Stockport Pick'n'Mix December 11th/12th

[hammy]

I assume you realise that this can potentially give a much higher proportion of terrain on the table than the normal setup rules on a 6' by 4' table ?

That is partly why players can only have 2-3 pieces plus the compulsary.

FWIW the 650 point on a 5 by 3 format is the only one I have ever seen a table end up with absolutely no terrain at all in :O

I think it was a case of some well placed open spaces and one roll of a 6 to remove the only non open space that actually fitted on the table.

[david53]

I assume you realise that this can potentially give a much higher proportion of terrain on the table than the normal setup rules on a 6' by 4' table ?

Well as the format has been run a few times now - all very successfully I may add - I think we can assume he is

Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave

[Polkovnik]

Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave

I wasn't suggesting there was anything bad about it or that it wouldn't work well. Just that with a higher proportion of terrain on the table, this gives a significant boost to armies that rely on terrain.

And we have played it. You do get a lot of terrain on the table. A single maximum sized large piece is huge on a 5' by 3' table.

[david53]

Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave

I wasn't suggesting there was anything bad about it or that it wouldn't work well. Just that with a higher proportion of terrain on the table, this gives a significant boost to armies that rely on terrain.

And we have played it. You do get a lot of terrain on the table. A single maximum sized large piece is huge on a 5' by 3' table.

What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies

[nikgaukroger]

What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies

At 650 points it should not stop you using a shooty mounted army - Hammy's first run of the format was won by Ian Speed's Skythians (by beating my Pontics).

[hammy]

What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies

At 650 points it should not stop you using a shooty mounted army - Hammy's first run of the format was won by Ian Speed's Skythians (by beating my Pontics).

The top three from each of the events I have run using this format were:

Code: Select all

Games Expo 08 - 16 players
1 Ian Speed      Skythian or Saka
2 James Hamilton Seljuk Turk
3 Simon Green    Alexandrian Macedonian 

Game 08 day 1 - 10 players
1 Neil Howard    Later Hungarian
2 Paul Dawson    Kushan or Indo-Skythian
3 Mathew Poole   Medieval Crown of Aragon 

Game 08 day 2 - 6 players
1 Graham Finney  Middle Hungarian
2 Simon Clarke   Palmyran
3 Neil Howard    Later Hungarian 

Games Expo 09 - 28 players
1 Ian Speed      Ancient British
2 Simon Hall     Gallic
3 Phil Powell    Libyan Egyptian 

Game 09 day 1 - 12 players
1 David M Allen  Dominate Roman
2 Robert Taylor  Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian
3 David Redhead  Skythian or Saka 

Game 09 day 2 - 12 players
1 James Hamilton Early Libyan
2 Robert Taylor  Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian
3 Stephen Clarke Ordonnance Burgundian 

Games Expo 10 - 36 players
1 Paul Longmore  Dominate Roman
2 Peter Butler   Ilkhanid Mongol
3 Kevin Johnson  Later Ottoman Turkish 

At the first few it looked like shooty cavalry were a good bet but as the game has matured there is now a more ballanced set of winning armies

[david53]

What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies

At 650 points it should not stop you using a shooty mounted army - Hammy's first run of the format was won by Ian Speed's Skythians (by beating my Pontics).

my experience of using the same is coming third on the saturday

on the sunday using a proper mongol army coming well down the list

I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army

[hammy]

I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army

I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.

[hammy]

Another area that needs a special rule for 5 by 3 tables has been pointed out to me.

It is possible that if the player with initiative deploys an ambush right on the centre line then the other player can deploy an ambush marker in contact with it. This is because the player without initiative can deploy up to 18 MU in to the table.

In 28mm on a 6 by 4 table using 40mm MU it is even worse, the player without initiative can deploy ambushes on the other players side of the table....

I was going to suggest that non initiative ambushed were limited to 6" from the centre line but there is a problem with that as it is actually not as far forward as non ambushing skirmishers can deploy.

The player who noticed this issue suggested that an ambush cannot be placed where it can be 'seen' by an enemy ambush, if we add in that they cannot be placed on the enemy side of the table then I think that covers both bases.

There has also been a comment that with 40mm MU it would be possible for one player to place terrain that covered getting on for 1/3rd of the table. Personally I don't have a big problem with that but then it is unlikely that I will be playing 25mm.

Thoughts anyone?

[david53]

I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army

I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.

How so?

[hammy]

I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army

I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.

How so?

Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.

[philqw78]

Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.

Like yours

[hammy]

Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.

Like yours

Indeed, when in Rome.....

The way to win open tournaments IMO is to take an army that can clobber girly shooty armies.

Should I endup playing at Stockport I will most definitely not take a girly shooty army.

[squiggie]

Hammy

Do we have an idea yet on which day you will do FOGR and which will be 25mm?

[hammy]

Hammy

Do we have an idea yet on which day you will do FOGR and which will be 25mm?

In the light of a grand total of two requests for particular days one for 25mm on Sunday and one for FoG:R on Saturday I am going to go with that.

It is still possible that the FoG:R may be a two day bash but that would need a minimum of 8 players over the weekend.

[peteratjet]

Another area that needs a special rule for 5 by 3 tables has been pointed out to me.

In 28mm on a 6 by 4 table using 40mm MU it is even worse, the player without initiative can deploy ambushes on the other players side of the table....

I was going to suggest that non initiative ambushed were limited to 6" from the centre line but there is a problem with that as it is actually not as far forward as non ambushing skirmishers can deploy.

The player who noticed this issue suggested that an ambush cannot be placed where it can be 'seen' by an enemy ambush, if we add in that they cannot be placed on the enemy side of the table then I think that covers both bases.

There has also been a comment that with 40mm MU it would be possible for one player to place terrain that covered getting on for 1/3rd of the table. Personally I don't have a big problem with that but then it is unlikely that I will be playing 25mm.

Thoughts anyone?

I thought you going with the general rule that deployment distances for the 4'x6' tables with 40mm MU would be taken as inches, not MUs. Surely this would apply to ambushes (and field fortifications) too.

[hammy]

I thought you going with the general rule that deployment distances for the 4'x6' tables with 40mm MU would be taken as inches, not MUs. Surely this would apply to ambushes (and field fortifications) too.

That would seem to make sense.

It leaves the question of terrain sizes, should they be based in 1" MU or 40mm?

[Polkovnik]

I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.

How so?

Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.

Maybe if they are MF. I wouldn't use an army based on HF in this format, as way too much terrain can go down.
I can't see any HF armies being competitive with the amount of terrain that is possible.

[Polkovnik]

Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave

I wasn't suggesting there was anything bad about it or that it wouldn't work well. Just that with a higher proportion of terrain on the table, this gives a significant boost to armies that rely on terrain.

And we have played it. You do get a lot of terrain on the table. A single maximum sized large piece is huge on a 5' by 3' table.

In our game this week, I went for maximum terrain, and my opponent chose 3 minimum sized pieces.
My opponent rolled 3 sixes and removed all three of my non-compulsory choices, yet over half the table was still dominated by terrain.
Had my three pieces remained on the table, I don't think there would have been room to deploy and move a single small BG of cavalry and remain a safe distance from troops in terrain.

[SonofTosh]

Another area that needs a special rule for 5 by 3 tables has been pointed out to me.

It is possible that if the player with initiative deploys an ambush right on the centre line then the other player can deploy an ambush marker in contact with it. This is because the player without initiative can deploy up to 18 MU in to the table.

In 28mm on a 6 by 4 table using 40mm MU it is even worse, the player without initiative can deploy ambushes on the other players side of the table....

I was going to suggest that non initiative ambushed were limited to 6" from the centre line but there is a problem with that as it is actually not as far forward as non ambushing skirmishers can deploy.

The player who noticed this issue suggested that an ambush cannot be placed where it can be 'seen' by an enemy ambush, if we add in that they cannot be placed on the enemy side of the table then I think that covers both bases.

Thoughts anyone?

In fact I suggested the ambush cannot be placed if either their or the enemy ambush would be visible to the other. This takes care of them being in terrain with different visibility (2mu and 4 mu for instance.)