Recent Posts

61

Book 2 / Re: Winning with Late Imperial Romans

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on September 03, 2021, 11:16:08 AM »

How do you do it?

It's a list with tremendous variety and plenty of potential, but I've never worked out how to make a successful go of it.

Does anyone have any ideas, clues or suggestions? Has anyone had success with one in an open competition?

Cheers

Peter

Another way of looking at this is to ask : When you use armies that you do win with, how do you win?

62

Book 2 / Re: Winning with Late Imperial Romans

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on September 02, 2021, 04:17:24 PM »

The higher scoring players using it at the Milan ITC tend to win 1 game, sometimes 2 (out of  4 ) (based on the records I've kept). In 2018 Fabio Terpin scored 73 points off his 4 games, I don't know the separate results.

The army has so many options it may take a lot of experimentation to find the design that works for you.

One of the players in the UK has done very well with the inert version, with 4 Art(F) shooting over Bw. It's not unbeatable, though. Greg Russel used the inert version at CANCON a couple of years ago, I don't know if he won any games but he probably did.

You can extend your options by using mostly the same figures for Patrician Roman.

63

Book 2 / Winning with Late Imperial Romans

« Last post by Barritus on September 02, 2021, 10:51:35 AM »

How do you do it?

It's a list with tremendous variety and plenty of potential, but I've never worked out how to make a successful go of it.

Does anyone have any ideas, clues or suggestions? Has anyone had success with one in an open competition?

Cheers

Peter

64

Book 2 / Re: Some Book 2 errata

« Last post by Barritus on September 01, 2021, 10:25:54 AM »

Quick question
Planning on playing Polybians against Seleucids tomorrow and figured 190BC the best date historically
I note at Magnesia the Romans were allied with Pergamon
In the list in bk 2 however you cant get a Pergamene ally until after 171BC
Is this an errata? Certainly seems like it as it looks to me should read after 191BC!

Yes, it may well be a mistake.

I checked the first edition list books and in that book the Pergamene allies were available from 198BC. In fact everything currently available from 171BC was previously available from 198BC except the Macedonian volunteers.

It's not something I'd noticed before, and I don't know why it changed.

65

Book 2 / Re: Some Book 2 errata

« Last post by Toady on September 01, 2021, 03:46:25 AM »

Quick question
Planning on playing Polybians against Seleucids tomorrow and figured 190BC the best date historically
I note at Magnesia the Romans were allied with Pergamon
In the list in bk 2 however you cant get a Pergamene ally until after 171BC
Is this an errata? Certainly seems like it as it looks to me should read after 191BC!

66

Rules Questions / Re: Overlaps on rear support

« Last post by Neil Williamson on August 16, 2021, 03:53:35 AM »

Thanks Lawrence

67

Rules Questions / Re: Overlaps on rear support

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on August 15, 2021, 06:57:05 AM »

No.

But an enemy front edge in contact with a supporting element's flank counts as a flank contact on the front element.

68

Rules Questions / Overlaps on rear support

« Last post by Neil Williamson on August 14, 2021, 09:27:59 PM »

At a recent tournament in NZ I found that players play this situation differently.
If an element is in front edge combat and not overlapped, but an element behind providing rear support is overlapped, is there a -1 combat factor adjustment?

69

Rules Questions / Re: WWg(S) in Close Combat

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on July 06, 2021, 11:05:14 AM »

Thanks again Lawrence!

But what if the Wwg(S) was a Bge(S).
Do I understand it correctly that in that case the contacted side of the Bge(S) will be the front edge, the Bge(S) fights both Bd(O) in turn this bound and the Wwg(S) gets a -1 for a overlap (at least in the first combat)?

It seems a completely different combat situation.

Correct, assuming you meant to write: "... the Bge(S)  gets a -1 for a overlap (at least in the first combat)".

70

Rules Questions / Re: Arrival Surprise

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on July 06, 2021, 11:00:38 AM »

Interpreting "place of arrival" as "the place where something arrives" is simpler than interpreting it as "the set of all places where something might potentially arrive".

This was also the practice in earlier versions of DBMM and its predecessor, DBM.