Slitherine

Although it pains me to say it I think this is the best of the lists and for me starts favourite.

There's the kiss of death then - best of luck overcoming that vote of confidence Dan.

Stephen Ladanyi Later Serbian, 1390AD

[DR] An interesting and effective choice. Obviously much depends on terrain, but should do well with a good army.

Is this a comment on Steve or his army?

So since these armies share the same core foot troop type, it is interesting that they get these conflicting descriptions.

nikgaukroger wrote: Matt Iverson Warring States Chinese (Zhongshan), 300BC
[DR] It's very small, very average and very difficult to win with.
[NG] I suspect this was a better army in v1 than it will be under v2,

Marc Crotteau Koryo Korean, 1376AD
[DR] much improved with v2.0.
[NG] Good v2 army

hazelbark wrote:So since these armies share the same core foot troop type, it is interesting that they get these conflicting descriptions.

nikgaukroger wrote: Matt Iverson Warring States Chinese (Zhongshan), 300BC
[DR] It's very small, very average and very difficult to win with.
[NG] I suspect this was a better army in v1 than it will be under v2,

Marc Crotteau Koryo Korean, 1376AD
[DR] much improved with v2.0.
[NG] Good v2 army

I noticed that. I was extra surprised because Iverson is a good list designer and I am a muppet.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

hazelbark wrote:So since these armies share the same core foot troop type, it is interesting that they get these conflicting descriptions.

nikgaukroger wrote: Matt Iverson Warring States Chinese (Zhongshan), 300BC
[DR] It's very small, very average and very difficult to win with.
[NG] I suspect this was a better army in v1 than it will be under v2,

Marc Crotteau Koryo Korean, 1376AD
[DR] much improved with v2.0.
[NG] Good v2 army

I noticed that. I was extra surprised because Iverson is a good list designer and I am a muppet.

Marc

Maybe the Brits think superior cataphracts and cavalry lancers are better than HCh and average cavalry?

Chris

batesmotel wrote: Maybe the Brits think superior cataphracts and cavalry lancers are better than HCh and average cavalry?

Nyah they didn't improve in V 2.

hazelbark wrote:

batesmotel wrote: Maybe the Brits think superior cataphracts and cavalry lancers are better than HCh and average cavalry?

Nyah they didn't improve in V 2.

It's fairly difficult to respond without giving specific details of each list away.

dave_r wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

batesmotel wrote: Maybe the Brits think superior cataphracts and cavalry lancers are better than HCh and average cavalry?

Nyah they didn't improve in V 2.

It's fairly difficult to respond without giving specific details of each list away.

Some of us are familiar with the list, and I would never bet against Mr. King.

Hal

Delbruck wrote:[qutoe]It's fairly difficult to respond without giving specific details of each list away.

Some of us are familiar with the list, and I would never bet against Mr. King.

Hal

OK then, I'll just post both lists. I'm sure Matt and Marc won't mind.....

Delbruck wrote:
Some of us are familiar with the list, and I would never bet against Mr. King.

Hal

Since both of us have him placing neither of us are betting against him either really

dave_r wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

batesmotel wrote: Maybe the Brits think superior cataphracts and cavalry lancers are better than HCh and average cavalry?

Nyah they didn't improve in V 2.

It's fairly difficult to respond without giving specific details of each list away.

Wait until Monday and explain it then.

dave_r wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

batesmotel wrote: Maybe the Brits think superior cataphracts and cavalry lancers are better than HCh and average cavalry?

Nyah they didn't improve in V 2.

It's fairly difficult to respond without giving specific details of each list away.

Now after the first round, we the players have found the differnce. The list checker approved an illegal list for the Koreans. And so did his rubbish side kick. So naturally being illegal gives you an advantage.

We here in New Zealand are eagerly awaiting the results of Round 1. Was the Kiwi Lamb too tough for you Yanks to eat ?

It would appear not

Chris Johnston Early Successor (Makedon) 30
Bill McCampbell Ordonnance French 27
Dale Shanek Late Republician Roman 26
Ethan Zorick Early Acaemenid Persian 26
Dan Hazelwood Dailami Dynasties (Buwayhid) 23
Matt Iverson Warring States Chinese (Zhongshan) 20
Dave Lauerman Early Successor (Makedon) 16
Marc Crotteau Koryo Korean 16
Dannie Martz Jr Free Company 15
Robert Parish Later Hungarian 14
Dannie Martz Sr Later Medieval German 14
Marco Ulloa Late Republician Roman 13
Stephan Ladanyi Later Serbian 12
John Baumann Classical Indian 8
Michael Boehm Later Seleukid 8
Dean Pearson Later Seleukid 8
Danny Weitz Medieval Indonesian or Malay 8
Damian Arvizu Later Medieval Danish 7
Corey Somavia Early Medieval German 5
Graham Unger Albanian 5
Richard Gagliasso Principate Roman 3
Francis Small Fanatic Berber (Almoravids) 0

hazelbark wrote:Now after the first round, we the players have found the differnce. The list checker approved an illegal list for the Koreans. And so did his rubbish side kick. So naturally being illegal gives you an advantage.

How is it illegal?

You let Ruddock make a rules decision

philqw78 wrote:You let Ruddock make a rules decision

Nope. I wsa just commenting on the troops in the list. I still can't see how it is illegal though.

Dave, my impression is that it is not the troops but the solitary field fortification which is not allowed under V2.

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Dave, my impression is that it is not the troops but the solitary field fortification which is not allowed under V2.

Rob

Where did you get that impression from?

From this:

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=42338

Page 129 of V2 says if they are used the army must have at least 4 base-widths of them.

Rob

So we are now presumably just about starting round two - is there a draw up anywhere? I am assuming the californians are six hours behind us.