Multi list comps:

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:23 am

Hey All,

With regard to 'open book conventions', I'm wondering what the general concensus is to multiple lists. I'm wondering if it would be worthy to consider a 'same year' two list con. In other words, you pick your year and army and you can choose two different lists from that year. My thought is that several armies would not be seen dead (well, would only be seen dead) in things like 'steppe', so would only go up against a certain opponent with 'x' troops.

This would limit (imho) situations where an army is totally overwhelmed by the one dimentional army that happens to get it's 'perfect terrain'.

So:
Hoplites may take a 'mostly heavy foot' option and a 'maximise rough terrain' option.
Early Crusader may take a 'up against Heavy Knights' option and a 'up against cavalry' option.

So, you'd know who your opponent was and what his army is, and you'd state 'option 1' or 'option 2' before going any further.

Thoughts?

Ian

KillingZoe · Post by **KillingZoe** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:02 am

Well, we did exactly this on a tournament in Ulm a few weaks ago - only both lists needed not to be from the same year.
It worked very well, allthough three of the six players only had a single list - for what reasons I don't know.

I personaly regard it as an interesting mechanism, but it doubles the work of the list checker.
It also gives a further disadvantage to new players who typically have less knowledge about the troops a specific army can field and what whould be a good concept against.

Its just a matter of taste, I think.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 am

KillingZoe wrote:It worked very well, allthough three of the six players only had a single list - for what reasons I don't know.

I'd imagine there would be several lists that wouldn't lend themselves easily to multiple lists. I mean, Vikings can (and I would) take something like a 'rough terrain' and a 'mounted' option, but if the player is more comfortable with the one list, then I can understand why they wouldn't change much.

Did you allow things like 'Huns under Attila' and 'Huns totally different' (presumably so long as they were from the same Hunnic list)?

KillingZoe wrote:I personaly regard it as an interesting mechanism, but it doubles the work of the list checker.

Yes, but I think so far as list checking goes, this is one of the more friendly systems out there! I admit, it does double work, but it isn't a horrible job. I've done it a few times myself (not for FoG tho)[/quote]

KillingZoe wrote:It also gives a further disadvantage to new players who typically have less knowledge about the troops a specific army can field and what whould be a good concept against.

Yes, I hadn't considered this.

The one good thing is the advent of this forum though. You see lists and ideas here more quickly than you can possibly ever have realised it prior to the internet. So, I guess you could do something like 'advertise' this forum on the flier to limit this problem.

Additionally, something I just thought of, someone (like I have done once) who makes a complete cock-up of their list is totally screwed. They have to sit through 6 games with a list that's totally crap. At least with the two list version you can take the least crap list

Ian

Its just a matter of taste, I think.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:43 pm

The "two list" set up was popular in the US for DBM tournaments, but has since faded. Because it allows a player to have one list for most occasions, and one list for situations involving steppe/rough terrain/whatever it changes the range of armies that one might reasonably take to the tournament. In particular it tends to favor armies that can have wildly differing versions over those that are already set up to be "jack-of-all-trades."

I do not think either style is better than the other; each offers differing challenges. "One list" events are the current trend, though.

As an aside, I have been pondering running a two list tournament at Historicon next summer (2010). Any comments from the gallery?

Marc

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:04 pm

babyshark wrote:I have been pondering running a two list tournament at Historicon next summer (2010). Any comments from the gallery?

Marc

I'm there.

I just need someone to bank-roll my trip.

Ian

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:14 pm

DaiSho wrote:
babyshark wrote:I have been pondering running a two list tournament at Historicon next summer (2010). Any comments from the gallery?

Marc
I'm there.

I just need someone to bank-roll my trip.

Ian

I hear you. What ancients gaming needs is an absurdly generous billionaire to fund international travel for worthy gamers to enhance the tournament scene. Any gamers who have an in with Bill Gates please contact me off-list.

Marc

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:24 pm

Having played in the mentioned tournament in Ulm I've to admit I thought it was a great idea at first. Then I came to realize that only few armies lend themselves to really creating two lists different enough to be actually worth the bother. I ended up using it as a good excuse to finally paint up later Hungarian Army (giving me either an almost pure mounted force or a version with lots of good Infantry).
Two list tournaments are an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra work. I also don't think it actually helps in smoothing over any perceived disbalance between armies, it just changes the type of the disbalance.

IanB3406 · Post by **IanB3406** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:31 pm

I'm interested to try it now and then to give some variety. Shooty Cav armies are pretty common now in the Gulf South circuit, and it would be nice to have an army with an IC and one without at the least, and some armies are stronger done this way, so we might see them out where we currently don't.

Ian

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:40 pm

Another possibiity in a two-list event is that, even using the same BGs, the order of march can be altered. Changing which BGs are placed last can potentially have a huge impact on the game.

Marc

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:10 pm

Multi list comps are interesting, but it's a curious idea that it broadens the armies that can be used, I would say it did the reverse. Generally speaking, armies fall into several categories, as follows:

one trick pony - lots of these exist, with different tricks (naturally) - usually they are undrilled, possibly no allies or at least none offering much variation:examples include Early Libyan, Nubian, Skythian and in DBM most of the non european or asian armies.

one trick pony with rider - this is the army that has something variable in it, or a mix of troop types, possibly a choice of allies, Numidian, Pecheneg or Rus. Usually undrilled. Quite a few Medieval armies fit this category, e.g. French.

combined arms - usually they will have two good troop types, plus some support troops. Either to make it work or because the lists require it, around half the army is made up of the same thing. Hoplites, early Romans and more flexible medievals, plus armies with elephants or chariots aere often this type.

too clever by half - armies with extensive records, lists covering a long period of time or a number of powers which make it difficult to be sure what they will have usually about half the list will be compulsory - Italian Condotta, quite a few Roman armies, later successors and the like

chameleon - usually these are the main beneficiaries of multi-list - armies that can have major differences in composition, or have flexibility and also variable allies. Late Romans, Ottomans, Hungarian. The difference between these and the previous category is that there is the ability to dramatically change the core troop type, and hence the nature of the army.

Clearly, multi list offers nothing to the first category, and whilst it makes more armies viable, the edge it gives to the very flexible army is much greater. that said, FoG has rehabilitated quite a lot of armies because of the way light troops now work.

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:08 pm

Take a look at the details for Rearguard which I am running at Rampage

3 lists of 1 army and date - 700/800/900pts

Makes army choice a very interesting challenge - and even if not very different in composition the extra points can cahnge the nature of an army considerably (eg filling table vs having exposed flanks).

Si

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:21 pm

DaiSho wrote:
babyshark wrote:I have been pondering running a two list tournament at Historicon next summer (2010). Any comments from the gallery?

Marc
I'm there.

I just need someone to bank-roll my trip.

Ian

Well we can get you a ride form either BWI or IAD. I think that is the event that is in downtown Baltimore Inner Harbor. A new location. Think Sydney harbor but taller building and half as wide. And of course we have hte Outback steakhouse for home cooking.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:25 pm

babyshark wrote:Another possibiity in a two-list event is that, even using the same BGs, the order of march can be altered. Changing which BGs are placed last can potentially have a huge impact on the game.

Marc

I disagree. This gives you the choice between a silly OOM and the one you shoudl use. Practically it doesn't matter enough, except to allow people to fix a mistake.

I prefer umpire intervention. You list is crap lets fix it for round 2 so you can enjoy yourself.

IanB3406 · Post by **IanB3406** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:35 pm

babyshark wrote:
Another possibiity in a two-list event is that, even using the same BGs, the order of march can be altered. Changing which BGs are placed last can potentially have a huge impact on the game.

Marc

I disagree. This gives you the choice between a silly OOM and the one you shoudl use. Practically it doesn't matter enough, except to allow people to fix a mistake.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is nice option esp in a multi-round tournament it gives you some flexibility. The idea being you can also have an OOM set up for a flank march or ambush, as well to thwart "intelligence" gathering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I prefer umpire intervention. You list is crap lets fix it for round 2 so you can enjoy yourself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a bad idea for beginners and have done it before....but don't expect any handouts if YOU screw up Dan......

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:41 pm

hazelbark wrote: Well we can get you a ride form either BWI or IAD. I think that is the event that is in downtown Baltimore Inner Harbor. A new location. Think Sydney harbor but taller building and half as wide. And of course we have the Outback steakhouse for home cooking.

For the avoidance of doubt: Outback Steakhouse is a chain of restaurants that offers the same menu items as any other American steak restaurant, but gives each one an Australian-sounding name.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:10 am

lawrenceg wrote:
hazelbark wrote: Well we can get you a ride form either BWI or IAD. I think that is the event that is in downtown Baltimore Inner Harbor. A new location. Think Sydney harbor but taller building and half as wide. And of course we have the Outback steakhouse for home cooking.

For the avoidance of doubt: Outback Steakhouse is a chain of restaurants that offers the same menu items as any other American steak restaurant, but gives each one an Australian-sounding name.

What?!? Do you mean to tell me that Outback is not representative of Aussie culture? I am shocked and appalled.

Marc

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:58 pm

Nope, the outback staff can play rugby and win.

Innocent whistling.....

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:55 pm

When 2-list events were the norm, I participated in countless 2-list DBM events.

I almost never used my second list. Sometimes it was because the "nightmare match-up" that prompted the 2d list never happened. Other times, the army I chose did not really lend itself to a 2-list event, making the second list only nominally different from the main one, so no real need to use it.

Of the few times I did use the second list, as often as not I did so in a final round of a lackluster event for me and then just to mix things up a bit.

At bottom, I don't really have strong feelings about 2-list events. My experience with DBM suggests that they don't offer any advantages over the current single list trend.

Spike

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:45 pm

I think that multi-list comps favour those armies that can have vastly and wildly different choices which could be used as a basis for two lists.

Dominate Roman's spring to mind - you could choose to have a mass of Armoured MF, Lt Spr, Swd BG's or if you don't like that you could have large amounts of HF, Impact Foot, Armoured Skilled Swords in big BG's.

I think they actually narrow the playing field considerably and are not a good thing for those who just like to use their favourite army. As others have mentioned most lists only really have one viable option.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:55 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Nope, the outback staff can play rugby and win.

Innocent whistling.....

Probably Twenty Twenty cricket as well ...