Results for Derby Doubles 2008

Post by **petirouge** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:23 pm

The results for Doubles 2008, Period: FoG, are now on the Hall of Honour

http://www.fieldofglory.com/hallofhonour.html

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:28 pm

Wow, 5 from 12 armies were Palmyran ones !

Is there any reason why ?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:42 pm

Lack of imigination!

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:55 pm

Good in period.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:35 am

Two of the Palmyran armies I faced were brought along because the players had had the armies for years but never used them in DBM because they were pants. One team we played actually both had Palmyran armies they had never used so took the opportunity to do so.

IanB3406 · Post by **IanB3406** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:00 pm

Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:13 pm

Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong

Extract one troop type from the above and my lack of imagination would be satisfied.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:28 pm

IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.

The two highest placing Palmyrans did not use Romans - not sure about the rest.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:31 pm

IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.

Where did they go wrong historically?

All I can find is that Zenobia met Aurelian in battle "near Antioch", and was badly defeated. Does anyone know the name of the battle, or have an account of the events?? I confess to a certain measure of curiosity.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:41 pm

Immae and Emesa - you'll need Zosimus IIRC, although the Scriptores Historiae Augustae undoubtably covers it as well.

rtaylor · Post by **rtaylor** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:16 pm

IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.

Drilled cataphracts, no less.

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:22 pm

rtaylor wrote:
IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Drilled cataphracts, no less.

That's too cool

Dale

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:39 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
The two highest placing Palmyrans did not use Romans - not sure about the rest.

I'm currently testing a Palmyran list with no Romans

So I'm pleased to see that such list have success in tournament.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:51 pm

possum wrote:
IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Where did they go wrong historically?

Perhaps they had less "points" of troops than the Romans.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:42 pm

daleivan wrote:
rtaylor wrote:
IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Drilled cataphracts, no less.
That's too cool

Dale

Again the most successful ones at Derby were Undrilled as I recall ...

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:00 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
Again the most successful ones at Derby were Undrilled as I recall ...

Good to know--and comforting, since I have a Parthian army in the que to paint

Just curious, do you recall if either Palmyran army employing undrilled cats at Derby used an IC?

Thanks,

Dale

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:38 am

One of them definitely did - http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co. ... an1000.pdf - and I suspect the winning one did as well.

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:01 am

nikgaukroger wrote:One of them definitely did - http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co. ... an1000.pdf - and I suspect the winning one did as well.

Wow 1000pt are definetely different armies than 800pt

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:01 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:One of them definitely did - http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co. ... an1000.pdf - and I suspect the winning one did as well.

That's a whole lot of cataphracts! That particular Palmyran army looks much like a Parthian army, which it can for certain, I just imagined more foot archers for some reason. With all those horse archers and cataphracts maybe they really only get in the way, hence the single foot archer battle group?

Cheers,

Dale