zoltan wrote:Phil, stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes! I think you need to broaden your horizons; suggest a visit to your local video store this weekend instead of practicing for Britcon; pull a couple of Tarantino movies.
NZ films, Black Sheep?
Tarantino films? He's so far up his own arse if he lived in the antipodes he'd be antipodean to them.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Well a large piece (16" circle) of terrain won't fit if you throw a 5 or a 6 because it can not be 8" from the long edge of the table.
Although may be this is intentional?
A large piece could still fit, but not a 16MU circle. Its better than saying it must fit, far too much terrain then. If people want to take a very large piece in the hope it doesn't fit they will have a 4/6 chance of getting stuck with it. Not a good gamble.
And compulsory terrain is a compulsory choice, not compulsory presence. Even on a 6x4 there are times when it will not go down.
I think 60x40 will really change the armies. Dom Rom will not have the room to manoeuver, Cavalry lancers will still be good but will not get loads of time and space to pick the right target and skirmishers will have even less time and space. All will still have their uses, but the troops whose use is being avoided now will really get to play. Pikes and spear will be very nasty. HF can be within 10 MU of enemy battle troops in the first pair of moves
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Has the compulsory terrain not needed to go down been ruled on as even at 650 points it usually has to fit on the table even if it doesn't meet the requirements.