Slitherine

Elephants are afraid of mice, what has that got to do with FoG: some Roman bloke wrote about it

Then why didn't they use mice instead of fire pigs against Pyrrhus?

Then why didn't they use mice instead of fire pigs against Pyrrhus?

How do we know they didn't? Maybe the mice didn't get a mention in dispatches?

Mice stopped the Assyrian invasion of Egypt by eating all the bow strings, according to Herodotos. So they are more dangerous to armies than you think.
A good reason for having cats in your army.

Well, at that time they were unarmoured, so did poorly against elephants. They've improved since then http://www.visualnews.com/2013/01/22/ca ... use-armor/

Nice one Graham - I particularly like the 'Samurai Cat'

Don't chop bits off when quoting me so you can "correct" me

bbotus wrote:

Elephants are afraid of mice, what has that got to do with FoG: some Roman bloke wrote about it

Then why didn't they use mice instead of fire pigs against Pyrrhus?

Pliny the eldar wrote it. Perhaps the mice burnt out too quickly

grahambriggs wrote:Well, at that time they were unarmoured, so did poorly against elephants. They've improved since then http://www.visualnews.com/2013/01/22/ca ... use-armor/

Oh my. Forget the elephants. How much does it cost for a BG of cats?

Cats will definitely be undrilled.

Cats would have to take a CMT to make any move, like battle wagons, but would be liable to involuntary charges.

Another orb query from a game this weekend. The rules state that a quarter of bases (rounded up) face each way, with half of these front rank and half rear rank. So an 8 base BG has two bases in two ranks facing in each direction, for a one base front in each direction.



In the diagram the red BG has charged and contacted two orb (blue) bases. Can it count two bases at contact (contacting two fronts), or just one base?

We accepted that after impact the red BG would have to line up on one orb face only, so count a single base in contact only.

I think you'd have to count two bases in contact given that they are. The "how many dice" rule in the combat section is specific I think. And it doesn't really contradict the orb rules, as the charge has come in at an angle.

Thats how we played it. So at impact 4 dice each. Then line up, but can only line up against one face, so 2 dice each in melee (no overlaps allowed) - though this looks odd when there are physically two orb bases side by side.

Sounds reasonable. Does anyone have any other thoughts? This is another area of orb that could use more specifics in the rules.

Surely in melee the overlap can be moved over into base to base contact giving the non-orb BG 4 dice. The orb gets 1/3 bases so 2 dice.

paullongmore wrote:Surely in melee the overlap can be moved over into base to base contact giving the non-orb BG 4 dice. The orb gets 1/3 bases so 2 dice.

And then the orb player point out that the rule you have used to get your four bases also allows their two touching bases to fight you. And then directs you to the orb rules that clearly says they get second tranks too.

the problem is that the orb rules say one thing and the combat rules another. When I've ruled on this as an umpire I've ruled that the sides fight melee with equal numbers of dice, but only because it seemed a "least bad" interpretation.

As it happens I was playing one of the authors recently who was unaware of the problem (Simon or Terry - can't remember as have played them both recently). Their thought was that the orb rules would take precedence (I think on the grounds that they are clearly variations on the main rules). Of course that doesn't count as a clarification.

Their thought was that the orb rules would take precedence (I think on the grounds that they are clearly variations on the main rules). Of course that doesn't count as a clarification.

That's how I've always played it too - not that it comes up that often.

petedalby wrote:

Their thought was that the orb rules would take precedence (I think on the grounds that they are clearly variations on the main rules). Of course that doesn't count as a clarification.

That's how I've always played it too - not that it comes up that often.

It is the only thing that makes sense.

bbotus wrote:

petedalby wrote:

Their thought was that the orb rules would take precedence (I think on the grounds that they are clearly variations on the main rules). Of course that doesn't count as a clarification.

That's how I've always played it too - not that it comes up that often.

It is the only thing that makes sense.

Which means it can't be right