Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With a shwoosh of clackers, and a dusting-ioff of the family jewels the Galatians take to the table in five separate match reports against the Romans, Germans, Seleukids (twice) and the (who the f--- are the?) Blemmye, in the post-tournament report from Bournemouth earlier this spring.



There is of course the usual mix of captions, videos, both handy and unhelpful rules-related hints and poor quality humour throughout.

This time however you also get a specially themed report of one of the battles which features extensive references to the 1970's Bay City Rollers knock-offs from Bradford, "Smokie" - not for the faint-hearted, so if you are easily offended please feel free to skip report number four!

Go on - get your undercarriage out into the fresh air this lovely spring morning, lie back and enjoy these five fine reports !

Always happy to see a new Madaxeman tournament report! You've got some excellent looking miniatures.

Oh wow! I used to really enjoy these, but then you stopped playing FoG and I didn't get to learning new rules.

In hindsight I should have. I presume ADLG is widely popular? Why not MeG if I may ask?

ADLG is by far the most popular competition Ancients set worldwide right now - it’s a well written, well tested set of rules that based on the core DBX engine and gives a nice simple game that plays out in 2 and a bit hours with less figures and a smaller playing surface than previous mass battle sets, all of which are pretty compelling reasons to play it.

I’ve not played MeG or indeed FoG v3 (or TTS) but folks at my club who did try weren’t all that impressed - it apparently has some clever ideas but didn’t really grip those that tried it. Having to paint up more figures than even a FoG or DBM army also seems to be a significant barrier to entry for MeG, together with the need to buy special dice, cards and the like - whereas the small size of ADLG armies and the fact the rules and lists are all in one book for under £30 means loads of casual Ancients at our club are happy to give it a go - so it’s greatly expanded the pool of possible opponents as well.

Overall, DBx based rules (DBA, DBM, DBMM and ADLG) are still way more popular in the UK than unit-based systems like FoG and MeG. As of today the combined pool of players of DBx systems is something like 400 people, whereas FoG and MeG are only at around the 120 mark combined.

 themadaxeman wrote:
ADLG is by far the most popular competition Ancients set worldwide right now - it’s a well written, well tested set of rules that based on the core DBX engine and gives a nice simple game that plays out in 2 and a bit hours with less figures and a smaller playing surface than previous mass battle sets, all of which are pretty compelling reasons to play it.

I'm not greatly fond of DBM, but more because of the "cheese" and nitty gritty. ADLG seems to play quite well as far as I can tell from your reports. If I can find some people to play it with I'll give it a go.

MeG, together with the need to buy special dice, cards and the like -

Oh... Never mind then.

All games have fiddly bits in them - it’s an inevitable artefact of having bases and measurements involved - but the general consensus seems to be that ADLG has less of this than earlier DBx based, Barker-written sets.

To be fair, the fact we’re all a bit older now probably also means the tendency to want be a dick about a game of toy soldiers is also greatly reduced too! As a fairly simple set with simple mechanics and simple lists in a short format game ADLG chimes well with that a mood too !

I have grown to appreciate simple.
There are better ways to show how far from smart I am than misunderstanding and forgetting complicated rules during games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You've inspired me to read reviews.
https://www.wargamer.com/reviews/review-art-de-la-guerre-3rd-edition/

Sounds really good.

One thing I've noticed is ADLG is streamlined for Tourney play. I own a Spanish army and at 200 it was smaller than my DBM version. But I then tried 300 points and it basicly Was my DBM army. So for casual games you can bust out larger forces with ease, I don't believe you'll add too much extra time.

pinecone77 wrote:
One thing I've noticed is ADLG is streamlined for Tourney play. I own a Spanish army and at 200 it was smaller than my DBM version. But I then tried 300 points and it basicly Was my DBM army. So for casual games you can bust out larger forces with ease, I don't believe you'll add too much extra time.

300 points is a good place to start if you are used to DBM or DBMM as it is a similar number of figures on table, so the visual change isn’t as pronounced as going straight to the 200pt format.

However most people - myself included - end up preferring 200 in the end, as you still have plenty going on, and it’s still 2 wings and a centre in each army after all, but it’s easier to cart the lead around and takes less time and space to play. Basically you soon realise you’re not losing much if anything important in game play terms by having lines of 3 or 4 “something’s” fighting each other instead of lines of 5 or 6 of the same “somethings” fighting each other for a turn or two more of dice rolling - the end result is the same and there’s still enough drama and engagement to be had

Maybe if you have a minute, you can assist me... I am building a Qin army (one of my favs) and I am not sure that I "grok" the list building "rules" yet



List: 80 Qin Init 2

Army Corps !

8 Medium Swordsmen 2HW Dagger Halberds, Ordinary
1 4 Horse Chariot, Ordinary/ Competent General included HCh Impact, Elite

Army Corps 2

6 Bowmen, Ordinary
1 4 Horse Chariot, Gen inclusive HCh Impact Elite

Army Corps 3

1 4 Horse Chariot, Gen inc,
1 4 Horse Chariot Imact Elite
2 Cavalry Heavy Cav Ordinary
3 Light Cavalry, Bow Ordinary


Total budget 200

Is this a "playable" force? And did I mess up somewhere? Thanks...

Oh Also x6 Field Fort for the Archers (cost 6)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "plan" is to deny one flank with dug in Archers, advance the center, and try to overwhelm the other flank with the horse Corp. Hopefully too simple a plan to mess up.

I'm not a tournament wining tyrant like Madaxeman but some thought on your list.

First the Qin option has to take Impact troops instead of 2HW. They cost the same so you won't have to make major changes to your list. Also there shouldn't be any problem with you using Ge/Ji armed troops as them.

Second is your initiative should be +1. +1 for two light cavalry. General init is /2 round down so a competent general doesn't give a +1.

On to your unit choice. I don't think using chariots with included generals is a good idea on your infantry commands. Especially the 1st corp. The chariot can't move on the same pip as infantry, 8 infantry will need to use two pips (6 in a line is max) or use two ranks and an included general can only use his pip on himself or as a group move. So you'll really want 2 pips a turn (2 groups of infantry, chariot on generals pip) which a competent general can't guarantee. You can use generals in chariots as non-combatant non-included general bases if you want.

I'm not completely sold on your plan. I think I would just ignore your bowmen then slaughter those medium infantry as they advance and hit some other stuff to get the remaining break points. By ignoring your bowmen I would have enough troops to protect my flank from your cavalry. I think that my armies (Roman heavy infantry and Persian heavy cavalry) could do this.

I think taking your infantry as elite heavy infantry would make them much more of a central threat in the open. Medium infantry are better at taking advantage of terrain. Chariots are knight class cavalry and can smash through just about anything except pike, elephants and heavy spear from the front. Having them grouped as a heavy assault squad is powerful option. I don't really know much about bowmen other than they seemed weak to me and I've never tried to get goo at using them.

Madaxeman did a Han battle report. Who are fancier with their mixed units but might give you some ideas.

Thanks! Yeah I might be better off using Heavy Infantry for the Halberds.... The basic plan is the classic refused flank, and when I add in Field forts I Really don't need to worry about them . I guess I need to play a few games to see how it goes. I have been (in DBM) using the 4 horse chariot to secure one end of the line. Then if I smash through, I can roll up the line with 2HW in the face, and a Knight in contact on the side. But thats DBM, I don't know for sure how ADLG runs yet, but it seems very much like DBM/DBA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I looked at making a "Qin Fanatics" list per your suggestion...



List 80 Qin Fanatics Init: 1

Army Corp 1
1 4 Horse Chariot General incl Comp Elite unit
8 Medium Swordsmen Impact Elite

Army Corps 2

1 4 horse, Gen inc, Ordinary, Elite unit
6 Bowmen Medicore w/ 6 facings of field fort


Army Corp 3

1 4 Horse Chariot CiC Included Ord, Elite unit
2 4 Horse Chariots Elite

3 Light Horse, Bows Ord


Budget 199


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I went ahead and posted on a new thread, to avoid hijacking this one.

That might have made sense in DBM but it is a terrible list strucrture for ADLG !

There are loads of Ch'in lists on the wiki on my website - its a popular and succesful list

https://www.madaxeman.com/adlg/tiki-index.php?page=Warring+States

For this list..

- the Generals should only ever be included if you are running them to lead a command with 3-6 Chariots and some skirmish-capable support troops - that shoudl also only be an Ordinary General. If you include them in Chariots in a mostly foot command you cannot move with the foot, so your extra command pip is always wasted. You will also want to fight with the lone chariot, again shredding your command and control ability once the General embedded in it is in combat - and then the chariot will die as its unsupported, and you have no General left !

- having 8 of something in one command is usually too many. You can only move a group 6 wide for 1 pip, so 8 troops are already funtioning as 2 separate blocks for command and control purposes, so having both "sub commands" only made up of one troop type and only capable of doing one mission is less than optimal - especially in a list with as many interesting troops as Qin. Give them a brilliant General, get a mix of troops and think of them as 2 semi-independent 4-wide commands that will operate near each other and have enough tools to deal with a range of opponents. The big block of nutters did work for the Galatians as they only really have HI Impetuous as the only decent troop type in the army, and the HI Elite Swordsmen are perfectly happy to fight whatever they face - MF halberds have natural enemies in the shape of most mounted so a line of 8 is just a large target that has no shooters to prevent cavalry just rolling you over .

- Bowmen Mediocre are also a target in large numbers. 6 is an enormous number. Their role is a reserve, filler, or to sit in blocks of 2 or 3 on a flank to drive off enemy LH who are trying to support their cavalry wing by shooting whilst avoiding getting anywhere near combat


You "coudl" run the Chin as a near-clone of the Galatians with a big block of foot in the middle, a fast moving reserve of 3-4 Chariots and a cavalry command wih mounted X-bow. The chariot command is a lot more expensive than the Paonians but then you shave off the 2 HF with the cavalry in the Galatian command structure and you are just about there

Thanks!