IWF 2011 - New Zealand

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:21 pm

Is there not a stickied thingy for this tournament?

I have been to the website http://www.iwf2011.org website and I admit it is probably me being thick - but where is the actual venue?

Where is everybody else staying? Seems to be a lot of choice out there!

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:32 pm

Dave, they are waiting for you to announce where you have booked... as you know 'Dave is Wrong' so might apply to hotels as much as rules...

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:18 pm

Mich and I are booked into the Ibis.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:41 pm

Is the Ibis the venue?

Tim is obviously just jealous.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:44 pm

dave_r wrote:Is the Ibis the venue?

No, the venue is a building near the harbour. The Ibis is one block away, at least that is what it says on the site under Wellington and Hospitality.

davidandlynda · Post by **davidandlynda** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:07 pm

And they've probably got a room as Lynda and I have now cancelled

David

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:48 am

Check out this website for the latest on the Worlds: http://theiwf.wordpress.com/

Most of the army lists have now been submitted and checked (with a handful of laggards) and Runners and Rider lists are starting to be posted.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:35 am

DBR, DBM and FoG R&R now available here:

http://theiwf.wordpress.com/

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:47 am

Best of luck to the UK contingent!!

And to Dan!!

And to the guy using Ottomans!

Hope it goes well!

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:33 am

Looking at the field I fear a top 3 of Drummond, Evans and Ruddock. Will Shaun be able to take home advantage? Will Graham avoid too many inconclusive games? Will Ruddock ever be move beyond the bridesmaid status?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:36 am

Looking at the field I fear a top 3 of Drummond, Evans and Ruddock.

You do Mr Hamilton a dis-service surely?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:44 am

petedalby wrote:
Looking at the field I fear a top 3 of Drummond, Evans and Ruddock.
You do Mr Hamilton a dis-service surely?

I was talking about who was going to be in the top 3 Pete, not top 33.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:49 am

I was talking about who was going to be in the top 3 Pete, not top 33.

Very harsh! I think he'll do quite well.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:09 pm

petedalby wrote:
I was talking about who was going to be in the top 3 Pete, not top 33.
Very harsh! I think he'll do quite well.

Well he won't finish 34th out of 34. Probably.

OK then, since I have no interest in this, other than ridiculing the failure of other MAWS members, my predictions for top 5 are:

1 Graham Evans
2 Shaun Drummond
3 Dave Ruddock
4 Mark Holland
5 Begrudgingly, Hammy

All depending upon when and if they meet each other.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:48 pm

WIC 2011 Runners & Riders – the List Checker Comments

Having seen all the lists here are some entirely biased comments on the offerings.

Aaron Nicoll (NZ) Bosporan (Dominate) AD 300 – IMO there are some pitfalls in the Bosporan list, and this army has fallen into some of them but should still do OK.

Ross Dawe (AUS) Bosporan AD 160 – whilst not identical, has the same issues as above IMO.

Steve Hodgson (NZ) Alexandrian Macedonian BC 326 – useful army, but like a lot of the Makedonian style armies can suffer against horse-boy outfits.

Dan Hazelwood (USA) XiaXia AD 1207 – a much better list than his dodgy American Team Championship choice, should finish in the top 1/3 quite easily.

Ian Sharp (AUS) Later Seleucid BC 166-124 – solid, but will have the usual issues against horse-boy armies.

Michael Haycock (NZ) Three Kingdoms Korea (Shilla) – one I’m interested to see how it does, however, I fear it may not be good.

Dave Ruddock (UK) Bosporan BC 108 – good list and, much as it pains me, my tip for the top.

Steve Murton (UK) Catalan Company AD 1380 – one of those lists I’ve never yet seen a version of I like, however, in theory should do OK.

Shaun Drummond (NZ) Later Serbian AD 1390 – good list, good player, top 3 finish.

Mitchell Ortuondo (AUS) Pontic BC 90 – can be a real mixed bag of troop types, but also can deal with horse-boys better than many Hellenistics; however, I don’t like the list picked.

Aleksander Misic (AUS) Later Serbian AD 1345 – a direct army, but can’t help feeling there is a Meerkat connection here ...

Murray Evans (AUS) Arab Conquest AD 638 – a list I find can do well, but can be unable to finish people off at times.

Paul Rattray (AUS) Later Ottoman Turk AD 1450 – hard to go wrong with drawing up this list, but needs real skill to do well with; has the boy Rattray got the form?

Craig Byron (NZ) Post Latin Conquest Byzantine AD 1250 – not a bad list, could do well.

Mike Gray (AUS) Middle Assyrian BC 889 – not going to do well I’m afraid.

Andre Evers (NZ) Saka after BC 250 – will have trouble finishing off some opponents, otherwise solid choice.

Kerry Docherty (NZ) Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian AD 1483 – a morally bankrupt army that needs a good player to drive it, otherwise will draw a lot.

Ian Doel (NZ) Carolingian Frankish AD 814 – the list is better than I thought it was at first glance, but has some weaknesses that need to be defended.

Gordon Pinchin (NZ) Principate Roman AD 265 – an army list with a plan, has Gordon the skill to carry it off?

Graham Evans (UK) Dominate Roman AD 390 – predictably dull choice from the current champion; whilst the army is starting to perform less well at home where players are getting used to it, I’d expect it to do well in this comp – top 3 finish.

Richard Stacey (NZ) Early Northern African Dynasties AD 827 – has the potential to surprise.

Gary Coughlan (AUS) Gallic (Iberian) BC 150 – sorry Gary, it looks like a victim to me.

Leigh Dunn (AUS) Later Sicilian AD 1236 – could surprise.

George Galloway (AUS) Viking AD 866 – good, solid Viking outfit, not my cup of tea at all.

James Hamilton (UK) Early Hungarian AD 1237 – good list that will only be held back if Hammy isn’t aggressive enough, top 5 finish.

Mark Holland (NZ) Later Serbian Empire AD 1399 – good list, should do well.

Peter Hood (NZ) Foederate Roman AD 450 – could do well if handled well, if not will be in the lower 1/3 of the table.

Glen Noonan AUS – nothing listed but will make no difference what he takes ...

Josh Gardner (NZ) Aztecs AD 1376 – if Josh has the skill it can do well, if not ...

Richard Woolford (NZ) Ancient British BC 54 – an army that can do well if used unconventionally, not quite sure this is set up to do that but has potential.

Brett Kvisle (AUS) Later Macedonian BC 205 – solid army but will have trouble with horse-boy armies.

Richard Stubbs (AUS) Medieval Irish AD 1415 – different, alas I think it has serious flaws.

Anthony Winter (AUS) Latin Greek AD 1310 – so, so list.

Daryl Jones (NZ) Ilkhanid Mongol AD 1260-1308 – IMO an army list that promises more than it delivers, and I find this version to be just that.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:03 pm

Note his serious predictions here. Does Nik has a crystal ball or a sno-globe?

nikgaukroger wrote:WIC 2011 Runners & Riders – the List Checker Comments

Dave Ruddock (UK) Bosporan BC 108 – my tip for the top.

Dan Hazelwood (USA) XiaXia AD 1207 – should finish in the top 1/3

Graham Evans (UK) Dominate Roman AD 390 – top 3 finish.

James Hamilton (UK) Early Hungarian AD 1237 – top 5 finish.

So according to Nik, only 1 non-GB player will be in top 3 and two in top 5. Given the utter disaster of the redcoats at Lisbon, a lot is riding on this outcome. A failure to hold these predictions surely must require the BHGS banning these players from using these armies every again.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:17 pm

But he reckons you will come about 11th Dan

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:18 pm

philqw78 wrote:But he reckons you will come about 11th Dan

Dan has to over-achieve once in his life

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:19 pm

Why? Its much more reliable to underachieve.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:22 pm

hazelbark wrote:Why? Its much more reliable to underachieve.

Dan, you are very reliable