Warfare 2010

[rbodleyscott]

As Nik says, if my opponent had asked to play on exactly 4 foot depth I would have agreed - I have done so in the past.

...implying that it was a choice, not an obligation!

Whether it was a choice or an obligation would depend on whether the rules of the specific tournament state in writing that the games are played on 6 x 4 tables. If they don't, then it certainly isn't an obligation. The rules do not require that all games be played on 6 x 4 tables.

Personally, unless my opponent requested otherwise, I would always play on the table size provided by the organiser, mainly because it is something of a PITA to have to remember that the edge of the table is somewhere other than it appears to be.

However, the rules are designed to be played on 6 x 4 tables for tournament purposes, so it would be sensible for tournament organisers to adhere to that wherever possible. (Unless using non-standard points totals).

[hammy]

However, the rules are designed to be played on 6 x 4 tables for tournament purposes, so it would be sensible for tournament organisers to adhere to that wherever possible. (Unless using non-standard points totals).

And there was me about to comment when you saved yourself with the last bracketed bit

Actually I quite fancy the tournament idea where you have different sizes of tables, a mix of 5', 6; and 7 ' with a mix of depths as well, probably 4' 6", 4' and 3'6" or even 3'

[rbodleyscott]

However, the rules are designed to be played on 6 x 4 tables for tournament purposes, so it would be sensible for tournament organisers to adhere to that wherever possible. (Unless using non-standard points totals).

And there was me about to comment when you saved yourself with the last bracketed bit'

I wrote it with you in mind.

[hammy]

And there was me about to comment when you saved yourself with the last bracketed bit'

I wrote it with you in mind.

Aww shucks

[azrael86]

Actually I quite fancy the tournament idea where you have different sizes of tables, a mix of 5', 6; and 7 ' with a mix of depths as well, probably 4' 6", 4' and 3'6" or even 3'

One obvious option is to have 6x4 or 4x6. Though good luck when a round 4 game between Swiss and Ottomann Turk at the top of the comp is drawn on an odd sized table !

Anyway, I should add thanks to Tim, Richard and Nik plus opponents for a great weekend. Also to the top 3 in Dragon who finished so far out in front as to make any table depth issues irrelevant.

Jon

[hammy]

Actually I quite fancy the tournament idea where you have different sizes of tables, a mix of 5', 6; and 7 ' with a mix of depths as well, probably 4' 6", 4' and 3'6" or even 3'

One obvious option is to have 6x4 or 4x6. Though good luck when a round 4 game between Swiss and Ottomann Turk at the top of the comp is drawn on an odd sized table !

I am not sure that playing Swiss vs Ottoman on a 4' by 6' table would be any more interesting than playing on a 6' by 4' one

Having played Swiss vs Ottoman I can testify that it is a pretty dull game and that the Swiss have very little hope of pulling off a win. That said the Ottomans will struggle to beat a well played Swiss as well.

[timmy1]

Hammy, I suspect that RBS wrote it with you in mind as in 'that b****y James will pick me up on it and go on about his 650 points tourney again etc...' rather than in a 'I had better mention my best buddy James' sort of way, though I could be wrong... :)

[timmy1]

Hammy

As the Swiss player, I can assure you that playing Ottomans on a 4' x 6' is far more interesting than on a 6' x 4' - you get to move your dollies more often. The game is very likely to be a dull draw while he tries to turn the table 90 degrees and / or run away but moving BGs on the table is more fun than moving them from the table to the dead pile while they get shot at from 2 sides...

Regards
Tim

[TimChild]

The only definitive thing is that if the comp rules say 4' wide then you are entitled to play on 4' wide - however, different comps may vary in table depth (and indeed width, and that is OK (and if the players choose to agree something else then who cares).

Looks like I need to review the competition rules in view of my dislike of strict 4' depths on tables. For next year I am currently proposing to re-write the relevant rule as:-

"iv. Table size is approximately 6' x 4' for all 3 themes (the tables may be slightly narrower than 6’ due to the width of the marking tape, and will be played to the width of the cloths provided unless both players agree prior to the start of the game to use only 4’ depth)."

Players will then know to expect a little random variation (or if they don't, it's their own fault for not reading the rules fully).

I am still struggling to cope with the idea that an extra 3" makes that much of a difference to the result (none of the cloths are bigger than about 4'6" across). However, since I'm a DBMMer rather than a FOG player (DBMM uses 40mm or 60mm MUs, rather than inches) and my style tends to involve leaping my troops across the table to "have at thee" as quick as possible, maybe I just don't understand the issues enough.

When wargamers get complaints about the extra 3" it's usually our wives commenting on our waistlines.

Tim Child

[TimChild]

The fixtures for Warfare 2011 are that we will once again be hosting 3 FOG:AM competitions - 2 x 15mm and 1 x 25mm, and next year an Open 15mm FOG:R competition.

What do people want to see for next year's FOG:AM themes?

2008 we had 15mm Rise, Legions, Immortal; 15mm Storm, Swords, Eternal; 25mm Rise, Legions, Immortal

2009 we had 15mm Swifter; 15mm Rise and Immortal; 25mm Wolves and Decline

2010, of course, was 15mm Rise, Legions, Immortal (again - and despite running it three years in a row it was clearly the most popular by entries); 15mm Dragons; 25mm Storm, Swords, Eternal (all three themes including the Lost Scrolls additions)

Would people like something a little different - something more akin to the old DBM themes rather than simply by books? E.g. we could set a 15mm Biblical theme, a 15mm Heavy Metal Thunder theme and a 25mm hairy barbarians theme?

I'm being asked to set themes for 2011 as early as possible, so that we can get it all advertised. Comments would be appreciated.

Tim Child

[madaxeman]

Congrats to Keith and Wayne, plus Rich Love in the Classical period - they look to be only 3 players (with Seleucid, Hellenistic Greek and Camillan Roman) to actually record any sort of victories against any of the the eight Bosporan/Hunnic/Palmyran armies fielded in this competition whilst using an army that wasn't Bosporan, Palmyran or Hunnic.

OK, there were only 4 such "victories" in 20+ games and and the biggest such "victory" in this list was a massively crushing 13-7, but any form of progress in demonstrating that LH armies are not unbeatable is to be applauded and is compelling evidence that there is no need to consider change the rules for them in the forthcoming v 2.0

And by the same count, commiserations to Ian Mackay and Simon Clarke - the only two players using BPH armies to actually see their army broken all weekend. Although that was (of course) by two of the other Bosporan / Palmyran / Hunninc armies.

On an unrelated topic, the FoG Renaissance period looks to be a good addition for next year and one I may well consider playing in.

tim

[azrael86]

I am still struggling to cope with the idea that an extra 3" makes that much of a difference to the result (none of the cloths are bigger than about 4'6" across). However, since I'm a DBMMer rather than a FOG player (DBMM uses 40mm or 60mm MUs, rather than inches) and my style tends to involve leaping my troops across the table to "have at thee" as quick as possible, maybe I just don't understand the issues enough.

When wargamers get complaints about the extra 3" it's usually our wives commenting on our waistlines.

Tim Child

Tim,

it's not 3", it's 6", because it's how far you have to move make LH (and to a lesser extent LF) flee of table or fight. On a 48 MU table, you start 10 MU in, and you usually get one double move before the enemy stop you marching. That means that, if you are MF you are then 30MU from the enemy baseline - this is 8 bounds: if you are HF then you will be 32 MU away, or 11 bounds.
The 54MU table makes the 30 a 36, adding one bound, and the 32 becomes a 38, adding 2. Bear in mind that against a shooty LH or Cv army you will be shot twice each bound, unless they evaded. So a HF unit will potentially face a further 3 tests, a MF unit a further 1.5 tests.

It is true that you don't have to actually reach the baseline, you have to be in charge reach, but the principle is the same. Suffice to say that if you haven't played against a skirmisher army under FoG it's hard to appreciate how futile it can seem at times. I believe that the other Tim does mention it a little on his site, though.


As for themes I would say keep the dragon theme, given that a lot of these armies don't really show up in open comps for one reason or another.

The same argument would suggest that Wolves/Oath might be a good idea.

Jon

[dave_r]

And by the same count, commiserations to Ian Mackay and Simon Clarke - the only two players using BPH armies to actually see their army broken all weekend

With the dice that Ian threw in that game, then it wouldn't have mattered if he had Knights charging Light Foot, he would still have lost. My commiserations to Ian Mackay, hopefully that game was a one off!

At least the fact that an 11 BG army won has stopped the moaners regarding swarm armies. Well played Mr Redhead.

I would go for an Eastern Campaign, however, if the Rise of Rome / Immortal Fire / Legions Triumphant is proving popular (and 35 players is a bloody good turnout) then logic states if it aint broke...

[Seluselus]

So here was I thinking that tactical naivety, a lack of knowledge of the rules, an army that manoeuvred like a stranded whale on Roker beach, a propensity to throw dice like a drongo at the most crucial moments and my total ineptitude as a General contributed to my shambolic performance at Warfare.

But No!!!!...the tables were three inches too wide...phew!!!

For one moment I thought it was my fault.

I will sleep a lot easier tonight. After all it's only a game....isn't it?

[TimChild]

I would go for an Eastern Campaign, however, if the Rise of Rome / Immortal Fire / Legions Triumphant is proving popular (and 35 players is a bloody good turnout) then logic states if it aint broke...

I quite agree about the popularity of the "Classical" theme. However, the question that is begged is whether all those players were keen to come to Warfare and it was just that they did have (access to) Classical armies but not EoD ones? And then whether another theme (e.g. Medieval) would be equally as accessible and provide a bit of variety for the annual trip to Reading?

Tim Child

[TimChild]

it's not 3", it's 6", because it's how far you have to move make LH (and to a lesser extent LF) flee of table or fight.
[snip]
It is true that you don't have to actually reach the baseline, you have to be in charge reach, but the principle is the same.

Ah - light dawns - FOG measures deployment distance from the baseline, not from the centre. Slipping an extra 6" in leads to a different joke...

Do your BGs have to achieve charge reach of the enemy base-line, or just to charge reach of an enemy unit that in turn will find it's evade move takes it off the baseline?

I'm no doubt being very naive, but is it not appropriate for the player who is endeavouring to push forward with infantry BGs to play his own bounds as fast as possible (the decision-making process to shove a wall of infantry forward can't be that complicated, so except where he's being threatened by the shooty-side's lancers (or whatever) he shouldn't have much thinking to do), thus getting more bounds into the time available? Somewhat counter-intuitively, I found that my results in DBM (and MM) improved as my playing-speed increased. Some of that may be due to the illusion of confidence that quick play gives.

Tim Child

[nikgaukroger]

The fixtures for Warfare 2011 are that we will once again be hosting 3 FOG:AM competitions - 2 x 15mm and 1 x 25mm, and next year an Open 15mm FOG:R competition.

What do people want to see for next year's FOG:AM themes?

2008 we had 15mm Rise, Legions, Immortal; 15mm Storm, Swords, Eternal; 25mm Rise, Legions, Immortal

2009 we had 15mm Swifter; 15mm Rise and Immortal; 25mm Wolves and Decline

2010, of course, was 15mm Rise, Legions, Immortal (again - and despite running it three years in a row it was clearly the most popular by entries); 15mm Dragons; 25mm Storm, Swords, Eternal (all three themes including the Lost Scrolls additions)

Would people like something a little different - something more akin to the old DBM themes rather than simply by books? E.g. we could set a 15mm Biblical theme, a 15mm Heavy Metal Thunder theme and a 25mm hairy barbarians theme?

I'm being asked to set themes for 2011 as early as possible, so that we can get it all advertised. Comments would be appreciated.

Tim Child

I'd move away from just using the books to decide the theme as they are really only a "get you started" guideline and are far from perfect. I'd suggest that you decide what sort of theme you want to run and then get somebody with a good idea of the lists and game to draw up a selection of armies that match it - that way you could, for example, have a "Dark Ages" theme that isn't actually mainly steppe type armies (as happened at Derby because it was a Wolves from the Sea theme).

I'm happy to draw up the list of armies if you decided to take that route.

[rbodleyscott]

I'd move away from just using the books to decide the theme as they are really only a "get you started" guideline and are far from perfect.

Agreed. The DBx list books were never designed as tournament themes, yet (sadly) they got used for most tournaments.

The FOG list books are designed to address the issue of "off the shelf" tournament themes to the extent that this is possible, but as Nik says, with a little thought and effort, more "bespoke" tournament themes can easily be created and would almost certainly be popular as long as they are not excessively narrow (and some leeway is allowed for morphing).

For example, there is clearly room for an "Ancients" theme excluding shooty cavalry armies, to represent the approximate type of opponents most western Ancient armies were designed to fight.

(The rules are not wrong in making it hard for such armies to defeat shooty cavalry armies - they had the same problems historically when they met them. But then again, most of them never did meet them historically, so a theme without them would be entirely reasonable.).

[david53]

I will sleep a lot easier tonight. After all it's only a game....isn't it?

You are talking about FOG here you know?

[david53]

I would go for an Eastern Campaign, however, if the Rise of Rome / Immortal Fire / Legions Triumphant is proving popular (and 35 players is a bloody good turnout) then logic states if it aint broke...

I quite agree about the popularity of the "Classical" theme. However, the question that is begged is whether all those players were keen to come to Warfare and it was just that they did have (access to) Classical armies but not EoD ones? And then whether another theme (e.g. Medieval) would be equally as accessible and provide a bit of variety for the annual trip to Reading?

Tim Child

The only trouble with medieval say is looking at other events you'd have a large number of Ottoman Armies and as you say loads of knights all well if you like that, not my cuppa. I travelled the 4 hours on the train because of the mix in the period a set up that would have you facing loads of Knights(since it is medieval) would't do it for me

But this is just my impression.