Fall-In 2011 FOGR Tournament

[Simpleton]

Renaissance Wargaming Society

We will be running two events for Fall-In using Field of Glory Renaissance rules.
New players welcome!

Friday
An 800 point 15mm Open* Tournament
* No armies from the Duty and Glory book allowed or lists that allow bayonets.
three rounds, 9am-12:30pm 1pm-4:30pm and 6pm-9:30pm
If players want to use a 25mm version of their army and the opponent also has 25mm figures, a 650 pt game may be played in lieu of the 15mm game.
1st round opponents will be historical match ups as far as possible.

Saturday
An 800 point 15mm Theme Tournament Clash of Empires 1500-1630
Allowed armies are any from the Clash of Empires book plus the Transylvanian Army from the Wars of Religion book
three rounds, 9am-12:30pm 1pm-4:30pm and 6pm-9:30pm
If players want to use a 25mm version of their army and the opponent also has 25mm figures, a 650 pt game may be played in lieu of the 15mm game.

Special Rules (both events): Any army which includes Swiss or Landsknects must deploy them as Keils to be in a legal formation unless playing a non-historical opponent who's army list
has more mounted bases than heavy and medium foot bases.

Questions? Contact Bob Nedwich at nedwich@aol.com

[Scrumpy]

How can it be an open tournament if there are restrictions placed on it ?

[footslogger]

Maybe we should consider it a demi-open?

Seems like armies with foot bowmen shouldn't be allowed either....

[Simpleton]

How can it be an open tournament if there are restrictions placed on it ?

Paul that is why there's a star. Late armies are better in a theme rather than in an open mixed with Italian Wars and other non Bayonet armies.

[footslogger]

How can it be an open tournament if there are restrictions placed on it ?

Paul that is why there's a star. Late armies are better in a theme rather than in an open mixed with Italian Wars and other non Bayonet armies.

How do you know? Why not eliminate the Italian Wars armies instead?

[Scrumpy]

How can it be an open tournament if there are restrictions placed on it ?

Paul that is why there's a star. Late armies are better in a theme rather than in an open mixed with Italian Wars and other non Bayonet armies.

Bob,

Is it fair to assume then that later armies will not be allowed in any open you host ?

Footslogger,

Going to guess Bob prefers to see the earlier armies in because of the variety, he knows people who use them and his personal preferences in the period too. That is his right as the host.

[Simpleton]

Bob,

Is it fair to assume then that later armies will not be allowed in any open you host ?

Footslogger,

Going to guess Bob prefers to see the earlier armies in because of the variety, he knows people who use them and his personal preferences in the period too. That is his right as the host.

The period the latter book covers is best described as Enlightenment rather than Renaissance and we are the Renaissance Wargaming Society. Sometimes we are described as Pike and Shot so either way these latter armies just don't fit in. They are fine for a Theme and they will have their own from time to time. However, if this period gets a strong following, there's nothing that prevents having multiple themes to accomodate their interest. Just don't expect to run 1690 Louis XIV French against 1515 Venetians.

[Scrumpy]

It is a bloody shame that we have 3 major tourney chances a year around this area, and the person running them unilaterly decides to ban one of the books due to his own beliefs.

I'll not bother thank you Bob, I wish you, the players & the tourneys well, but see no need to waste my time or money till the situation changes and the tourneys allow any army listed, and not just the ones you think qualify.

[Delbruck]

Bob,

Is it fair to assume then that later armies will not be allowed in any open you host ?

Footslogger,

Going to guess Bob prefers to see the earlier armies in because of the variety, he knows people who use them and his personal preferences in the period too. That is his right as the host.

The period the latter book covers is best described as Enlightenment rather than Renaissance and we are the Renaissance Wargaming Society. Sometimes we are described as Pike and Shot so either way these latter armies just don't fit in. They are fine for a Theme and they will have their own from time to time. However, if this period gets a strong following, there's nothing that prevents having multiple themes to accomodate their interest. Just don't expect to run 1690 Louis XIV French against 1515 Venetians.

I guess I should stop painting my 1690's Europeans and switch to Chinese. They are much more effective in any event, and will provide a good opponent for TYW Germans.

[Scrumpy]

How does it make anymore sense to have ECW or 30yw shooting up Italian wars armies than the 1660+ armies ?

[Niceas]

Bob,

Is it fair to assume then that later armies will not be allowed in any open you host ?

Footslogger,

Going to guess Bob prefers to see the earlier armies in because of the variety, he knows people who use them and his personal preferences in the period too. That is his right as the host.

The period the latter book covers is best described as Enlightenment rather than Renaissance and we are the Renaissance Wargaming Society. Sometimes we are described as Pike and Shot so either way these latter armies just don't fit in. They are fine for a Theme and they will have their own from time to time. However, if this period gets a strong following, there's nothing that prevents having multiple themes to accomodate their interest. Just don't expect to run 1690 Louis XIV French against 1515 Venetians.

I guess I should stop painting my 1690's Europeans and switch to Chinese. They are much more effective in any event, and will provide a good opponent for TYW Germans.

Having played against said Qing Chinese (twice!) at Historicon, once with a 1690's Later German army (got shot off the board) and a very early 1500's Venetian army (also got shot off the board), I'm thinking Chinese is the way to go.

Also, having played the above 1690's army against TYW Swedes and Later TYW Germans, (and losing both times, getting shot off the board repeatedly--I might just suck, but I'm thinking that this fear of bayonets is misplaced.

[Delbruck]

Having played against said Qing Chinese (twice!) at Historicon, once with a 1690's Later German army (got shot off the board) and a very early 1500's Venetian army (also got shot off the board), I'm thinking Chinese is the way to go.

I think FogR tournaments would do best sticking with the three Euro-centric books. The way to avoid imbalance is to prohibit the two colonial books, which to some people produce results closer to fantasy.

[Simpleton]

It is a bloody shame that we have 3 major tourney chances a year around this area, and the person running them unilaterly decides to ban one of the books due to his own beliefs.

I'll not bother thank you Bob, I wish you, the players & the tourneys well, but see no need to waste my time or money till the situation changes and the tourneys allow any army listed, and not just the ones you think qualify.

Running a tournament is not always fair, If every list is possible, the folks with the earlier lists complain the game is unbalanced and they don't want to come, if I restrict the later lists, the folks who like the bayonet armies are being discriminated against. Steve Roper and I ran the DBR tournaments from 1999-2009 and we found that as the years went by the people who wanted to "play" in the tournaments brought their favorite army, however, those who wanted to win the tournament migrated to the last decade allowed (except steve roper who could win games with mobs he was that good). So until someone can demonstrate to me that the bayonet armies will lose consistently to the early armies 50% of the time (with equally experienced players), I will put them in a theme.

And if you have some friends who want to use these armies every convention, just let me know. I will get you tables and you can run your late Europeans all you want.

Lets start with Fall-In, I can still get another theme in the program. Are you willing to run a Late Theme at Fall In? let me know asap so it can be written up.

[Scrumpy]

So Bob, you are basing your tourney on an obselete set of rules ?

Have you even seen a bayonet armed army in action ? The dreaded bayonet does little against foot, as for your idea of staging a late tourney independent of yours, lets fragment the player base even more !

[madaxeman]

So Bob, you are basing your tourney on an obselete set of rules ?

Have you even seen a bayonet armed army in action ? The dreaded bayonet does little against foot, as for your idea of staging a late tourney independent of yours, lets fragment the player base even more !

I'll be posting some Britcon match reports to demonstrate that Bayonet armies lose 4 out of 6 quite soon....!!

Seriously, I don't think the later armies are so overpowered that early armies are non viable - see my reports from Usk this year where we used an early army in an open comp. There is maybe a vague case for an "arquebus" period and a "musket" period, but that's about it - Bayonets or not is not the key distinction.

Also in many cases the Early mounted is better than that on offer in later armies. This is especially true for most "bayonet" armies who have the major handicap of only being allowed Average horse (in units of 4).

[hazelbark]

Just a few observations.

1) I am falling into the category that the later period armies are not the uber-armies people think. They have a few weaknesses ironically I suspect more so to pre-musket armies.
2) I would suggest the organizer canvass players more broadly. For instance the at Historicon when other put on a thursday FoG R event it created a lot of excitement for FOG R and that carried over both to over events. (People swtiched from Friday ancients theme to Friday FoGR).
3) I do agree however there is a perception of massive advantages with later armies. Regardless of reality that is perception until disproved. Part of it is people don't know how to fight the late period armies.

I do suspect if a standard TYW army approches a standard late period army and just tries to out shoot them without being clever or trying to win the mounted wing first then its bad for the TYW.

[hazelbark]

PS My arquebues Hugenots held up quite well versus ECW royalists with loads of muskets.

PPS I suspect the mid 16th century armies may have mutliple good counters to the late period armies.

PPPS I am not certain massed elephants will do other than explode vs late period armies.

[Scrumpy]

The other thing the D&G ban does is stop people from using armies such as Later Polish & Russian that are comatible with the ECW & later 30 yw periods.

[Niceas]

Just a few observations.

1) I am falling into the category that the later period armies are not the uber-armies people think. They have a few weaknesses ironically I suspect more so to pre-musket armies.
2) I would suggest the organizer canvass players more broadly. For instance the at Historicon when other put on a thursday FoG R event it created a lot of excitement for FOG R and that carried over both to over events. (People swtiched from Friday ancients theme to Friday FoGR).
3) I do agree however there is a perception of massive advantages with later armies. Regardless of reality that is perception until disproved. Part of it is people don't know how to fight the late period armies.

I do suspect if a standard TYW army approches a standard late period army and just tries to out shoot them without being clever or trying to win the mounted wing first then its bad for the TYW.

Exactly so. I fought Bob Rioux's later TYW Catholic, and my cavalry (as Madmaxman notes) being in average in 4 stand units, got trashed by superior cavalry. The fire fights were a lot closer than you'd think, since Bob had regimental guns, and I did not. At long range he threw the same number of dice, and at short range, was only 1 down. I don't think I ever actually closed with any of his infantry with my infantry. I'm pretty sure I did bounce one of his determined horse units with a unit of bayonet armed infantry, but that's pretty much the same as throwing horse at a pike and shot unit.

[Simpleton]

Just a few observations.

1) I am falling into the category that the later period armies are not the uber-armies people think. They have a few weaknesses ironically I suspect more so to pre-musket armies.
2) I would suggest the organizer canvass players more broadly. For instance the at Historicon when other put on a thursday FoG R event it created a lot of excitement for FOG R and that carried over both to over events. (People swtiched from Friday ancients theme to Friday FoGR).
3) I do agree however there is a perception of massive advantages with later armies. Regardless of reality that is perception until disproved. Part of it is people don't know how to fight the late period armies.

I do suspect if a standard TYW army approches a standard late period army and just tries to out shoot them without being clever or trying to win the mounted wing first then its bad for the TYW.

Since Dan is interested in convincing me rather than attacking me, we will try an open open, however, I have my doubts.