Hubcon

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:23 pm

Part 1 now posted...

Hubcon Report Part 1

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:31 pm

Nice report - not what I expected from your list but I suppose I should have expected you to take a LH Shooty Cav army and try mixing it at close quarters...

Skullzgrinda · Post by **Skullzgrinda** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:01 am

We have vegetables.

Fried okra.

Fried green tomatoes.

Fried squash.

Fried pickles.

Fried corn.

Fried potatoes.

Sweet potato fries.

For the calorie conscious, we also have baked potatoes, usually loaded.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:48 am

Skullzgrinda wrote:We have vegetables.

RESIST, RESIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:50 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Skullzgrinda wrote:We have vegetables.
RESIST, RESIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're doing well, I nearly succumbed

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:51 pm

madaxeman wrote:Part 1 now posted...

A thrilling tale of 2 badly designed armies doing battle

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:49 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
madaxeman wrote:Part 1 now posted...
A thrilling tale of 2 badly designed armies doing battle

Quite so. If you aren't going to get something completely right, the only proper alternative is to get it completely wrong. Well done Tim.

I presume I am one of the Daves of Eastwick along with the other Dave R from Manchester...

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:57 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
madaxeman wrote:Part 1 now posted...

A thrilling tale of 2 badly designed armies doing battle

My design criteria was "use at least 2 sets of new lancers".

Seemed to work out OK

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:56 am

madaxeman wrote: My design criteria was "use at least 2 sets of new lancers".

Seemed to work out OK

I'll let you off - using new toys is always OK

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:35 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
madaxeman wrote: My design criteria was "use at least 2 sets of new lancers".

Seemed to work out OK
I'll let you off - using new toys is always OK

Mind you, I am not convinced by the City ally.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:30 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
madaxeman wrote: My design criteria was "use at least 2 sets of new lancers".

Seemed to work out OK
I'll let you off - using new toys is always OK
Mind you, I am not convinced by the City ally.

My logic was "why would you not want to stick a general with this unit in combat" + "4 poor LF bowmen - nice!"

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:23 pm

dave_r wrote:
Quite so. If you aren't going to get something completely right, the only proper alternative is to get it completely wrong. Well done Tim.

I presume I am one of the Daves of Eastwick along with the other Dave R from Manchester...

Sorry - I had posted an incorrect list for my Selljuks before - now updated

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:13 pm

Hubcon Game 2 now posted[/url]

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:11 pm

madaxeman wrote:Hubcon Game 2 now posted

"In a maneuver which appeared from some angles to be vaguely illegal, three units of cavalry originally deployed in a 6x2 block had moved as a group to form into 3 parallel columns, starting and ending in base to base contact thus claiming the ability to do a double move ..."

The "some angles" being those that comply with the rules - I suppose we should be charitable and assume you were confused by having LH in your army

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:43 pm

Was it legal ? I genuinely am unsure...

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:14 am

No it wasn't.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:45 am

And to answer your next question it is because a Battle Line is limited to moves under the Advances section of the movement table (its in the rules on the page before said table) - and I can't think how you can get to where you did doing that

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:54 am

Nik

Are you suggesting that formation change AND 90 degree turn don't quite qualify as Advances... :)

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:33 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:And to answer your next question it is because a Battle Line is limited to moves under the Advances section of the movement table (its in the rules on the page next to said table) - and I can't think how you can get to where you did doing that

The three 2x2 blocks all wheel through 90 degrees, but still end up in contact with each other ?

Maybe I snuck in a cheeky contraction somewhere along the line too...

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:39 pm

madaxeman wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:And to answer your next question it is because a Battle Line is limited to moves under the Advances section of the movement table (its in the rules on the page next to said table) - and I can't think how you can get to where you did doing that
The three 2x2 blocks all wheel through 90 degrees, but still end up in contact with each other ?

Maybe I snuck in a cheeky contraction somewhere along the line too...

As each BG will have had to wheel separately to get where you got them they cannot have moved as a battle line - see page 30 and p75. The ending in contact is not relevant, it appears to be something you have invented as a criteria (in that they must be in contact throughout).

And any contraction takes you out of the Advances section which means it cannot be done by a Battle Line - see page 41.

Hubcon

Hubcon

Re: Hubcon

Re: Hubcon

Re: Hubcon

Re: Hubcon

Re: Hubcon

Re: Hubcon

Re: Hubcon