IF Drilled MF really are unbalanced killers, a way to fix

[hazelbark]

Try any army with a large number of BGs in relation to its enemy and unless the large number of BG's player takes risks or plays very badly, they are much harder (dare I say impossible) to beat in a standard 3.5hrs including set up. They may not always win big, but they should usually get at least winning draws, simply by trading BGs to expose flanks..............no other combination of troops gives this advantage or option against all other armies.

I have in nearly all my games been playing with fewer BGs than my foes and to be honest have not worried about the issue you raise.

Speed of play both mine and my opponents matter more for the time limit games.

[chubooga]

ooop, may not have explained myself very well there........... written word etc etc

armies with Bgs in excess of 18 whould find themselves hard to beat in a tourney environment....... eg approx 3.5hrs per game. there will be exceptions, there always are, but in general I felt it accurate in august and nothing has happened to change my views since then.

jon

[hammy]

I am going to be using a lots of BG Roman army at Burton and after using a sensible Byzantine army at Usk I wll do my best to compare them.

I know that at Usk (a 900 point doubles comp) one team had a 9 BG Sassanid and didn't place that badly.

Large BGs are on a lot of occasions very good. I would almost always take my light foot as three BGs of 8 rather than 4 of 6 or if allowed 6 of 4. In all our games over the weekend whenever we faced armies with average skirmishers in 4s as soon as we got a bit lucky and took a base of a BG it had to be pulled out of the battle as another base loss meant it would rout.

BGs of 4 are all well and good but they are very fragile if they are average.

[rbodleyscott]

I have in nearly all my games been playing with fewer BGs than my foes and to be honest have not worried about the issue you raise.

Likewise.

[rbodleyscott]

armies with Bgs in excess of 18 whould find themselves hard to beat in a tourney environment....... eg approx 3.5hrs per game. there will be exceptions, there always are, but in general I felt it accurate in august and nothing has happened to change my views since then.

This could be an argument for removing the 5 point bonus for army defeat rather than any change to the rules. Then points would be entirely dependent on the proportion of BGs lost, which ought to remove the above issue. The remaining issue would be the manoeuvrability of certain types of swarm army vs non-swarm armies, but that is more of a tactical trade-off, and depends on particular troop-types as much as raw number of BGs.

[hazelbark]

This could be an argument for removing the 5 point bonus for army defeat rather than any change to the rules. Then points would be entirely dependent on the proportion of BGs lost, which ought to remove the above issue. The remaining issue would be the manoeuvrability of certain types of swarm army vs non-swarm armies, but that is more of a tactical trade-off, and depends on particular troop-types as much as raw number of BGs.

I know you are rushing into anything here. But the other factor that has to be considered is time in relation to the five point bonus issue.

[stevoid]

armies with Bgs in excess of 18 whould find themselves hard to beat in a tourney environment....... eg approx 3.5hrs per game. there will be exceptions, there always are, but in general I felt it accurate in august and nothing has happened to change my views since then.

This could be an argument for removing the 5 point bonus for army defeat rather than any change to the rules. Then points would be entirely dependent on the proportion of BGs lost, which ought to remove the above issue. The remaining issue would be the manoeuvrability of certain types of swarm army vs non-swarm armies, but that is more of a tactical trade-off, and depends on particular troop-types as much as raw number of BGs.

But then you exacerbate the points differential that occurs when a large BG army exchanges BGs with a smaller army, i.e. they gain from the draw as well as being hard to break! Another view would be to increase the win bonus so that min-maxed armies suffer when people shut up shop and play for a draw against them; if you take an army that it near impossible to beat, then don't be surprised that some opponents refuse to make it easy for you...

The consensus in NZ is that if you want to be competitive in a competition that you are taking seriously, 16 BGs is a mininum; I know of good players toying with lists of 20+ BGs where the current scoring system is used.

The large BG advantage increases when it is employed by a mobile army that can evade off table to mitigate losses.

That said, it is probably too early to make any changes till more lists are in play and a definite trend is established. The problem is not that certain armies or configurations are instant winners, it is that that good (competitive) players exploit any perceived advantages in the scoring system for tournament play. while there is nothing inherently wrong with this (army design has been an integral and enjoyable aspect of ancients since Homer), it may lead to stereotyped play at conventions where players who take otherwise good or balanced armies feel a bit jaded.

Cheers,

Steve

[chubooga]

I am with stevoid on this one!

my own view, with TBH, not a lot of thought but just going on gut feel.............


most of the armies most of the players put together were around 12-15bgs's at 800pts.......... so, limit armies to no more than 15bgs at 800pts

Though my other gut feel, is that the sorts of players that push lists/rules to gain advantage will look for any loophole in any system implemented............not saying theyre wrong for doing it, just saying they will do it

jon

[rbodleyscott]

But then you exacerbate the points differential that occurs when a large BG army exchanges BGs with a smaller army, i.e. they gain from the draw as well as being hard to break!

You are presupposing that an army with large numbers of BG is in fact able to trade BGs one for one with the army with a smaller number of BGs. This is unlikely to be the case. It certainly isn't likely to be the case simply because one army has more BGs.

Example:

A BG of 8 Superior legionaries with a commander fighting in the front rank, fights 2 BGs of 4 Superior legionaries with a commander in the front rank of one of them.

How many BGs will the losing side lose in each case? Which side is statistically more likely to win?

If the 2 BGs of 4 manage to hit the BG of 8 in front and flank, then of course they are likely to win. However, in order for this to happen the player with the 8 has to be playing worse than the other guy. If the guy with 2 BGs attempts to achieve it and fails, he simply has one of his BGs run over by the larger enemy BG which then turns and trounces the other.

The game is about skill, not about having more BGs than the enemy, and certainly not about manipulating the score sheet by having more BGs than the enemy.

Some skillful players like armies with large numbers of BGs because that allows them the maximum opportunity to exercise that skill. That does not mean that those armies are a good bet for less skilled players, nor does it mean that a victory with such an army requires less skill than a victory with an army with fewer, stronger BGs - it may in fact require more.

The Sassanid army with 9 BGs in 900 points came 5th out of 20 armies in the Rise and Fall of Rome section at Godendag. Its owners will (I hope) forgive me for saying that they are not exactly tournament tigers, yet they did well with the army - in spite of, or possibly because of, their smaller number of (powerful) BGs.

[lawrenceg]

I am with stevoid on this one!

my own view, with TBH, not a lot of thought but just going on gut feel.............


most of the armies most of the players put together were around 12-15bgs's at 800pts.......... so, limit armies to no more than 15bgs at 800pts

Though my other gut feel, is that the sorts of players that push lists/rules to gain advantage will look for any loophole in any system implemented............not saying theyre wrong for doing it, just saying they will do it

jon

If most players used 12-15 BGs then clearly most players do not feel that they need 16+ BGs for the army to be viable.

[stevoid]

But then you exacerbate the points differential that occurs when a large BG army exchanges BGs with a smaller army, i.e. they gain from the draw as well as being hard to break!

You are presupposing that an army with large numbers of BG is in fact able to trade BGs one for one with the army with a smaller number of BGs. This is unlikely to be the case. It certainly isn't likely to be the case simply because one army has more BGs.

Example:

A BG of 8 Superior legionaries with a commander fighting in the front rank, fights 2 BGs of 4 Superior legionaries with a commander in the front rank of one of them.

How many BGs will the losing side lose in each case? Which side is statistically more likely to win? In the frontal fight the 8 is more likely to win because all of its dice get the enhanced reroll.

If the 2 BGs of 4 manage to hit the 8 BG in front and flank, then of course they are likely to win. However, in order for this to happen the player with the 8 has to be playing worse than the other guy. If the guy with 2 BGs attempts to achieve it and fails, he simply has one of his BGs run over by the larger enemy BG which then turns and trounces the other.

The game is about skill, not about having more BGs than the enemy, and certainly not all about manipulating the score sheet by having more BGs than the enemy.

You're absolutely right with your example. However, I'm looking at the asymetrical situations that a good player with a high BG army will engineer. Good players don't get sucked into even 50-50ish fights.

I don't think there is any conclusive evidence yet I think that we will see more and more open tournaments (and some themed) dominated by good players with high BG armies. The key difference is of course the 'good player' factor but, ceteris paribus, the high BG configurations will be the army of choice.

The problem I see is that while other good players with balanced/average sized armies will be able to counter and foot it with the good players with the high BG armies, their final scores in tournaments will be compromised by the differemtial scoring system, i.e. they will lose more points comparatively when they draw or beat other armies.

Of course this is just my opinion based on the scene in NZ to date. I'm watching the results of other countries and tournaments with interest. At the end of the day, everyone knows the system in play and it is up to them to plan accordingly. I've won two tournaments with 12 BG armies and 2 with 16s Other winners have had 16, 19, and 20 from memory. Good players have finished 2nd-3rd with 12-14 BGs so smaller armies are by no means out of the picture, they just have to work harder.

Cheers,

Steve

[stevoid]

I am with stevoid on this one!

my own view, with TBH, not a lot of thought but just going on gut feel.............


most of the armies most of the players put together were around 12-15bgs's at 800pts.......... so, limit armies to no more than 15bgs at 800pts

Though my other gut feel, is that the sorts of players that push lists/rules to gain advantage will look for any loophole in any system implemented............not saying theyre wrong for doing it, just saying they will do it

jon

If most players used 12-15 BGs then clearly most players do not feel that they need 16+ BGs for the army to be viable.

Or, they are just not as far along the (competitive) learning curve

Cheers,

Steve

[nikgaukroger]

Or, they are just not as far along the (competitive) learning curve

Cheers,

Steve

LOL - and we know what happend to the last lot that claimed they were ahead of the curve

[nikgaukroger]

I

Though my other gut feel, is that the sorts of players that push lists/rules to gain advantage will look for any loophole in any system implemented............not saying theyre wrong for doing it, just saying they will do it

jon

Not just a gut feel I suggest but a fact

[shall]

You're absolutely right with your example. However, I'm looking at the asymetrical situations that a good player with a high BG army will engineer. Good players don't get sucked into even 50-50ish fights.

I don't think there is any conclusive evidence yet I think that we will see more and more open tournaments (and some themed) dominated by good players with high BG armies. The key difference is of course the 'good player' factor but, ceteris paribus, the high BG configurations will be the army of choice.

The problem I see is that while other good players with balanced/average sized armies will be able to counter and foot it with the good players with the high BG armies, their final scores in tournaments will be compromised by the differemtial scoring system, i.e. they will lose more points comparatively when they draw or beat other armies.

Of course this is just my opinion based on the scene in NZ to date. I'm watching the results of other countries and tournaments with interest. At the end of the day, everyone knows the system in play and it is up to them to plan accordingly. I've won two tournaments with 12 BG armies and 2 with 16s Other winners have had 16, 19, and 20 from memory. Good players have finished 2nd-3rd with 12-14 BGs so smaller armies are by no means out of the picture, they just have to work harder.

Cheers,

Steve

Whatever system we have the better players, if they want to win, will keep pace with the latest army desing theories. FWIW I am not going to get too excited about it unless people all start down a similar path and we end up with 4 or 5 killer armies. I don't think we are quite at that stage yet.

The scoring system has changed things a bit I suspect. It means it is more important to take the +5 bonus from disparate games and less important to be able to beat another top player in a head-to-head. Again evolution is best left alone for a bit an then we can always tweak things to respice things up a bit if needs be.

Si

[ars_belli]

Whatever system we have the better players, if they want to win, will keep pace with the latest army desing theories. FWIW I am not going to get too excited about it unless people all start down a similar path and we end up with 4 or 5 killer armies. I don't think we are quite at that stage yet.

The scoring system has changed things a bit I suspect. It means it is more important to take the +5 bonus from disparate games and less important to be able to beat another top player in a head-to-head. Again evolution is best left alone for a bit an then we can always tweak things to respice things up a bit if needs be.

If this is true it would follow that, if any changes are necessary, they should be to the tournament scoring system, and not to the rules themselves. Especially so if players are noting these sorts of 'problems' only in tournaments, but not in scenario play.

Cheers,
Scott

[Lycanthropic]

Keep telling yourself the reason you lost is all those dice rolls were 1's.
Lady luck is an evil wench, and your opponent is not a better player...but a cheat, who engineers exploitative army lists of overpowered and underpriced troops in a way that you didn't think of. And lets face it, if you didn't think of it, and can't adjust, then the rules must be rewritten.
Or better yet, lets change the tournament scoring system because clearly something is wrong when the same players who won previously....are still winning.

[recharge]

I would think for tournament play the organizer can make whatever rules they want

Limit BG's, fix terrain, etc. Obviously the more restrictions, the less players may show up; but if you attend a totally open tourney then you better bring a tourney army if you want to be competitive. Any army you have a fair amount of experience with is probably going to fare much better than a special army that you put together just for the tourney.

My $.02

John

[hammy]

Or better yet, lets change the tournament scoring system because clearly something is wrong when the same players who won previously....are still winning.

I know why not give the player that loses the game more points

The trouble is that there is a very high chance that the players who win events would find really good ways to loose too...

I have played in a 'worst army' tournament where you selected the worst army you could manage to create then gave it to someone else so they could suffer the pain. Everyone got a badly designed army from someone else to use. Then you run a tournament and a prize goes to the player who does the best with a heap of crud and the player who's army was so bad it finished last

FWIW Graham Evans winning wargaming tournaments is nothing new. He has been doing it for well over 10 years in several sifferent rulesets and periods.

Personally I prefer themed tournaments as each brings a different challenge and if you pick your list wrong in a FoG theme event you are in big trouble as I proved at Derby.

[BlackPrince]

In an open comp what armies do people consider to be tourney Tigers?
I can not see myself entering a comp in 2009 and I have already selected a Romano British as my fun army. For my serious army I am trying Free Company / English HYW which I am currently using to learn the rules.

Keith