM »
Good question. I don't think anyone else has noticed it.

In version 2.0 a repulse move was 160p to maximum tactical move distance, and it was generally understood that the tactical move distance would include any fast bonus but not the 160p.

In 2.1 the maximum repulse was changed to 240p regardless of the element's tactical move distance. THis suggests that it was intended that everyone could go a max of 240p whether fast of not, and the author forgot to remove "repulse" from p 29.  If you assume that, then it stays at 160-240p with fast having no effect. This is the way it is normally played.

Alternatively you could assume that the old "maximum of tactical move + 40p" becomes "maximum of 240p + 40p", but I don't know anyone who plays it this way. It's something the commentary team could look at in the future.

I would keep the minimum at 160p because this ensures that a repulsed element's TZ can still protect its neighbours from flank contact if they remain in place. (F) troops are at enough of a disadvantage without this additional one. (i.e. changing the 160p minimum would adversely affect play balance.)


And yes, (F) troops press forward 120p.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10