The Rally Point

[voskarp]

I like the 250 point format, but I'm not a big fan of mirror matches.

[voskarp]

Limited number of armies (historically likely matches, like in the HMA), YES. A new army for every game, NO.

[stockwellpete]

Kilroy has provided a slightly modified version of Taginae for us to use in the tournament. I have put a paired game on the system, password is "test". Please help yourself.

[zumHeuriger]

I like the idea, but I think this would need mirror matches

[stockwellpete]

I like the idea, but I think this would need mirror matches

I take your point, Tom. Maybe this idea would work best in the themed event?

[Okie]

It seems to me that we should play both sides each time if we do this.?
Wouldn't that be a better way to gage the winner? Because one side will sometimes be better then the other.
If not I will vote no. Okie

[Okie]

From my perspective, I've USUALLY found that in same army battles the computer picks one side to be better then the other rather then it being so close you can't call it till it's over! I vote no on this one! Okie

[Okie]

I'm with Voskarp on this one! Okie

[Okie]

I thinks so also. Okie

[Okie]

I don't think anything smaller then 400 points let's you utilize the full potential of you armies. I'll vote no here.

[stockwellpete]

It seems to me that we should play both sides each time if we do this.?
Wouldn't that be a better way to gage the winner? Because one side will sometimes be better then the other.
If not I will vote no. Okie

I don't think paired games are essential with this format. The armies will probably offer a much fairer match-up than some of the ahistorical match-ups that occur now. Players will only be subject to the 50/10 rule and will be otherwise able to pick what they like. The armies will be allocated to players by a random draw made right at the start of the tournament.

[Londo]

I voted yes in Polls 1 through 5, but no here. Two reasons ...

(1) The army lists are not standardised. Some have considerable flexibility, others have very little. Going down to 250 points would really advantage the flexible ones.

(2) The lower you take the point allowance, the greater the role of luck in the game. And luck plays too much of a role already in FOG, in my opinion.

Actually, I'd like to see the opposite of this proposal - big games! Say 750 or 800 points. Heck, 1000 points would be fine, except that some armies literally can't make 1000 points even if they take every single unit on their list.

[Cunningcairn]

I like Londo's proposal of larger armies. 1000 points in the Classical period especially.
rgrds
Martin

[Okie]

I'm a big fan of 1000 pt. armies as many players here can atest to but anything bigger then 600 pts. severly limits movment and gives the edge of the world feel to the map that would limit tournament play I think. Okie

[paulmcneil]

For me a 500 pt army seems ideal

[voskarp]

For me a 500 pt army seems ideal

I agree. But it's fun to play smaller size games once in a while.

[stockwellpete]

400pts was chosen for FOGDL for two main reasons at the very beginning - firstly because the previous big competition, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (LOEG), had used 500pts and we (me and Turk1964) wanted our competition to be a bit different, and secondly because it had been explained to us that at 400pts armies were generally more historically realistic than at any other size. Subsequently, a third good reason for using 400pts became apparent when we started to reduce the playing season down from 13 weeks to 10 so that there was room for other competitions to have space in the calendar. At 400pts we could still fit all the matches into a shorter schedule.

The idea for 250pts is just basically to offer something a bit different from time to time - and with small armies it means the matches will usually turn around a bit more quickly maybe allowing us to vary the schedule a little bit. We shall have to see but the polling on this idea is running at about 50/50 which means that in a normal FOGDL season there will be 30+ players out of the 75-80 that usually enter the competition who will be interested in the minis. That will be enough for 3 divisions of 10 or two pools of 16 to make it viable as part of the tournament.

This poll will close on Sunday 7th December.

[stockwellpete]

This poll will close on Sunday 7th December.

[stockwellpete]

From my perspective, I've USUALLY found that in same army battles the computer picks one side to be better then the other rather then it being so close you can't call it till it's over! I vote no on this one! Okie

I think this would be an interesting competition because it would test two basic things - a player's knowledge of a range of armies in a certain period and their ability to pick their units efficiently. I think there would be some interesting choices around the type and number of leader units and around the choice of allies (or not).

[stockwellpete]

This poll will close on Sunday 7th December.