Hordes of the Things at Fall-In

Originally Posted by David Kuijt

Viking Berserkers are another good archetype of Warband, and there seems little reason to force them to plod.

Viking Berserkers could just as well be classed as 'Beasts'

That's the great thing about HOTT!

Bob: While I didn't specifically state it in my write up for the Siege 'Matched Pairs' event I have no problem with the players providing a 30" board along with their matched armies.

I am planning to introduce the 30" board at the next HMGS-South RECON convention in May.

Originally Posted by Martian

Viking Berserkers could just as well be classed as 'Beasts'

That's the great thing about HOTT!

Or behemoths, or blade ...

But the same is true for Orcs and Goblins, which was my point -- Bob was saying (paraphrased) "Orcs and Goblins are slow, and they are Warband in my mental concept, so HOTT Warband should be slow." Which is backward -- as Marty points out, if you want your troop type (goblins) to be slow, you pick a slow element type (horde or some other) to represent it in HotT. Bob's argument is based upon the precept "Goblins must be Warband in HotT", which (as Marty points out) is fallacious.

Originally Posted by Bob. (and his dog)

I would like to learn of other places using the larger board. Are there tournaments other than those of HMGS east that use the larger battlefield? US - Great Lakes, Midwest, West Coast, South; or Australia, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, England, Wales, Ireland? Who does this?

In Italy we had limited experience with 90 cm square board, which was giving too long games in my opinion) and with 90 cm x 60 cm boards (defender sets up terrain, invader chooses the side to use) which worked OK.
But nothing widespread, not much playtest.

Overall the 60 x 60 cm is felt better mainly for practical/organizational reasons.

Going back to the initial message, the change of movements for Shooters/Warband has been already playtested a lot and provided a better balance for the AP. I consider it as an "unofficial amendement" and I would recommend it. Even one of the author played at least a tournement with this modification.

As to 30" boards for HOTT, this is not a necessity I feel: since most of armies has less then 12 elements the board look less full than the DBA one. Moreover the LH analogues in HOTT (Flyers) do not need the extra space to perform flanking: there is enough space in the air over the board

The 30" DBA board was a good analogy only in the sense that a local DBA group playtested what they perceived to be a minor design flaw. From what I see here, usage is now slowly spreading outside of the initial Washington area.

The Shooter/Warband HOTT house rule, well playtested in friendly and tournament play in Britain, is very similar. I'm sure that you can look up the original debates on the Yahoo HOTT discussion board, but the change was suggested because of play balance not because a certain fantasy troop was not a perfect match. They decided to go with the smallest change possible (and easily remembered) to the original HOTT rules.

[QUOTE=Bob. (and his dog)]

Originally Posted by David Kuijt

"very rarely" is an overstatement, Bob. In the other thread there were a number of players outside the East Coast who mentioned support for the larger board -- Stephen Webb from Australia, Dauvitius from the UK, and more than 40% of the 80 or so respondents on the recent poll.

David, my reference was to use of the 30" board in actual events, not a personal preference. My memory is weak, but I do not recall reading of its use in any tournaments other than our East Coast events. And there it is used in some of the Sunday theme games and some theme tournaments done by WADBAG. The large majority of games are played with the standard battlefield.

I would like to learn of other places using the larger board. Are there tournaments other than those of HMGS east that use the larger battlefield? US - Great Lakes, Midwest, West Coast, South; or Australia, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, England, Wales, Ireland? Who does this?

The 30" (75cm) board? We hatesssss it Precious. Nassssssty big board. We hatessss it. We don't do it down here. No Presshiousssss, we don't do it down here.


(The preceeding is an example of what our English Lit teachers called "overstatement".)

Ed

Originally Posted by Ed Dillon

We don't do it down here. No Presshiousssss, we don't do it down here.


Ed

Next time I see you, Ed, remind me to push you into a river of molten lava.

(ooo -- I need a river of molten lava for a Stronghold. How would I do that? Hmmmm....)

Originally Posted by David Kuijt

Next time I see you, Ed, remind me to push you into a river of molten lava.

(ooo -- I need a river of molten lava for a Stronghold. How would I do that? Hmmmm....)

All of which inspires me to ask -- did it offend anyone else that Gollum (Ed) fell like 500 feet and landed on a river of lava (which has density very similar to that of non-molten lava, i.e. STONE) and didn't even knock the breath out of himself? Since when is lava basically equivalent to a very hot pillow? I mean, if Gollum fell that far into water he'd break every bone in his body -- so he falls into something that is also incompressible and far less dense, and doesn't even lose his grip on the ring? And also, howcome Gollum is swallowed under by the lava, but the ring (which is easily proved by Archimedes to be much more dense than Gollum) floats on top of the river of lava like a little golden evil life-preserver?

I really think Phil Jackson ought to rethink the physics and fluid-dynamics of that scene. And howcome no screaming? Lying on lava isn't painful to Ed? (I mean, Gollum) Ed -- how often do you lie on a bed of lava? Doesn't it hurt?

After the slings and barbs of outrageous posting, no it really doesn't hurt that much. Clearly you've never noticed that I have grown a pretty thick skin. (I'm not fat, I just have "big skin".)

I'll pass on having you shove me off of the cliff and into the molten lava. First off, you do NOT want to see me that scantily clad (as per Gollum-standard). Second, I really don't care to bite off one of your fingers. I'm not into that sort of thing. I have idly considered breaking one or two of them after a game, occasionally. But I have never considered biting one off. So there is no need for you to give me the finger...

Ed

BTW, lava might not be too hard. Go to Michael's and get some artist's sponges. Cut them into appropriate size. Stain them with a very bright shade of yellow, or yellow over bright white. Something flourescent would be good for either/both. Then dry brush on an orange layer and then dark gray &/or black layer on top.

You could always insert a figure sticking out of it with whisps of (cotton) smoke rising up.

And you thought that lava is a rough surface to land on.

Originally Posted by Ed Dillon

BTW, lava might not be too hard. Go to Michael's and get some artist's sponges. Cut them into appropriate size. Stain them with a very bright shade of yellow, or yellow over bright white. Something flourescent would be good for either/both. Then dry brush on an orange layer and then dark gray &/or black layer on top.

Good suggestions, but I really want the "lit from within" look. I should investigate plastics, with a tiny light inside. Doll houses have lit fireplaces using that technology -- I wonder if there are any doll houses with molten magma flowing through their foyers? I guess that's a special-purpose sort of thing...