4 base skirmishing BGs

[madaxeman]

I'd just settle for a system where people called "Dave" are penalised. Much easier but achieves the same result

I see we reach the crux of the matter. Tim want's a headstart against people called Dave.

How many points do you need?

I think about -34 at Usk, -6 at Rome....

[dave_r]

I think about -34 at Usk, -6 at Rome....

Ah. But you gained those extra points by playing people not called Dave.

Just remind me - when was the last time you beat me?

[petedalby]

Just remind me - when was the last time you beat me?

Is that because you're better or because he can't catch you?

[madaxeman]

I think about -34 at Usk, -6 at Rome....

Ah. But you gained those extra points by playing people not called Dave.
Just remind me - when was the last time you beat me?

Probably around the same time you last won a competition with a scoring-system-bending LH army ?

[dave_r]

Is that because you're better or because he can't catch you?

Both obviously

[dave_r]

Just remind me - when was the last time you beat me?

Probably around the same time you last won a competition with a scoring-system-bending LH army

One of these has happened. One of these has not happened. Guess which one is true.

[madaxeman]

Just remind me - when was the last time you beat me?

Probably around the same time you last won a competition with a scoring-system-bending LH army

One of these has happened. One of these has not happened. Guess which one is true.

I see two possibilities, either

1. I've never beaten you... in which case the story is :

"LATEST NEWS - EVEN DAVE RUDDOCK NOW ADMITS THE LH SWARM ARMY HE WON A COMP WITH "BENDS" THE CURRENT FOG SCORING SYSTEM !!!!!!!! MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE NOW IRREVERSIBLE .......!"

or

2. "Italy, 2009, European Championships Round 5. Madaxeman scores a 10.4 to 9.6 victory over Dave Ruddock's 200-unit Skythian army" as recorded on the Hall of Honour is actually true, and so it means you have never actually won a competition - but you still continue to spoil peoples weekends with tedious LH armies AND defend a scoring system which clearly prevents you from winning events with them

I'm happy either either really

[rbodleyscott]

Madaxeman scores a 10.4 to 9.6 victory

Calling that a victory is something of an exaggeration don't you think?

[petedalby]

You've got to take them when you find them!

[david53]

A solution that has been proposed before, but so far the occasional win of a big tournament in the UK by 12 BG armies has served as the main argument that there is no problem. <sigh>

It is not occasional, it is a regular occurrence.

At Burton (a 900 point doubles comp) the army placing second had IIRC 13 BGs, one of the armies in joint 4th has something like 11.
Both singles periods a Britcon were won by 12 or 13 BG armies.
The Challenge was won with a normal sized 100 years war army.

Where are all these events being won by armies with high numbers of BGs?

I used 14 BGs at Derby in the Old Glory teams and that was I think the biggest army in my theme so perhaps that is one of them.

Warfare there was a 20 BG army wonder which one that was?

[peterrjohnston]

Since you don't like those armies nasty skirmish armies why not ban them.

While your at it I particularly dislike those armies full of shock foot that just line no manourving, lets ban them as well.

It's got bugger all to do with the types of armies, nobody is arguing a particular type of army should be banned. The problem is, in summary, that under the current scoring system for competitions, taking armies with large numbers of BGs means a competent player can't be beaten in the time available. There are infantry armies that are capable of being designed such a way as well.

A competition game is, in my view, a social contract for both players to enjoy the game and have chances of winning or losing through their generalship skills, or lack of. If one player is arriving with an unbeatable army that is gaming something not connected directly with the rules, you're breaking that contract. It's a bit like a football match where one side has put the netting in front of the goal-mouth, rather than behind.

[peterrjohnston]

Sorry about that, I think I hit edit and not reply and so ended up removing your original post that replied to another. Unless you did so?

(Perils of being a mod, I do wish the quote and edit buttons weren't next to each other )

Anyway, my point still stands.

[peterrjohnston]

Madaxeman scores a 10.4 to 9.6 victory

Calling that a victory is something of an exaggeration don't you think?

Tell that to Pyrrhus...

[david53]

Since you don't like those armies nasty skirmish armies why not ban them.

While your at it I particularly dislike those armies full of shock foot that just line no manourving, lets ban them as well.

It's got bugger all to do with the types of armies, nobody is arguing a particular type of army should be banned. The problem is, in summary, that under the current scoring system for competitions, taking armies with large numbers of BGs means a competent player can't be beaten in the time available. There are infantry armies that are capable of being designed such a way as well.

A competition game is, in my view, a social contract for both players to enjoy the game and have chances of winning or losing through their generalship skills, or lack of. If one player is arriving with an unbeatable army that is gaming something not connected directly with the rules, you're breaking that contract. It's a bit like a football match where one side has put the netting in front of the goal-mouth, rather than behind.

Sorry but there are people who dislike facing LH armies the army I took to Burton was 14 BG and had 8 BG LH and the remainder Cavalry. We came 8th out of 51 teams and no we did'nt sit out a draw in any of the four games.

I understand about the BGs I have played foot armies with 19BG and 20BG I could'nt win cause I was 6 BG less and 20 points seems a lot to get. What was I supposed to say thats not a right army? I agree with the cap on BGs as long as it is standard for all 800 point armies not just those with LH.

What I do dislike is people saying cause you take LH your less a person the a *proper army* sorry thats wrong back in the thread its written there. The hobby is a large one not just set up so it is easier for the top players to have all that they want.

[dave_r]

1. I've never beaten you... in which case the story is :

"LATEST NEWS - EVEN DAVE RUDDOCK NOW ADMITS THE LH SWARM ARMY HE WON A COMP WITH "BENDS" THE CURRENT FOG SCORING SYSTEM !!!!!!!! MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE NOW IRREVERSIBLE .......!" Cool

I never said that at all!

or

2. "Italy, 2009, European Championships Round 5. Madaxeman scores a 10.4 to 9.6 victory over Dave Ruddock's 200-unit Skythian army" as recorded on the Hall of Honour is actually true, and so it means you have never actually won a competition - but you still continue to spoil peoples weekends with tedious LH armies AND defend a scoring system which clearly prevents you from winning events with them Wink

OK, so let me get this right, my massive swarm of uncatchable LH with 17 BG's (with only actually 8 BG's of LH) faced of against your small, manly army of, erm, 15 BG's (or alternatively around the same size) managed to, in fact, actually play a proper battle by destroying around 10 AP worth of Skythians, which is clearly impossible, but also managing to lose a whole wodge of your own

In fact, when I took a 12 BG army of Heavy Foot to Burton you claimed that was wrong as well, despite me beating a Seljuq Turk comprised entirely of Drilled Cv Bw Swd and Light Horse 14-6. So my argument is that good play can overcome all obstacles. Or in my case lucky dice. Even so it is possible.

In fact, if you got on with it and played the game rather than whinging all the time you might fare better against LH

[dave_r]

A competition game is, in my view, a social contract for both players to enjoy the game and have chances of winning or losing through their generalship skills, or lack of. If one player is arriving with an unbeatable army that is gaming something not connected directly with the rules, you're breaking that contract. It's a bit like a football match where one side has put the netting in front of the goal-mouth, rather than behind.

I don't think anybody turns up with an unbeatable army. My Skythians, which appear to bear the brunt of this argument regularly get beaten, if they don't they certainly take heavy casualties every game they play. They normally cause heavy casualties as well mind.

I don't have a problem with the Dom Rom swarm either, unless it is getting run by Graham Evans. Clearly the solution here is to ban Graham Evans

Bottom line is that if you want to play a draw and you play well with LH or Drilled troops then you are going to be able to do it. That has nothing to do with the armies involved or the scoring system. Sometimes you just want a draw. This isn't a problem in the UK (except if your name is Tim Porter), but elsewhere people seem to have a problem with this.

[philqw78]

Bottom line is that if you want to play a draw and you play well with LH or Drilled troops then you are going to be able to do it. That has nothing to do with the armies involved or the scoring system. Sometimes you just want a draw. This isn't a problem in the UK (except if your name is Tim Porter), but elsewhere people seem to have a problem with this.

I an getting really pissed (off with this argument), its late.

There are serious gamers out there, they are the most vociferous on this thread. Having the troops to put an army on the table is not a problem for those people. But the competition rules should not have to change to accommodate people who only have one or two armies*. There has been no proof that the large BG armies do better in competition, at least from what I have seen. People saying that small BG armies do badly are plenty. But it seems the people (in this thread) saying this use 15 or more BG themselves. If you want to improve your game.... play against armies that are hard to beat. If your army cannot defeat them improve your list. This is a big part of the competition game. AND It has always been an over-riding part of warfare. Adapt and overcome.

There is a huge amount of lists in the books. There is a massive number of ways to put them together. There is an infinite number of ways/tactics/strategies to use your army. Improvements are good. But I can see none here.

LH is bad. MF swarm is bad. But both are valid and apparently historical. At least in the opinion of the rule writers. LH armies were successful. Roman armies were successful. Both appear to be allowed swarm tactics in the rules.

No army has dominated. No tactic has dominated. As far as I can see this is just sour grapes. Or as I would like to call it bollocks.

*change the rules and they will enjoy competitions less. They will play people who would kill their grandmother for a coule more points. (In my defence she was on her last legs anyway.)

[gozerius]

I thought this thread was about whether 4 base skirmish BGs were worth it. Then it got hijacked by people who are mad that in the very ahistorical environment of a tournament system where the parameters have been artificially set to favor those armies that can play to a conclusive finish within a relatively short set time limit, there are people who don't bring the "right kind of army" to the table. Historical battles ran the gamut from armies of skirmishing horse archers dueling each other to slugfests involving heavy infantry assaulting dug in heavy infantry. The tournament scenario does not favor armies of all skirmishers or armies that relied heavily on fortifications. Yet they are historical. Equally historical are armies that dealt with more maneuverable foes by holing up in favorable terrain and waiting for the enemy to either commit to battle at a disadvantage, or to withdraw. Ditto the cavalry army that after weighing its chances against its foe chose to refuse battle. That these outcomes can occur in a tournament setting is only natural, being within the historical range of options of an ancient or medieval commander. But there were times historically when an army was compelled to fight, even at a disadvantage, or lose the strategic victory. This is what should be considered when trying to win a tournament. You will have to deal effectively with armies not to your liking, in situations that, if you want a chance of winning, you will have to push to conclusion, or suffer the consequences. I like to experiment so I'm sure that I would infuriate those who insist on "proper" tournament armies. In my book, as long as the army list is valid, it has every right to be considered a "proper" army, and whatever on table tactics are used, assuming they do not violate the rules, and a person is not deliberately stalling, the game is a good one. Win, lose or draw.

Greg Boeser

[NickW]

Is the swarm tactic a viable historical one? I can't think of too many examples of Dominate Romans or horse armies heavily outnumbering their opposition. More so, by having more battlegroups has the effect that armies are very difficult to break in a field battle, and I'm not sure if this is historical either.

[philqw78]

Is the swarm tactic a viable historical one? I can't think of too many examples of Dominate Romans or horse armies heavily outnumbering their opposition. More so, by having more battlegroups has the effect that armies are very difficult to break in a field battle, and I'm not sure if this is historical either.

The Romans were far more manouverable. As were mongols. This is what some call swarm. Their opposition cannot cope. Is that the fault of the rules?

On table they may not outnumber their opposition, often they are outnumbered. They do though have more battle groups making them more manouverable.