Lets play with more toys!

[nikgaukroger]

To pick up a comment in one of the rules topics and following a chat about it last night over a game with Tim "Madaxeman" Porter.

Would we be better off playing with 900 points for singles games instead of the current norm of 800 points?

[philqw78]

Ooooh! 22 BG Dominates. There would be a challenge. Or combine this with a points cost for BG of 5 points per BG in your army. Then you'd still only get 19. Big less manouverable BG would cost relatively less, but is this an improvement?

[ethan]

The question for me is would the game take longer or fail to reach a conclusion more often?

[philqw78]

Or play 800pts on a smaller table for a quicker game where the LH can't escape

[nikgaukroger]

Ooooh! 22 BG Dominates. There would be a challenge.

Its less effective at higher points so the challenge moves to the user not the opponent

[nikgaukroger]

The question for me is would the game take longer or fail to reach a conclusion more often?

And then leads onto whether this would make the games less enjoyable - enjoyment being the reason we play. Of course previous (interminable) discussions on this for DBM show that this can depend on which country you are playing in

FWIW now I've got into the swing of FoG I've found that in terms of number of games reaching a conclusion I haven't had that much difference between 800 points and 1000 points At each point level there are diufferent reasons why a game may not finish but the percentage feels about the same (not having actually done any assessment of this in my games).

[nikgaukroger]

Or play 800pts on a smaller table for a quicker game where the LH can't escape

I instinctively prefer more toys to less room

[Ninthplain]

We have played 1000 point games on a 4 x 6 table and still finish in 3 hours. It is a great way to use most of your painted figs and possibly an ally that you normally wouldn't use.

It was a lot of fun and that amount of figs lined up looks great.

Ninth

[grahambriggs]

To pick up a comment in one of the rules topics and following a chat about it last night over a game with Tim "Madaxeman" Porter.

Would we be better off playing with 900 points for singles games instead of the current norm of 800 points?

There's a problem in that the many people won't have the figures. 800 points is a tad more figures than 400 DBM points as it is. some people have just got the 650 point starter armies.

I believe the root of the issue is that many troops form 2 or more bases deep, sometimes with another 2 ranks of LF out front too. So the armies often end up quite narrow. This tends to make for a few more wheely, turny battles in my opinion. I'd rather see a more 'head to head' style but with enough manover room on the flanks to have an impact.

It seems to me to boil down to how many points you have vs what width the table is. 1000 points on a 6 foot table might feel the same as 800 on a 5 foot table.

[daleivan]

There's a problem in that the many people won't have the figures. 800 points is a tad more figures than 400 DBM points as it is. some people have just got the 650 point starter armies.

I believe the root of the issue is that many troops form 2 or more bases deep, sometimes with another 2 ranks of LF out front too. So the armies often end up quite narrow. This tends to make for a few more wheely, turny battles in my opinion. I'd rather see a more 'head to head' style but with enough manover room on the flanks to have an impact.

It seems to me to boil down to how many points you have vs what width the table is. 1000 points on a 6 foot table might feel the same as 800 on a 5 foot table.

Table width strikes me as the essential element in determining how playable armies are at a certain point level -- I've had some very enjoyable 15mm FoG battles at 650 points on a 4 by 3 foot table, likewise at 800 points on 5 by 3.

I freely admit to liking a more head-to-head style

Dale

[petedalby]

I and I'm sure many others have proposed this.

When 7th first came out, 1150 or 1200 points was the competition norm. As players' confidence and ability grew the points, IIRC, rose to 1500 and then 1600.

Ideally we need a competition organiser to offer it as an option for at least one period to check out demand?

But as Graham notes, many of us might struggle to find the extra toys - but I think it would be fun.

Pete

[Probert]

If it is not a competition game, and just for fun, a mega game on a huge table would be right up my alley.

[rbodleyscott]

Would we be better off playing with 900 points for singles games instead of the current norm of 800 points?

No. More games would time out.

[mellis1644]

Or play 800pts on a smaller table for a quicker game where the LH can't escape

More time would be an another option.

To me that's different than having more lead on the table for looks or feel.

It's this more an issue of mismatched armies as well. After all no one would expect early Saxons (all heavy foot) be effective against an Light horse army. Some armies match ups - especially unhistorical ones are always going to be difficult to come to a conclusion.

[nikgaukroger]

It'll be interesting to see how 900 works this weekend.

[Spartacus]

Not yet played a FOG game but have an opinion on this.

On a personal note I would always prefer more troops on the table it makes for a far more aesthetically pleasing result.

Games will take a long time which would be a problem for tourneys.

By upping the points for a tourney you would be limiting it`s combatants.

I just like the idea that is in our small group we do an 800 pointer then your opponent does not know the exact composition of your army.

In a larger game your LC can ending running around in circles if the table size increase.

You would have to do things to the deployment and maybe move/range distances to use larger Armies/Tables and get through a game in an afternoon.

So from somebody who really loves large Armies and tables I vote an absolute no for not changing tourney rules.

You would also have everyone changing their Armies and as I am currently going through that I can tell you it is a nightmare.

That`s my 2 groats worth.

Terry

[dave_r]

We have been playing at 900 points at the Northern Doubles all this year - has worked very well IMO. Doubles helps of course. Wouldn't like to see some armies on the table at 900 points if singles.

[nikgaukroger]

Not yet played a FOG game but have an opinion on this.

On a personal note I would always prefer more troops on the table it makes for a far more aesthetically pleasing result.

Games will take a long time which would be a problem for tourneys.

By upping the points for a tourney you would be limiting it`s combatants.

I just like the idea that is in our small group we do an 800 pointer then your opponent does not know the exact composition of your army.

In a larger game your LC can ending running around in circles if the table size increase.

You would have to do things to the deployment and maybe move/range distances to use larger Armies/Tables and get through a game in an afternoon.

Well as it is already perfectly possible to get through a 1000 point game in the same time as an 800 point one I don't see 900 being more of a problem.

So from somebody who really loves large Armies and tables I vote an absolute no for not changing tourney rules.

Oh bugger - doubles has been changed this year from last ...

[nikgaukroger]

We have been playing at 900 points at the Northern Doubles all this year - has worked very well IMO. Doubles helps of course.

Usually helps slow things down - seen that from way too many teams I've played

[paulcummins]

I would be up for 900pts in tournaments - get to play with more of the cool toys then