Slitherine

Bad news no airplane Time good for the 4th player of italy. Joao is wellcome to join Italy 2

blackbeard66 wrote:Hi,

So far we have only four people from abroad who stated their interest/availability to participate in this organized tour. We can wait until next Sunday 21st too see if we can make this viable. If not, we are working on a Plan B to happen Friday afternoon, which will not be dependant on a minimum number of participants.

Hi,

Possibly with the added effect of the late announcement, we couldn't get enough interested people to make this tour viable this year. If the ITC remains in Portugal, we'll recover this idea for next year, with an earlier announcement and eventually a few extra ideas.

We are trying in this moment to get, for this year, a guided tour to the Museu Militar de Lisboa, as an alternative. We'll publish more details here as soon as we have confirmation, but once confirmed, the visit time will be during the afternoon of Friday 2nd, to enable a greater number of visitors to attend.

Fernando

Hi,

I'm not sure if this subject was discussed here and if all players are aware of this.

The venue for the ITC 2011 in Lisboa, is NOT the same as in previous years.
This time the event will be run at Museu da Marinha, also situated in the Belém area. For those staying at Pensão Setubalense, this is nearer, only a 5 min walk.

If anyone has any doubts about the location of Museu da Marinha, please contact me or Joao Diogo.

Cheers,
Fernando

It's a pity that the battlefield trip won't go this year. I will just have to make sure that the Beltway Bandits qualify to be Team USA next year, too.

In the mean time, I am interested in the Museu Militar tour.

Marc

blackbeard66 wrote: If anyone has any doubts about the location of Museu da Marinha, please contact me or Joao Diogo.

Toured it last year. Loved the first main room with some of the portuguese exploration in particular.

Just to steal Zoltan's thunder - here are the runners and riders:



Although there is a bit of a stewards enquiry going on about Juan's list So watch this space.

I will be very interested to see what the other Alexander Macedon players in Period 2 see as the optimal army configuration. For my part, I took an all-LF army (except for the mandatory Pikes, which I plan to send on a flank march each game).

Marc

babyshark wrote:I will be very interested to see what the other Alexander Macedon players in Period 2 see as the optimal army configuration. For my part, I took an all-LF army (except for the mandatory Pikes, which I plan to send on a flank march each game).

Marc

I was going to say that this was a rather poor attempt to fool your opponents into thinking you had a rubbish list, but then I remembered who it was that was posting

Clearly anything less than 4 clear victories every round will be a failure for GB.

Word is Ruddock is already blaming Phil for their failures.

blackbeard66 wrote:We are trying in this moment to get, for this year, a guided tour to the Museu Militar de Lisboa, as an alternative. We'll publish more details here as soon as we have confirmation, but once confirmed, the visit time will be during the afternoon of Friday 2nd, to enable a greater number of visitors to attend.

Fernando

The museum is very good but explaination signs are poor so a guide would help. It closes for 1 1/2 hors over lunch so beware.

dave_r wrote:

I waqs first to spot the mistake. It seems there are huge repurcussions, but I have made the same mistake myself with that list. I'm happy he takes it as is. Obviously the other players in the period would have to agree. Otherwise we all need to change our lists since a Bedouin that is not Hamdanids is a very different army to use so I'm sure Juan will not be happy.

I have corrected Phil's pool 3 list range. He had an illegal range of 1050-1150 AD (pool 3 finishes in 1149 AD). Also, his was the only list that had a year range and not a specific year (potentially masking his possible troop selections) so I've called it 1149 AD.

zoltan wrote:I have corrected Phil's pool 3 list range. He had an illegal range of 1050-1150 AD (pool 3 finishes in 1149 AD). Also, his was the only list that had a year range and not a specific year (potentially masking his possible troop selections) so I've called it 1149 AD.

Ruddock is already marking this down as one of the 732 reasons that Phil is to blame for what happens this weekend. Blame for loss or unsporting behavior if Phil out does Ruddock. That crafty ruddock is attacking from both directions.

hazelbark wrote:

zoltan wrote:I have corrected Phil's pool 3 list range. He had an illegal range of 1050-1150 AD (pool 3 finishes in 1149 AD). Also, his was the only list that had a year range and not a specific year (potentially masking his possible troop selections) so I've called it 1149 AD.

Ruddock is already marking this down as one of the 732 reasons that Phil is to blame for what happens this weekend. Blame for loss or unsporting behavior if Phil out does Ruddock. That crafty ruddock is attacking from both directions.

Just turned him over in a practice tonight - 18-7 (or 3-0). AND he threw lucky dice.

Obviously the propoganda machine is carrying out preparatory ground work for any potential major embarassments.

dave_r wrote:Just turned him over in a practice tonight - 18-7 (or 3-0). AND he threw lucky dice.

Who threw lucky dice?

dave_r wrote: ... AND he threw lucky dice.

I see that Dave is laying the ground work for some heavy whinging about his luck ready for the results to be posted!!
If the old adage extended to gaming 'unlucky at cards, lucky in love' he would a have a string of 18 year old 'lady-boys' waiting at his door!

zoltan wrote:I have corrected Phil's pool 3 list range. He had an illegal range of 1050-1150 AD (pool 3 finishes in 1149 AD). Also, his was the only list that had a year range and not a specific year (potentially masking his possible troop selections) so I've called it 1149 AD.

Surely, if you want to be pedantic, since the allowed dates are "Dawn of Chivalry – 1050AD to 1149AD" a date of 1149 is also illegal. 1148 would be the latest allowable. But wargamers aren't pedantic, are they? (Much)

titanu wrote: If the old adage extended to gaming 'unlucky at cards, lucky in love' he would a have a string of 18 year old 'lady-boys' waiting at his door!

I thought he had or was that the Halifax boy's...

philqw78 wrote:Surely, if you want to be pedantic, since the allowed dates are "Dawn of Chivalry – 1050AD to 1149AD" a date of 1149 is also illegal. 1148 would be the latest allowable. But wargamers aren't pedantic, are they? (Much)

Pretty sure there's a legal convention that "to" is inclusive of. There may even have been a previous thread on this.

I'm all for pedantry (or is that still illegal?).
;->)