Page 1 of 1
Results for Derby Doubles 2008
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:23 pm
by petirouge
The results for
Doubles 2008,
Period: FoG, are now on the
Hall of Honour
http://www.fieldofglory.com/hallofhonour.html
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:28 pm
by frederic
Wow, 5 from 12 armies were Palmyran ones !
Is there any reason why ?
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:42 pm
by philqw78
Lack of imigination!
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:55 pm
by nikgaukroger
Good in period.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:35 am
by hammy
Two of the Palmyran armies I faced were brought along because the players had had the armies for years but never used them in DBM because they were pants. One team we played actually both had Palmyran armies they had never used so took the opportunity to do so.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:00 pm
by IanB3406
Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:13 pm
by philqw78
Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong
Extract one troop type from the above and
my lack of imagination would be satisfied.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:28 pm
by nikgaukroger
IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
The two highest placing Palmyrans did not use Romans - not sure about the rest.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:31 pm
by Redpossum
IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Where did they go wrong historically?
All I can find is that Zenobia met Aurelian in battle "near Antioch", and was badly defeated. Does anyone know the name of the battle, or have an account of the events?? I confess to a certain measure of curiosity.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:41 pm
by nikgaukroger
Immae and Emesa - you'll need Zosimus IIRC, although the Scriptores Historiae Augustae undoubtably covers it as well.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:16 pm
by rtaylor
IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Drilled cataphracts, no less.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:22 pm
by daleivan
rtaylor wrote:IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Drilled cataphracts, no less.
That's too cool
Dale
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:39 pm
by frederic
nikgaukroger wrote:
The two highest placing Palmyrans did not use Romans - not sure about the rest.
I'm currently testing a Palmyran list with no Romans
So I'm pleased to see that such list have success in tournament.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:51 pm
by rbodleyscott
possum wrote:IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Where did they go wrong historically?
Perhaps they had less "points" of troops than the Romans.
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:42 pm
by nikgaukroger
daleivan wrote:rtaylor wrote:IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Superior legions and Cataphracts can't go wrong you would think.
Drilled cataphracts, no less.
That's too cool
Dale
Again the most successful ones at Derby were Undrilled as I recall ...
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:00 am
by daleivan
nikgaukroger wrote:
Again the most successful ones at Derby were Undrilled as I recall ...
Good to know--and comforting, since I have a Parthian army in the que to paint
Just curious, do you recall if either Palmyran army employing undrilled cats at Derby used an IC?
Thanks,
Dale
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:38 am
by nikgaukroger
One of them definitely did -
http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co. ... an1000.pdf - and I suspect the winning one did as well.
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:01 am
by frederic
Wow 1000pt are definetely different armies than 800pt
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:01 pm
by daleivan
That's a whole lot of cataphracts! That particular Palmyran army looks much like a Parthian army, which it can for certain, I just imagined more foot archers for some reason. With all those horse archers and cataphracts maybe they really only get in the way, hence the single foot archer battle group?
Cheers,
Dale