Search found 2539 matches

by grahambriggs
Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:10 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: where's my General
Replies: 5
Views: 1865

Re: where's my General

Typo. I meant 18 inches.
by grahambriggs
Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:05 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: where's my General
Replies: 5
Views: 1865

Re: where's my General

If you take a Numidian or Skythian ally as all light horse their general can only deploy with them if you deploy them at 12 mu. Is this an oversight or intentional? You could deploy them at 12 MU plus however deep their battle group is. If they are in 6s they could deploy at 17 inches in and still ...
by grahambriggs
Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:56 pm
Forum: Tournaments
Topic: Roll Call - 7/8 April 2018
Replies: 78
Views: 12431

Re: Roll Call - 7/8 April 2018

philqw78 wrote:D'oh
Never mind, at least you'll thrash Ruddock at the weekend. If you can find him after the warband have gone straight through him.
by grahambriggs
Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:13 pm
Forum: Tournaments
Topic: Roll Call - 7/8 April 2018
Replies: 78
Views: 12431

Re: Roll Call - 7/8 April 2018

If the new book 2 is out in time these lists will be allowed, again subject to the date restriction of 550-1040AD I'm not sure that's very helpful Phil. Who has asked you to post that? Players have entered Roll Call on the following basis: With no guarantee of when the new V3 army lists will be pro...
by grahambriggs
Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:57 am
Forum: Tournaments
Topic: Roll Call - 7/8 April 2018
Replies: 78
Views: 12431

Re: Permitted NEW Lists

philqw78 wrote: Just in case Terry gets even more delinquent, no knights are allowed
A wise precaution
by grahambriggs
Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:22 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: Version 3 Errata
Replies: 67
Views: 17195

Re: Version 3 Errata

One of the issues in having the mounted break off is that it could be bad news for them. Frequently, for foot to pursue into the mounted, that will mean the routers have either burst through the mounted or shifted sideways a bit and run behind them. JAP break offs occur before JAP routs. Often this ...
by grahambriggs
Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:44 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: Version 3 Errata
Replies: 67
Views: 17195

Re: Version 3 Errata

Another good point - so what you are saying is that the BG should break off. My 'opinion' is that they should break off. I'm surprised that this has only come up now. The rule has been the same since V1. Which means one of 2 things: 1) It's extremely rare 2) When it has occurred players have agreed...
by grahambriggs
Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:54 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: Version 3 Errata
Replies: 67
Views: 17195

Re: Version 3 Errata

Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely: - Elephants - Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction - Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them Surely if pursuers who contact ...
by grahambriggs
Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:50 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Destroyed
Replies: 4
Views: 828

Re: Destroyed

Page 66 - Skirmishers contacted in the rear by enemy Battle Troops etc are immediately destroyed . There is no definition of destroyed in the Glossary. Presumably we should take this to mean "are immediately destroyed and removed from the table . Please clarify / confirm. I believe so Pete.
by grahambriggs
Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:33 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: Version 3 Errata
Replies: 67
Views: 17195

Re: Version 3 Errata

[/quote]Page 84 states: "In the melee phase, all bases in front edge contact with unbroken enemy, or in overlap position, and who are not themselves broken, are eligible to fight in close combat" Therefore, being in front edge contact with enemy is how close combat is defined - which is different to...
by grahambriggs
Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:10 am
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: Version 3 Errata
Replies: 67
Views: 17195

Re: Version 3 Errata

I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents. Any evidence to back up this opinion? It's not an opinion. See my post above. You break off only from close combat opponents. So to be able to break off, you must have a close combat opponent. Being...
by grahambriggs
Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:50 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: Version 3 Errata
Replies: 67
Views: 17195

Re: Version 3 Errata

Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3. A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joi...
by grahambriggs
Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:19 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: First V3 Game
Replies: 61
Views: 8766

Re: First V3 Game

Well my hittite with heavy chariots got absolutely slaughtered last night by protected polearm MF, with bow in the second rank. One of the Korean mobs. They are cheap and can cover the table and don't appear to have any predators. More warband victims. Warband are exactly the same factors against t...
by grahambriggs
Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:53 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: Version 3 Errata
Replies: 67
Views: 17195

Re: Version 3 Errata

Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3. A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joi...
by grahambriggs
Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:54 am
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: First V3 Game
Replies: 61
Views: 8766

Re: First V3 Game

philqw78 wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:They might be a bit vulnerable to superior impact foot heavy weapon in particular.
Don't set me off about super troops again Graham
You're normally easier to wind up than that.
by grahambriggs
Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:54 am
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: First V3 Game
Replies: 61
Views: 8766

Re: First V3 Game

dave_r wrote:Well my hittite with heavy chariots got absolutely slaughtered last night by protected polearm MF, with bow in the second rank. One of the Korean mobs.

They are cheap and can cover the table and don't appear to have any predators.
More warband victims.
by grahambriggs
Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:52 am
Forum: Tournaments
Topic: Venta Belgarum tournament V3, 2018 24th 25th february
Replies: 34
Views: 6233

Re: Venta Belgarum tournament V3, 2018 24th 25th february

notrum wrote:
petedalby wrote:So what happened to the Reigate contingent?
They had already committed to Burton, but if the tournaments had been different weeks at least two of us would have entered.

Steve
Yes we entered Burton early as Mr Murton is organised. Perhaps next year we can do both.
by grahambriggs
Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:05 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: First V3 Game
Replies: 61
Views: 8766

Re: First V3 Game

And Polearms and PO mean mounted double minus at impact. Lucky they don't have many light foot But they don't need PO now IMO Though I do suppose Grahams explanation above about impact foot being better predators is the best mitigation I have heard. Their other common enemy, themselves, can have so...
by grahambriggs
Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:09 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: List Errata
Replies: 42
Views: 6717

Re: List Errata

nikgaukroger wrote:Warriors in the allied list should probably be *ed as well to take into account the special campaign. Mind you as it says he sent "most" of his infantry home maybe it wouldn't be wholly wrong to leave it as is ...
Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry?
by grahambriggs
Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:57 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: List Errata
Replies: 42
Views: 6717

Re: List Errata

Your new ally numbers restriction would be a bit odd for Gatae allied with other Thracians I take a Getae ally and decided on 8 LH Bow This is deducted from the main list. The top line of core troops. So, there are now 0-8 Getae LH available in the main list, and the total bases of Thracian cavalry...

Go to advanced search