Search found 93 matches

by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:03 pm
Forum: Army Design
Topic: Kushan list
Replies: 8
Views: 2137

As Phil says you can use light to occupy the space on the flank.

other options are a Chionite ally gives a unit of decent cav or play the Kushites predecessors Greko-Bactrian which is a siliar army but can have drilled cataphracts.

Paul
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:11 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new armies
Replies: 61
Views: 11138

rbodleyscott wrote:

We have also decided to leave the existing optional MF/HF status for thureophoroi etc and Roman auxilia.
Good news.

Paul
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:11 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion
Topic: HF are people too !
Replies: 30
Views: 3551

I think most people take shooty cav as those that can shoot so do not include Lt Sp/ sword who can't.

Paul
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:04 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Supporting LF in melee.
Replies: 6
Views: 1134

The previous answer appears to have not noticed that one of the rear bases is HF. It is therefore a standard 4HF+2LF. Deployed as 3HF on the front rank and 1HF + 2LF on the rear rank. The 2 LF on the rear would therefore provide 1 support shooting dice at impact if vs mounted as you lose one per 2LF...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:52 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: INTERPENETRATION AND REFORMING
Replies: 40
Views: 3976

I agree with what Dave said, however, the front rank of the LF is placed just beyond the MF and therefore when they attempt to reform in the movement phase on the most advanced base the position they would take up is inside the MF and consequently I believe that in this situation they stay partially...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:55 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Ambush or rubbish?
Replies: 13
Views: 1802

The way I understand it the Ambush marker must be placed in a position where all the troop types in the ambush would not be visible. e.g. if its in brush all the BGs must be LF. However, when the ambush is revealed (bottom of page 143) a single base is placed upon the ambush marker and the BGs in th...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:34 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: LF charging LF in mixed BG.
Replies: 5
Views: 1230

A further point is that as the LF in mixed BGs are not skirmishers even if the LF could charge them (i.e. they were in terrain) they wouldn't drop a cohesion level for it.

Paul
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:49 pm
Forum: Army Design
Topic: Ottoman Turks in "Eternal Empire"
Replies: 32
Views: 6490

I agree that Later Ottoman Turk is one of the top armies on the tabletop. Infact I have ordered the figures for the army today. As non-knightly lance is trumped by knightly lance and armoured janissaries are still less well armoured than heavily armoured Serb Kn neither of these changes would help a...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:17 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Terrain placing
Replies: 34
Views: 4130

Pg140 "The placing player rolls to determine where on the table a piece is to be placed" pg141 "3 = Touching a side edge or coast - opponent's half" IMO - The dash between Touching a side edge or coast and opponent's half means these are seperate requirements. The argument then i...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:18 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Seeing through and out of terrain
Replies: 5
Views: 614

That isn't correct. p132. The LF can still see out normally. They cannot be seen at over X" distance. If the LF choose to shoot they are revealed and visible to all.
Shooting is not optional. The LF therefore have to shoot which makes them visible.

Paul
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:25 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Another unsecure flank question
Replies: 11
Views: 1441

Phils suggested definition: There are any steady enemy battle troops or disrupted shock enemy battle troops who could make a legal flank or rear charge contact upon the testing BG if that enemy were to charge at the time of the test. I had always assumed that could declare a charge meant you include...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:57 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: MELLE BETWEEN MULTIPLE BATTLE GROUPS
Replies: 8
Views: 974

Just to explain why the previous posters are asking if the LF are part of the same BG as the HF. If they are a seperate BG just the right hand file would fight (at POAs vs the MF). It would get one dice as LF lose one dice per two vs the MF. If they are part of the same BG as the HF the LF in the 2n...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:41 am
Forum: Modelling
Topic: Little Big Men transfers
Replies: 13
Views: 3149

If you use Veni Vidi Vici transfers you get 3 free 'V's per sheet of transfers (as the company name is on the transfer).
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:28 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Non flank charges
Replies: 9
Views: 1331

This has been covered previously on other threads.
It counts as a frontal charge so all 4 ranks fight.

Paul
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:34 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Interception charge
Replies: 14
Views: 2145

Another way of looking at this is that you CANNOT intercept charge into someone's flank or rear, as it doesn't pass through their line of charge. So you could be 1 mm directly behind someone declaring a charge and you can't intercept them. You'd have to wait until your next bound to charge them. Yo...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:21 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: How many shooting dice ?
Replies: 49
Views: 5836

How would you treat three disrupted BG of LH shooting two target BGs such that each target had one full BG and half one other BG shooting at them? Bullet 3 on page 93 says "if more than 1 BG is shooting at the same target add the total number of bases to which 1 per x reductions apply before ca...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: How many shooting dice ?
Replies: 49
Views: 5836

So the shooting of a 4 base BG of skirmishers is never affected by dissorder or disruption ?? Are you sure about that chaps..... Sorry Hammy thats a bit cryptic for me. The not reducing 2 disrupted units of LH is a common error, see Phils comment on the other shooting thread which I think is throwin...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:48 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: How many shooting dice ?
Replies: 49
Views: 5836

I think the full answer to the original query is The LF unit A if not disrupted would have 2 dice on A and 1 on B. However, as it is disrupted it loses a dice. It must lose one of the dice on A therefore it has one dice on A and one dice on B. LH1 has 2 dice which while disrupted are not reduced as ...
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:49 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: How many shooting dice ?
Replies: 49
Views: 5836

The LF unit A if not disrupted would have 2 dice on A and 1 on B.
However, as it is disrupted it loses a dice. It must lose one of the dice on A therefore it has one dice on A.

Paul
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:13 pm
Forum: Army Design
Topic: Late Seleucid 650pt -> 800pt
Replies: 33
Views: 6591

Obviously these are just my opinions 6 x Agema (you want them in BGs of 4 so probably only want 4) 24 x Pikes (arguments either way personally I would go for 3 BG's) 6 x Thureophoroi (prefer thorakitai) 6 x LW with bow (poor) (I would take 8 poor sling (16pts) over 6 poor bow (18pts)) 800 Add 2 base...

Go to advanced search