Be interesting to see the two Sassanids to see how similar they are. I'm assuming mine will be miles better than Terry's. If not and I play him I'll just have to rely on dice.

Relying on your dice seems to be your only tactic (although it does seem to work !)

Polearms and 3 dice on impact have contributed to the virtual disappearance of lancer armies such as Bosporan, etc. The typical 4-base unit is much more likely to suffer a damaging -1 on CTs. You can't blame Pole Arms on the disappearance of lancer armies - All of the Pole arm armies in books 1 and...

Polearms are too good. Chinese foot are happy to charge out of terrain and hit the enemy that their own records said they were unable to stand against in the open. Bow Cavalry. > A high proportion of Chinese infantry were conscripts and therefore poor. We don't force players to use poor troops in m...

So this point is covered in the rules. I can only assume Terry was having the afternoon off and somebody competent wrote this bit. Thanks Dave - Always happy to have your support. The replies so far have been correct in that the MF bases when in rough terrain do not count as disordered (or severely...

A zombie thread resurrected by the above user trying to sell tents in the Serengeti.

Can somebody delete him

Link deleted

So that has saved me a lot of solitary rooting around re mixed BGs. It does feel a bit different to a game I fought against one T Shaw who as I recall said some different things re some late Roman mixed BGs and what counted as what in combat after front rank losses -where it seemed I was fighting a...

6x4 for me

Top 3 positions were:

1st: Paul Bartlett .............. Kofun Nara

2nd: Terry Shaw ................ Khmer

3rd: Steve Murton .............. Viking

The March version of the rules errata cover most of these: http://www.bhgs.org.uk/field-of-glory-ancients--medieval.html Page 93 says a base of battle troops providing support shooting during the impact phase receives a -1 POA. Earlier discussion on this site revealed the intent was to apply this PO...

So both lists will be unusable

Didn't know you had an Indian army.....

So why are they superior?

Because they're good! - Just not crazy

1) Foederate Roman, page 54, Equites Mauri: there’s no min-max. Could be anything from 0-4 to 0-12. The empty entry should be merged with the one above (i.i. total number of bases for "Equites Sagittarii" and Equites Mauri" combined should be "0-8") 2) Carolingian Frankish, page 97, Imperial Retain...

I wonder if the "Southern States" and "Northern States" Elephant parameters have been reversed.

I'd say you are correct. I'm working on an errata at the moment and will update it in that.

Terry.

Book 2 is now available to order from Caliver books.

https://www.caliverbooks.com/bookview.p ... ubcatno=67

Some interesting armies to look at:
Dacians, Vikings and any of the Byzantines.

It might be worth re-iterating that the date has now passed for any of the New Book 2 armies to be selected - unless it has been published and I've missed it?

I've been told that Book 2 will be available for Salute !! - which is only 2 weeks before the Challenge.

This weeks editions of the various V3 list and rules errata are now posted on the BHGS website

Thanks Tim

Is there going to be an official errata?

Tim has it - It should be available shortly.

It isn't an "if" he takes an allied general, one is compulsory in the list.

Not if we made the selection of an allied general *1-3 He'd then ignore the minimum requirement

Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry? It would be more sensible to put the asterisk on the allied commanders rather than in the allied list. That would leave Cassivellaunus with no compulsory warriors. If he took an allied general it would seem reasonable that...

Bad form to win your own tournament though...i deliberately lose mine each year

Not so bad - I had to rewrite the rules in order to win Badcon !!