Slitherine

I've scrolled through the messages so apologies if I've missed it - is Leeds to be 800 points?
Incidentally, Neil & I played a 1,000 point game the other night (16 Sassanid BGs vs 14 Imperial Roman) and we had a very enjoyable and decisive game in 3 hours (Ahura Mazda smiled on the Sassanid dice rolls so Antioch is ours!)

I played a 1000 pts doubles game with Lawrence and Pete Dalby last week. They took my Classical Indians down in 3 1/2 hours. Seemed fine for doubles to me. What do other testers from Usk feel? Bruce?

Si

shall wrote:I played a 1000 pts doubles game with Lawrence and Pete Dalby last week. They took my Classical Indians down in 3 1/2 hours. Seemed fine for doubles to me. What do other testers from Usk feel? Bruce?

Si

I think that 800 points is fine for singles play, I haven't yet had a chance to try 1000 points.

My latest 800 point singles game reached a decisive result in 3 hours with breaks to chat included.

Hammy

It may amuse those beta-testers who were at Usk to hear that my chest pain was in fact:

A torn intercostal muscle and a torn pectoral muscle.....I am typing fully strapped up on my left side.......4 weeks to heal they reckon.

Dangerous game this AOW!!

Si

Seemed fine for doubles to me. What do other testers from Usk feel?

We've played a few 1000pt games in 15mm - I liked them. The were all with 2+ players per side


Simon

800 points games may be best if you want feedback chat between the games.

I am assuming we are doing 800 points for Leeds (and have already submitted my list and done some re-basing).

I think the rules will probably work well for 1,000 points for future 15mm double competitions, but we should beware of points inflation. There seems to be a tendency for tournament points to inflate just past the point when most games get resolved.

I would strongly recommend against trying to run 25mm tournaments with more than 800 points.

For example a 400 point Seleucid army can easily prevent any enemy getting round its flanks (other than by a flank march) on a 6' x 4' table in 25mm and is very hard indeed. With larger points values in 25mm we would be back to the 400 point 25mm DBM frontal infantry slog. Arguably 25mm should be 700 or 750 points - which would put equivalent numbers of bases on the table as 400 points DBM.

Some argue that a constricted battlefield is realistic for Classical battles, but it certainly is not realistic for Middle-Eastern battles. Thus if people want to do this to make Classical battles "more realistic" it should only be in tightly themed Classical period competitions.

It would be a big mistake to make 25mm cavalry armies non-competitive - as they are in DBM.

shall wrote:I played a 1000 pts doubles game with Lawrence and Pete Dalby last week. They took my Classical Indians down in 3 1/2 hours. Seemed fine for doubles to me. What do other testers from Usk feel? Bruce?

Si

I've never played 1000pts game. To be honest once you have terrain on the table there doesn't seem to be huge amount of room for extra BGs on the table! On the other hand I suppose the extra points go on better generals and harder troops, probably making the game last a little longer. Maybe it is something we'll try when we do a historical refight of Hastings on Tuesday in a fortnight.

In the meantime I'll be posting a lot of Leeds information tonight, including confirmation that 800pt armies will be used.

It was pretty interesting as it changes the game a bit. You can afford a real reserve and use it as such. So the game changes in style a touch. A nice feature perhaps.

Si

Hi,

A roundup of information that I have already sent out and some new information.

* I have attached updates for a reference sheet (corrects a minor error) and the latest core play-testing army lists.

* The competition will be singles and 800pts.

* The scoring system will be 16:16 for a draw, 20:12 for a minor victory, 24:8 for a moderate victory, 28:4 for a decisive victory and +4/-4 for breaking the opposition army (without breaking yourself).

* Lots of people are booking the ???Express by Holiday Inn??? for accomodation, which is in the centre of town and within walking distance of the Armouries. The cost is ??69.95 for a twin room (not per person) per night. Telephone number is 0870 890 0455 and the web site is http://www.hiexpressleeds.co.uk/index.htm. At last asking today they had plenty of space.

* Please send me your army list, which should include all details, order of march for each BG and a copy of the army list that it has been picked from (I don??™t have access to all the army lists). Deadline is EOB Friday 23rd to give me a chance to check them over the weekend.

* What time are we starting?
Around 9.00am going on 9.30am ??“ or whenever I get there!

* What happens if I don??™t have an army that fits the allowed list?
There are lots of army lists (well over a 100) it should not be a problem.

* All three rules writers will be attending the play-test at Leeds.

* There will be a terrain prize offered at Leeds, judged by the rules writers attending.

* We need to have a relatively firm idea of numbers by the end of this week (table hire is required). For those that have said they will let me know, would you please let me know if you are attending by EOB Sunday please.

Cheers,

- Bruce.

Rules Erratum - Clarification

It has been pointed out that my editing has been less than perfect in version 5.01

Having corrected the error on the playsheet - I think JD is sending it out as V 5.01a - it now turns out that I also forgot to delete a contradictory paragraph in the main rules.

The rule to be played at Leeds is as follows:

The Cohesion Test + for a general is only applicable if the general is with the BG if the BG is in close combat, but he does not have to be fighting in the front rank.

He can also bolster a BG in close combat without fighting in the front rank.

What will be the format for terrain selection? The army lists don't specify any topographical ( i think this is the right terminology) types as restrictions.

Andy Robinson

andy816 wrote:What will be the format for terrain selection? The army lists don't specify any topographical ( i think this is the right terminology) types as restrictions.

Andy Robinson

I will supply Bruce with a territory list for all the entered armies so that he can post them before the first game.

Erm, how do I get my list over to bddbrown?

Unexpectedly it has to be tonight for me to make the dealine, as I'm not back in the country till the dealine passed

plewis66 wrote:Erm, how do I get my list over to bddbrown?

Unexpectedly it has to be tonight for me to make the dealine, as I'm not back in the country till the dealine passed

My email address is b_d_d_brown@yahoo.co.uk.

Thanks Bruce, YHM.

bddbrown wrote:I already mentioned to Simon, when he asked in an email, that there were no Chariot armies and no Foot Bow armies at Usk. We need these armies to be represented at Leeds.

I think centrally organising this would be a nightmare. How about we let people choose armies, and the writers plus a few others with lots of army choice (Hammy, myself to some extent) could then balance up the missing sections?

I can bring Kushite Egyptian which neatly covers the above. Let me know as I was heading else where with my thinking.

Regards
Matt H.

maybe im painting up replacment bow for my HYW English then

paulcummins wrote:maybe im painting up replacment bow for my HYW English then

If you are short the odd base or 12 I would be happy to loan you some (OK I only have 12 bases but that would be a start.

Hammy

12 bases would be brill
At the moment im down to lithuanians to fill in the gaps, and praying for essex to send me my minis quickly