This question arises from allowing Roman withdrawal to vacant areas in the rules. We have tweaked how this works in the latest revision - but the Romans could...
... I would not give - it's a benefit already to gain additional area. ... Well, Romans cannot build forts during movement to benefit other Romans armies...
... Yes, the Angles are a prime motivator for allowing withdrawal to a vacant area, while Romans withdrawing 'forward' allows them to counter native...
... "A Roman fort does not[bolded] provide the Roman roads capability in the Movement Phase during which it is built" (page 14 col 3) covers this well enough....
Hi all, ... I'm sorry, I don't recognise myself from the description above, but I'm still having some trouble with the clarity of these passages. The basic...
Hi all, ... [...] ... Sorry, it just struck me -- late as usual -- that the thing to do might be to obliterate the word "Movement" from the passage Lew was ...
... Yes, it would do the trick. Moreover, rather than invent various scenarios because the Roman withdrawal isn't during the "Movement" phase--even though...
... Yes, just 'phase' might well do it. ALWAYS the first step in interpreting rules is to read what it actually says. The second step may well be to decide...
... Firstly Roman withdrawal doesn't happen in the Withdrawal Phase. There is no, and has never been, a Withdrawal Phase - there is only Population Increase,...
Hi all, ... While I appreciate Lew's apparent exasperation about people picking holes in his fine work (no sarcasm intended here -- it really is a beautiful...
... I don't think so. The deadline was last Tuesday. We're stuck with what we've got, which I suppose is why I'm exasperated with a discussion of how to...
Apologies if this is covered in the topic, but I posted a question a while back on the roads subject and can't remember if we got a definitive answer: The...
Is there ever a situation where Roads exist in an area that is not occupied by a submitted nation/does not have an undestroyed fort? Don't think so. So do we...
But the roads were built when the Belgae submitted in the area. Can I then assume that under Brigante occupation they simply "fall out of use"? ... question a ...
The other day we played a three-player game of Arthur:Adventus Saxonum. This is the second or third time we've tried it. It has led me to conclude, yet...
... I would say no. Only forts built in the movement phase or earlier can be used for road movement during withdrawal. They can, however, use the submitted...
... Three-player games of any sort usually don't work very well, unless they have limited interaction between players, as high interaction would encourage...
Gentlemen I have played the three man Italia scenario and it works quite well. It is similar to Tourben's idea of designing the scenario on a basic two vs one ...
How well does it cope with the "petty diplomacy problem", which amounts to "if I can't win, I can determine which other player wins"? Byzantium, too, can...
Referring to previous discussion, "Movement" has been excised from the rules revision according to FFG. Rah. Lew Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile...
... How about this for another approach: Whoever is presently winning (and the game would need a robust mechanic to determine this, cf. the original Twilight...
... "Let's settle on Sicily," said the Atlanteans. I assume Sicily should be an area, since it was very much in the Byzantine sandbox. From the map it looks...
... Lew, As I think you know, I've been working on a Byzantium version of Brit for a couple of years now on and off, and have a working version (with very...
My byzantium game starts in 360, and ends 14 turns later with Murad II taking Constantinople. 4 players each with 4-5 nations, plus an extra 10 or so nations ...
Simon; Is the turn length roughly consistent? Who has the Western Roman Empire at start? How do you handle the Arab explosion? The Ottoman expansion given ...
