Scoring System

[david53]

[

First define the problem. Then consider potential solutions and any side effects they will have.

The problum has been stated already.

Two players both average have a better chance to play each other in a event one might take an army of 12 BG the other one off 18 BG on average the large BG army will win, its a no brainer.

Now as you have said your not in the middle so to be honest its all working wonderfully for you but maybe not for those people like me in the middle facing an 18 BG army with my 12 BG army. TBH its fact that these swarm armies are highly mobile I would'nt worry if they were undrilled swarms but drilled armoured BGs in fours might not worry those small number of people on the top table but the majority of players are in the middle tables.

IIMO the quicker there is an amendment to the lists the sooner we can stop keep bringing this up.

Before bringing out the figures for the number of BGs that an army had that won an event it would help working out how those people that fought swarms got on. No use saying a low BG army won if they never had to face a swarm army.

Dave

[hammy]

First define the problem. Then consider potential solutions and any side effects they will have.

The problum has been stated already.

Two players both average have a better chance to play each other in a event one might take an army of 12 BG the other one off 18 BG on average the large BG army will win, its a no brainer. .

So you are contending that the players in the middle of the tournament with the most BGs in their army do the best?

Now as you have said your not in the middle so to be honest its all working wonderfully for you but maybe not for those people like me in the middle facing an 18 BG army with my 12 BG army. TBH its fact that these swarm armies are highly mobile I would'nt worry if they were undrilled swarms but drilled armoured BGs in fours might not worry those small number of people on the top table but the majority of players are in the middle tables.

I am not and cannot pretend to be a mid table player. I have won a tournament with a Dominiate 'swarm' although it was a 900 point doubles comp and I only had 18 or 19 BGs IIRC.
If you feel that the way to do well is to have lots of BGs then why don't you try it?

IIMO the quicker there is an amendment to the lists the sooner we can stop keep bringing this up.

I honestly don't think there is going to be a change to the lists any time soon. You might want one but it is not going to happen so if there is a problem then the solution has to be found elsewhere.

Before bringing out the figures for the number of BGs that an army had that won an event it would help working out how those people that fought swarms got on. No use saying a low BG army won if they never had to face a swarm army.

That is an interesting idea. It should be possible to calculate the average scores for armies figthing opponents with many fewer BGs, about the same BGs and many more BGs.

As I pointed out earlier the army that placed last in the Celtic Cup had by far the highest number of BGs so simple number of BGs is not a surefire way to win.

[nikgaukroger]

OK, here is a deal. If the FoG boys and girls at Britcon this year manage to complete their scoresheets correctly (or at least with a record mimimum of mistakes) I'll see about doing it for Britcon 2011.

Why so cautious Nik?

Why not do it for this year? How many lists have you had in so far?

Come on - you know you want to.

Not this year I don't

[david53]

If you feel that the way to do well is to have lots of BGs then why don't you try it?

So I should try an army with large amounts of small drilled armoured average troops to see if I like it I don't I have played it and don't find it fun while running an army of 12 or 13 Bgs I honestly don't think there is going to be a change to the lists any time soon. You might want one but it is not going to happen so if there is a problem then the solution has to be found elsewhere. As I pointed out earlier the army that placed last in the Celtic Cup had by far the highest number of BGs so simple number of BGs is not a surefire way to win.

Never said it was but against a player of average skill level who knows the rules you will struggle to get 17 points in the time given while your own 12 or 13 BG army is trying to not lose any points that effect you much more than the large Bgs loss.

[peterrjohnston]

Of course there is also those of us who don't think there is a problem.

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that might be because in 800AP singles you almost exclusively use armies with large numbers of BGs, mostly of skirmishers, and therefore you run the risk of losing more?

[peterrjohnston]

As I pointed out earlier the army that placed last in the Celtic Cup had by far the highest number of BGs so simple number of BGs is not a surefire way to win.

You're missing the point. To repeat. Unless you get lucky or have a mismatch (like Christian Nubians for a LH army), even getting close to beating a large BG army used by a competent player is very hard to impossible at 800AP in a tournament time-frame.

I've taken armies with high numbers of BGs twice now to competition, one with 18, one with 17. I had losing draws, winning draws and wins. But at no single point in those eight games did I feel even close to losing.

[dave_r]

Of course there is also those of us who don't think there is a problem.

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that might be because in 800AP singles you almost exclusively use armies with large numbers of BGs, mostly of skirmishers, and therefore you run the risk of losing more?

Yes.

Why would I want to disadvantage an army that I enjoy using for no particular reason other than my opponent moaning that it's hard to beat? Points values are what determines how effective a particular BG is.

At 900 pts I rarely use these sort of armies. Go figure.

[DavidT]

hammy wrote

As I pointed out earlier the army that placed last in the Celtic Cup had by far the highest number of BGs so simple number of BGs is not a surefire way to win.

But wasn't the army in the CC with 22 BG an early nomad army, which has almost no mobility and no good troops - unlike most effective swarm armies.

[hammy]

hammy wrote

As I pointed out earlier the army that placed last in the Celtic Cup had by far the highest number of BGs so simple number of BGs is not a surefire way to win.

But wasn't the army in the CC with 22 BG an early nomad army, which has almost no mobility and no good troops - unlike most effective swarm armies.

Indeed it was but actually it had a reasonable amount of mobility in 5 or 6 BGs of camel archers. There were 'issues' with the way that army was put together but it is certainly not a total liability.

I took an Early Libyan to the Manchester 650 point comp last year and did more than respectably despite having lots of undrilled unprotected medium foot.

The point I was trying to make is that lots of battlegroups does not a killer army make.

Dave's suggestion to look at results between armies of differing numbers of BG is one that may be interesting thought.

Personally when constructing my armies I don't go out of my way to grab lots of cheap BGs to increase my BG count. I could easily have had another 2 or 3 BGs in my Hungarian list simply by using poor light foot but I find them to be a liability and avoid them. Others seem to think they are really good.

[philqw78]

Therefore if an 18 BG would break on 12 AP then a 12 BG army would break on 8 AP.

Everybody should be happy with this.

That makes it even worse

[dave_r]

Therefore if an 18 BG would break on 12 AP then a 12 BG army would break on 8 AP.

Everybody should be happy with this.

That makes it even worse

Right, so what you are saying is that it is OK to artificially hamsting an army of 18 BG's to make it easier to break, but when you do the same thing to a more powerful smaller army it makes it even worse?

It just sounds like wah wah wah to me.

[philqw78]

Right, so what you are saying is that it is OK to artificially hamsting an army of 18 BG's to make it easier to break, but when you do the same thing to a more powerful smaller army it makes it even worse?

It just sounds like wah wah wah to me.

Games are artificial Dave. Grow up. Just 'cos your French mates couldn't beat 10 U R gayans. Don't tkae it out on me

[hazelbark]

Where Dave is vaguely right, is the break point will influence the army choice and design regardless.

But again the issue is not Ruddock's enjoyment. He is an upper player. We need a system that allows middle players to show up bash each other about and have an enjoyable game with the possiblity of conclusion.

[philqw78]

But again the issue is not Ruddock's enjoyment.

TVR and a Marc Almond song

[dave_r]

The problem isn't the rules it is the players.

At Athens, I had five out of six games that reached a conclusion. All of these games finished within 2.5 hours. I was using an army of 17 BG's against armies that were (IIRC) 12, 14, 16 and 13 (twice). I got totalled in one against the 12 and won the rest.

The problem with middle ranked players has always been that some people are willing to take risks to win and others aren't. Therefore if you happen to meet a player who doesn't want to lose it is difficult to tailor the rules to cater for this.

If you play football with nine defenders a goalkeeper and a forward who is meant to tackle back then you are going to draw most of your games.

[philqw78]

The problem isn't the rules it is the players.

People will not throw their army away against something they believe they cannot beat. The problem is that it is a game that we would like to win. After that we would like not to lose.
So, if people believe an army of 18 BG cannot be beaten they batton down. Or against a good player they are caught like a rabbit in the headlights.
Against an army with so much light stuff they cannot catch it they are not going to try.

Pleasing all of the people is impossible.

Pleasing most of the people would be good. IMHO FoG is doing well. But could be improved. I have beaten 18 BG with 12. Its F hard to do. But it makes a good game. Butt clenching. But (again) most people cannot.

DBM, 7th, 6th, 5th were the same. Certain army types dominated.

What you said before about an artificially hamstringing armies is bollox since games are artificial. The players WILL change with the rules and the same sort of problems will reappear no matter what we do.



In FoG large BG armies have an artificial advantage

[david53]

In FoG large BG armies have an artificial advantage

Seems like a nice simple statement, and correct by the way.

[MatthewP]

Of course there is also those of us who don't think there is a problem.

Is this the same 'us' who think all your rule interpretations are correct?

[david53]

Of course there is also those of us who don't think there is a problem.

Is this the same 'us' who think all your rule interpretations are correct?

Thats right that would be Dave

[timmy1]

As a not top player (August will probably prove me to be a lowly ranked player), any game with more BG is likely to take longer to reach a conclusion just because of time to move more BG and the extra time to work out if the PoA are different and the CT and Death roles. However, most 12 BG armies will have units that are harder to break/autobreak/be removed at one base than most 18 BG armies. Yes the Benny Hill phase will make the winning more difficult but not totally impossible.

If we are seeing a trend towards larger armies and thus to draws it would be a shame but as the thread has stated above it is true that many players will always try to bring the army that gives them the best odds of a win (or in some cases of not losing) no matter how we change the rules.