Page 6 of 12
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 12:13 pm
by hammy
peterrjohnston wrote:The best scenario competition I know of was the Bunshop pairs. Teams of two, with the two players playing the opposite sides in separate rooms. IIRC the objective of the game was often a secret too.
Yes, it is a very good format, not dissimilar to duplicate Bridge. The problem is that the organisers need to be able to source lots of figures and people need to be happy for other players to use their toys.
As an aside it was really good to see a Bunshop team at Campaign at the weekend
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 12:15 pm
by Ghaznavid
david53 wrote:
You might be able to do this with 16 players but what happens if you have 50 players such as the challange or Britcon do you divide them by the scenarios but then it becames a small tournement inside a big one?
I didn't say it's a suitable formate for very large competitions (although in theory it would be possible, in practice it probably would not). I only stated that formats like this are probably the only way to have scenarios at tournaments, as otherwise scenarios are to hard to balance.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 12:21 pm
by hammy
peterrjohnston wrote:The best scenario competition I know of was the Bunshop pairs. Teams of two, with the two players playing the opposite sides in separate rooms. IIRC the objective of the game was often a secret too.
Yes, it is a very good format, not dissimilar to duplicate Bridge. The problem is that the organisers need to be able to source lots of figures and people need to be happy for other players to use their toys.
As an aside it was really good to see a Bunshop team at Campaign at the weekend
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 1:08 pm
by grahambriggs
This seems an ideal thread to mention Farborough Bash 2010 in Hampshire, UK on 19th September. Three 450 point rounds with the organisers providing matched armies and terrain in both 15mm and 25mm
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 1:17 pm
by BeansNFranks
dave_r wrote:Second, the scenarios I know are from Warhammer. In one of them you have an army of 1000 points and a sieging army of 2000. The sieged has to resist for 6 turns as it is argued that reinforcements come. In other scenario one army ambushes the other. The ambusher has less points (defined by the scenario) but a better position. Other scenario is a flank attack, with one third of the army flank attacking. In other scenario your troops get on the table in random order as it is an improvised battle. They come in every turn with dice rolls.
How would it be organised in a tournament? Well, you can predefine the type of games any player has to play. You might have to be the sieger, the sieged and fight a standard battle. People should prepare a standard list for the field battle and then be forced to cut it down for specific scenarios. Skrimishing armies might have problemes in some settings and be better in others so that there is not a set of armies that will win the tournament easily or will have a lead. There is always something that can be worked out.
The problem is that it doesn't work in Warhammer, so why take a failing system and implement it in FoG? Admittedly they largely don't work because the Points Values are utterly broken, but that doesn't detract that the scenarios are also fundamentally unbalanced for certain armies.
There are several "real world" questions that need to be answered, first of - why would an army of predominantly Light Horse sit in a siege?
All you are going to do is cut down the number of viable armies that can perform succesfully at tournaments, which the organisers won't want.
Every Warhammer tournament I have judged or played in used the Pitched Battle scenario, and tournament organizers could choose whatever scenario they want to use for the tournament.
How do you know what all tournament organizers want? Don't you thinik people will get sick of playing the game in tournaments the exact same way?
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 1:58 pm
by dave_r
Every Warhammer tournament I have judged or played in used the Pitched Battle scenario, and tournament organizers could choose whatever scenario they want to use for the tournament.
Lost me there.
How do you know what all tournament organizers want?
Dead simple. Tournament organisers want bums on seats.
Don't you thinik people will get sick of playing the game in tournaments the exact same way?
No. Didn't happen in the 15 years or so of DBM.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:10 pm
by grahambriggs
dave_r wrote:Every Warhammer tournament I have judged or played in used the Pitched Battle scenario, and tournament organizers could choose whatever scenario they want to use for the tournament.
Lost me there.
How do you know what all tournament organizers want?
Dead simple. Tournament organisers want bums on seats.
Don't you thinik people will get sick of playing the game in tournaments the exact same way?
No. Didn't happen in the 15 years or so of DBM.
In DBM (UK at least) there were lots of different formats which encouraged variety - open competitions at 400 points were rare. Themes, doubles competitions, different points, special rules, etc. etc. kept it fresh for a long time, as did the vast range of ancient armies and regular rules revisions.
The same is happening in FOG. Over the weekend my Tiglath Peleser Assyrians fought Assyrian pretenders, Later Hebrews and Urartians. A very interesting period where the heavy chariots are strong and armoured troops a scary rarity. It made for white knuckle battles where the best you could hope for in most areas was a small advantage.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:12 pm
by lonehorseman
How is it played the same way if the terrain changes every game? Sure its a pitched battle but who cares? Unless you play statically or the same everytime (In which case I would not be surprised if it is losing constantly that makes people want "variety") the game is always going to be different... I have yet to play a game where I go o joy its the <insert> doing <insert> again...because the people I play have different tactics every game, sure they may have a similar stratagy but the way to victory (or crushing defeat) can be really diverse even when playing the same guy/gal 6 times in a row
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:54 pm
by nikgaukroger
grahambriggs wrote:
The same is happening in FOG. Over the weekend my Tiglath Peleser Assyrians fought Assyrian pretenders, Later Hebrews and Urartians. A very interesting period where the heavy chariots are strong and armoured troops a scary rarity. It made for white knuckle battles where the best you could hope for in most areas was a small advantage.
Who are you calling a pretender? Remind me of the score of our game again.
Rgds,
Tiglath "Lucky" Pelesar
P.S. You, the HCh lottery was fun
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:58 pm
by Polkovnik
BeansNFranks wrote:Every Warhammer tournament I have judged or played in used the Pitched Battle scenario, and tournament organizers could choose whatever scenario they want to use for the tournament.
You seem to be saying here that even when a choice of scenarios is available, tournament organisers choose to stick with the pitched battle.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 6:28 pm
by BeansNFranks
Polkovnik wrote:BeansNFranks wrote:Every Warhammer tournament I have judged or played in used the Pitched Battle scenario, and tournament organizers could choose whatever scenario they want to use for the tournament.
You seem to be saying here that even when a choice of scenarios is available, tournament organisers choose to stick with the pitched battle.
Yes I am, but I also specified that my interest in scenario and campaign rules were for non-tournament play.
I've played in a few tournaments, and honestly it was just not my cup of tea.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 10:03 pm
by Strategos69
BeansNFranks wrote:
Yes I am, but I also specified that my interest in scenario and campaign rules were for non-tournament play.
I've played in a few tournaments, and honestly it was just not my cup of tea.
Yes, I said the same thing too but I don't know how we got again to the same tournament thing. I wondered if FoG is mainly a tournament game or just that many active users in this forum like that. Sometimes I have the impression that the tournament side of the game drives too much the insight on the game.
I would also appreciate those campaign rules as I have read once that they were being planned, specially if the new rules are not intended for any tournament.
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:45 am
by grahambriggs
nikgaukroger wrote:grahambriggs wrote:
The same is happening in FOG. Over the weekend my Tiglath Peleser Assyrians fought Assyrian pretenders, Later Hebrews and Urartians. A very interesting period where the heavy chariots are strong and armoured troops a scary rarity. It made for white knuckle battles where the best you could hope for in most areas was a small advantage.
Who are you calling a pretender? Remind me of the score of our game again.
Rgds,
Tiglath "Lucky" Pelesar
P.S. You, the HCh lottery was fun
My only recollection of the battle was your posh cavalry running like sissy girls from my untrained mob.
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:48 am
by nikgaukroger
grahambriggs wrote:
My only recollection of the battle was your posh cavalry running like sissy girls from my untrained mob.
Nah, that was the bog standard cavalry - the posh lot ran away after being shot at 3 times and rapidly left the table
Don't hate but would like too see in a V.2
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:57 pm
by irondog068
I would like too see Siege rules and maybe a campaign system.
Me and another else ran a 28mm Mongol invasion game in 28mm using 1000 points of Samurai vs. 1600+ points of Mongol/Chinese/Korean.
We made some basic rules for storming the Japanese walls, naval landing, along with some other little twists like basically ignoring army lists.
But I would love to run a siege game with the Samurai storming a small Ikko Ikki temple (so the 1500 timeline people get twisted a Sohei temple).
I already have the temple, buildings and wall!
Farnborough Bash 2010
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:56 pm
by lionheartrjc
Thank you to Graham for mentioning the Farnborough Bash..
Farnborough Bash 2010
Sponsored by Hinds Figures
A one-day, Field of Glory competition.
To be held on Sunday 19th September at
Elles Hall Community, off Meudon Avenue, Farnborough, Hants.
The competition will consist of three rounds, with the organisers providing matching armies and terrain.
Armies will be around 450 points in pre-arranged scenarios using 15mm and 25mm figures. Terrain will be pre-set. Victory conditions may be modified from the normal rules based upon the scenario.
First round draw will be random. Subsequent rounds based upon the swiss-chess method. No player to play the same scenario twice.
Entry is £5. Entries will be accepted on a first come basis, to be received by 5th September 2010 and sent to Richard Jeffrey-Cook, Mabar, Blackheath Lane, Wonersh, GUILDFORD, GU5 0PN.
Re: Farnborough Bash 2010
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:12 am
by guthroth
lionheartrjc wrote:Thank you to Graham for mentioning the Farnborough Bash..
Farnborough Bash 2010
I'm looking forward to this - what time is registration please ?
Pete
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:01 pm
by Skullzgrinda
Strategos69 wrote:BeansNFranks wrote:
Yes I am, but I also specified that my interest in scenario and campaign rules were for non-tournament play.
I've played in a few tournaments, and honestly it was just not my cup of tea.
Yes, I said the same thing too but I don't know how we got again to the same tournament thing. I wondered if FoG is mainly a tournament game or just that many active users in this forum like that. Sometimes I have the impression that the tournament side of the game drives too much the insight on the game.
I would also appreciate those campaign rules as I have read once that they were being planned, specially if the new rules are not intended for any tournament.
I am of two minds here. I enjoy tournaments - however poorly I do in them - but over the years they have exhibited a tendency to corrupt game design, rules interpretations and criticism, and often generate a miasma of 'politics'.
Love them or hate them though, I think tournaments are the prime engine of ancients gaming, gathering the largest number of players and getting a cross-pollenization of ideas and routines. They are here to stay. The themed tournament concept has been enormously helpful in reducing some of the worst aspects of tournaments. Far more armies are viable than before. FoG may not be perfect, but I am very pleased with it as a major impovement in ancients gaming.
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:43 pm
by azrael86
The worst thing about FOG is that the IGOUGO has played into the hands of the heads we win, tails we don't lose armies, like Ottoman Turk. Essentially the only compulsory troops that can be caught are the Janissaries, who are a very tough opponent for anything that can catch them (heavy foot can't catch them, mounted knights and the best MF* are at best about 40% chance to win.
As a thought, perhaps cavalry who evade should end up 2 deep, so they cannot automatically evade again? Perhaps with a CMT on the evade, if they fail they become disrupted. You could argue the same about non -contacting chargers, though I would suggest that a successful test should allow them to charge short automatically (a feigned charge).
* except, of course, other janissaries!
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:25 pm
by hazelbark
Well it depends on what army you have, but I ahve not found difficulty in forcing a Cav based army to fight with any kind of army that has combined arms.
I recently had trapped a Mongol army with a Macedonian. Only to have the Companions and a Phalanx abruptly frag and then I was no longer the catcher. Had I not been quite so rash I would have nicely eliminated one of Temujin's Tumans.
I raraly see workable Simultaneous move systems. You can set in some randomness, but too much and you are playng a lottery.