GODENDAG 2009 - January 24th & 25th 2009 - USK

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:47 am

david53 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Sounds damned silly to me.

You'd end up penalising people picking from a limited range of armies without knowing what anyone else is picking - they may be fielding the only army they have that is in the theme.

A good thing to do to alienate players. I.e. bloody stupid.
Sorry I agree how could you stop people picking the same army, there'd be a lot of Roman players upset.
Dave

It would be great if people actually read posts before getting judgemental. The suggestion was that if there are large numbers of a particular army, then they start out against each other. As at many competitions in the past, this also gives historical matchups - which is a good thing surely?

The size iof the books created this problem, so it seems somewhat rich for one of the authors to be objecting to this. What is 'bloody stupid' is to release books with lists allowing allies from as yet unpublished books, as is happening all the time.

And pity the poor Romans, but at least they have a list to use. How many armies are unusable? Just the most dominant civilisation in history.

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:03 pm

david53 wrote:Sorry I agree how could you stop people picking the same army, there'd be a lot of Roman players upset.
Dave

The above have just 2 roman duplicates, so no. whereas the worst Byzantine army in history has 6 entries!

Perhaps you don't remember the days of 70% of armies being the same 3 or 4?

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:32 pm

azrael86 wrote:
david53 wrote:Sorry I agree how could you stop people picking the same army, there'd be a lot of Roman players upset.
Dave
The above have just 2 roman duplicates, so no. whereas the worst Byzantine army in history has 6 entries!

Perhaps you don't remember the days of 70% of armies being the same 3 or 4?

I agree its difficult when you face a large number of same armies at Derby last year there were five same armies out of ten players. I don't know how to stop it other than maybe to have only open events.

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:34 pm

david53 wrote:
azrael86 wrote:
david53 wrote:Sorry I agree how could you stop people picking the same army, there'd be a lot of Roman players upset.
Dave
The above have just 2 roman duplicates, so no. whereas the worst Byzantine army in history has 6 entries!

Perhaps you don't remember the days of 70% of armies being the same 3 or 4?
I agree its difficult when you face a large number of same armies at Derby last year there were five same armies out of ten players. I don't know how to stop it other than maybe to have only open events.

Well, that is the idea. Usually an army is popular because it is perceived to have some specific edge, usually this is more common in period because the variety of opponents will be constrained. It appears quite clear that the absence of any medieval knights has encouraged the cataphract armies. Now, that in itself isn't the issue, but what is surely a concern is that we appear to have some distortion in terms of armies that were actually quite poor being highly effective?

That no one has elected to use Early Byzantine (the army of Belisarius and Narses), and only one Arab conquest, but 5 have chosen the much less historically successful Nikephorian. I notice that Nikephorian is allowed classification of as 'elite' - which is a quality rarely seen - in fact so rare that it is denied to the armies of Alexander, Genghis Khan and Hannibal.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:24 pm

And pity the poor Romans, but at least they have a list to use. How many armies are unusable? Just the most dominant civilisation in history

I presume you are talking about the British empire? if not then which one?

Well, that is the idea. Usually an army is popular because it is perceived to have some specific edge, usually this is more common in period because the variety of opponents will be constrained. It appears quite clear that the absence of any medieval knights has encouraged the cataphract armies. Now, that in itself isn't the issue, but what is surely a concern is that we appear to have some distortion in terms of armies that were actually quite poor being highly effective?

No - this is the biggest advantage of a themed tournament. You can take an army that is rubbish and watch it actually be effective.

There are 24 teams in the Rise of Rome comp - there are only 20 armies to choose from. Basic maths will show there will be some duplicates. When we consider people's army collection, especially in a themed comp where there may be no choice (i.e. well we only have that one army so we'll have to take it), then why would several people picking one army be a problem?

At Derby there was a large amount of Parthians about, Hammy played three of them I think, he said the main reason at least two of the people he played used Parthian was because "I have had the army for years and I am bloody well going to use it..."

At any rate, I prefer cataphracts to Knights especially in an open competition. This is largely due to the supporting troops they get and the bigger advantage they have against Spearmen. If people no longer bring spearmen this may change...

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:47 pm

dave_r wrote:There are 24 teams in the Rise of Rome comp - there are only 20 armies to choose from.

Actually 40, because the theme is "Rise and Fall of Rome" and includes both "Rise of Rome" and "Legions Triumphant". But your points remain valid.

At any rate, I prefer cataphracts to Knights especially in an open competition. This is largely due to ..... the bigger advantage they have against Spearmen.

You will have to explain this last point to me. (Knights are not forced to deploy 1 rank deep).

At Derby there was a large amount of Parthians about, Hammy played three of them I think, he said the main reason at least two of the people he played used Parthian was because "I have had the army for years and I am bloody well going to use it..."

This is bound to be a factor when a new set of rules comes along that allows armies that were dogs in previous rules to have a reasonable chance, particularly when those armies were historically successful and hence people have painted them up. There are quite a few players with armies they painted up long before the hegemony of the previous "big set" rendered them ineffective, and who want to give them a run out.

Moreover, as far as I am aware, this is the first tournament worldwide to use the "Decline and Fall" theme. It is unlikely that many (if any) entrants painted up an army especially for it. Hence, army selection is going to be heavily influenced by pre-existing armies, based on factors relating to previous sets of rules rather than FOG itself.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:34 pm

If I had not been parterning Phil at Usk I would have been using one of the Arab armies. The reason being that the only armies I can field in the theme are Arabs. I have not got a single Byzantine figure as under DBM they were really pants IMO.

Of the DBM Byzantines Nikephorians were not that bad, perhaps this may explain a bit?

When I have finished painting my mountain of WWII figures if I decide to paint a new FoG army a Byzantine one is high on the list of possibilities.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:48 pm

hammy wrote:If I had not been parterning Phil at Usk I would have been using one of the Arab armies. The reason being that the only armies I can field in the theme are Arabs. I have not got a single Byzantine figure as under DBM they were really pants IMO.

Of the DBM Byzantines Nikephorians were not that bad, perhaps this may explain a bit?

When I have finished painting my mountain of WWII figures if I decide to paint a new FoG army a Byzantine one is high on the list of possibilities.

Ah, but which one? I must say that Nikaian (Post-Latin Conquest) are looking most attractive to me at present.

My first ever 15mm army was Nikephorian Byzantine. After reading the Alexiad (inspiring stuff!) they mutated into Komnenans, and my Byzantine kite shield cavalry have gone through three separate incarnations. However, I am not really happy with any of the figures and I think I will probably start again from scratch soon.

Hmm, think I will post over on the Modelling board for some figure recommendations....

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:52 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
hammy wrote:If I had not been parterning Phil at Usk I would have been using one of the Arab armies. The reason being that the only armies I can field in the theme are Arabs. I have not got a single Byzantine figure as under DBM they were really pants IMO.

Of the DBM Byzantines Nikephorians were not that bad, perhaps this may explain a bit?

When I have finished painting my mountain of WWII figures if I decide to paint a new FoG army a Byzantine one is high on the list of possibilities.
Ah, but which one? I must say that Nikaian (Post-Latin Conquest) are looking most attractive to me at present.

My first ever 15mm army was Nikephorian Byzantine. After reading the Alexiad (inspiring stuff!) they mutated into Komnenans, and my Byzantine kite shield cavalry have gone through three separate incarnations. However, I am not really happy with any of the figures and I think I will probably start again from scratch soon.

Hmm, think I will post over on the Modelling board for some figure recommendations....

Either Post-Latin or Marukian. I have always had a thing for Marukian but they were truly dire in DBM so I never even looked at them when I came back to Ancients.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:29 pm

In an open competition the Nikephorian Byzantine is one of the worst Byzantine lists throughout any of the books. (In my not so Humble Opinion on this.) The best Byzantine in the Decline and Fall book for open competition is the Early. But this is not an open comp. So the Nikes get to fight what they are designed to fight, they therefore work.

Nikes were the first 15mm army I bought too. Hi points so small cost and easy to put in a box.

The best overall Byzantine in any book so far IMO is the Post Latin Conquest, Epirot version. But its not a world beater.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:02 am

(Ref Nikephorians: Azrael86)

much less historically successful Nikephorian

worst Byzantine army in history has 6 entries!

How did you come up with this well informed research?

I thought this included the time of Basil the Bulgar Basher (Slayer in educated circles, like yours?) and others when the empire went back to the offensive and reached its zenith.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:22 am

Ref Elites: Azrael86

denied to the armies of Alexander, Genghis Khan and Hannibal.

Hannibal gets a lot of superior troops, IIRC Alexander gets Elite Cav lancers, and I dont think any of us who have to pay to read the books have seen Ghengis Khans guard troops yet.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:10 am

philqw78 wrote:Ref Elites: Azrael86
denied to the armies of Alexander, Genghis Khan and Hannibal.
Hannibal gets a lot of superior troops, IIRC Alexander gets Elite Cav lancers, and I dont think any of us who have to pay to read the books have seen Ghengis Khans guard troops yet.

As far as I know the Mongols get a couple of units of elite Bow/Swords Drilled can't wait myself for that army to come out!
Dave

Spartacus · Post by **Spartacus** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:05 am

Dave, The Mongols get up to 3 units superior drilled bow swords in the list later than Ghengis in Swords and Scimitars list 52. Mine are having a paint job now

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:58 pm

philqw78 wrote:(Ref Nikephorians: Azrael86)
much less historically successful Nikephorian

worst Byzantine army in history has 6 entries!
How did you come up with this well informed research?

I thought this included the time of Basil the Bulgar Basher (Slayer in educated circles, like yours?) and others when the empire went back to the offensive and reached its zenith.

I think you'll find the zenith of the byzantine empire coincides with Justinian, not Basil. The point here is troops or leaders - If any army can have an IC, then how do the armies which actually did have one in reality get their advantage? Previously rulesets saw the infamous Valentinian III army being popular, now we have Palmyran. Where is Attila, the Gauls and the Germans?

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:26 pm

Spartacus wrote:Dave, The Mongols get up to 3 units superior drilled bow swords in the list later than Ghengis in Swords and Scimitars list 52. Mine are having a paint job now

The new book with Mongol Conquest Army list might add some elite guard troops maybe 2 units?

Mind saying that just back from a game with Tatar army fighting medievl Germans. During which I had 8 shooting dice against 1 BG of four Knights and got one hit only went downhill after that but had a very good game.

But still have to learn how to use Cav Bow/Sword against Knights any ideas please. To get close to shot places you in charge range of most mounted thereby forcing a evade, am i missing something here

Dave

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:07 pm

a game with Tater army

Is this some sort of later Irsh army?

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:45 pm

philqw78 wrote:
a game with Tater army
Is this some sort of later Irsh army?

Come on Phil you know English is'nt my first language?

.......... 'Tatar'

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:05 am

azrael86 wrote:
I think you'll find the zenith of the byzantine empire coincides with Justinian, not Basil.

Quite true, that was the greatest extent of the eastern empire.

However, to describe the Nikeforian as the "worst Byzantine army in history" is quite simply wrong. If the army of Justinian was the most sucessful of the Byzantine armies that of Nikeforos and Basil would be the second best IMO.

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:35 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
azrael86 wrote:
I think you'll find the zenith of the byzantine empire coincides with Justinian, not Basil.

Quite true, that was the greatest extent of the eastern empire.

However, to describe the Nikeforian as the "worst Byzantine army in history" is quite simply wrong. If the army of Justinian was the most sucessful of the Byzantine armies that of Nikeforos and Basil would be the second best IMO.

An exaggeration perhaps, but Manzikert wasn't an unqualified success...