Scoring System

[nikgaukroger]

This is what I have being saying its not to do with if the top players can handle large BG armies or if they don't take them or do.

This is about what people in the middle of the hobby feel right or wrong is a perception of a problum when facing large BG armies.

To sweep it away by saying its no problum cause they don't win tournements is not the answer for the majority of players who do feel there is a problum.

I don't know what the answer is but this will grow to be a bigger problum if left to go on.

Dave, you are a shining beacon of correctness

[dave_r]

This is what I have being saying its not to do with if the top players can handle large BG armies or if they don't take them or do.

This is about what people in the middle of the hobby feel right or wrong is a perception of a problum when facing large BG armies.

To sweep it away by saying its no problum cause they don't win tournements is not the answer for the majority of players who do feel there is a problum.

I don't know what the answer is but this will grow to be a bigger problum if left to go on.

Dave, you are a shining beacon of correctness

Apart from how to spell "problem".....

[stenic]

I've just posted to the general threads regarding Berkeley Vale potentialy running an event. We'd be happy to trial any preferred method for mitigating swarm army types.

Steve

[david53]

This is what I have being saying its not to do with if the top players can handle large BG armies or if they don't take them or do.

This is about what people in the middle of the hobby feel right or wrong is a perception of a problum when facing large BG armies.

To sweep it away by saying its no problum cause they don't win tournements is not the answer for the majority of players who do feel there is a problum.

I don't know what the answer is but this will grow to be a bigger problum if left to go on.

Dave, you are a shining beacon of correctness

Apart from how to spell "problem".....

Remember that saying to err is to be human.......

[david53]

I've just posted to the general threads regarding Berkeley Vale potentialy running an event. We'd be happy to trial any preferred method for mitigating swarm army types.

Steve

That would be good, a person willing to get some evidence one way or the other just need the event now.

Dave

[hammy]

Changing the scoring for a 650 point comp is not likely to make much difference to be honest. Yes some people have armies with 14+ BG at 650 there really are very few of them.

The Northern League is a 900 point comp and already has a system in place that effectively limits most armies to 15 or fewer BGs which for a 900 point army is a 'normal' size.

The next 800 point singles comps after Britcon are the Derby Teams and Roll Call.

Interestingly there aren't that many singles comps each year when you look at it and 800 point open singles comps are actually quite rare in the UK

[david53]

The Northern League is a 900 point comp and already has a system in place that effectively limits most armies to 15 or fewer BGs which for a 900 point army is a 'normal' size.

Could this system be used to limit size or would that be too hard to sort or does this only work over a set number of rounds and could'nt be used in a stand alone contest.

[hammy]

The Northern League is a 900 point comp and already has a system in place that effectively limits most armies to 15 or fewer BGs which for a 900 point army is a 'normal' size.

Could this system be used to limit size or would that be too hard to sort or does this only work over a set number of rounds and could'nt be used in a stand alone contest.

In the Northern League there is the concept of army 'classes' where superiors and ICs are restricted. The 15 BG 'limit' pushes armies up a class if they exceed 15 BGs.

[dave_r]

It was a genius that thought up that system

[muz177]

The problem isn't the rules it is the players.

People will not throw their army away against something they believe they cannot beat. The problem is that it is a game that we would like to win. After that we would like not to lose.
So, if people believe an army of 18 BG cannot be beaten they batton down. Or against a good player they are caught like a rabbit in the headlights.
Against an army with so much light stuff they cannot catch it they are not going to try.

In FoG large BG armies have an artificial advantage[/b]

We have just finalised a comp in Sydney AU with about 26 players (15mm and 800ap). There was evidence of people taking lists with a higher number of BG's, and also a much higher proponderance of draws. Most Australian players have an aggressive style, take reasonably balanced amies but they historically build armies to fight and win.

I agree with earlier comments about the fact that it is so much harder to win (in comp terms - ie the VP you get) against a high BG army, whether they are Roman swarm type or a skirmisher army. Of course, if you have a hun army and come up against an army with loads of LF skirmishers, you will do well.

I was on 35 points at the end of day 1 - my first game of day 2 was against a good player with Medieval Irish - with lots of poor and average LF - I had Arab Conquest with 5 spear units, 2cv, 2mf and 2 LH. I tried all game to get around the terrain and to catch all of the LF and other stuff, but we ended with a 10-10 draw (I killed 2AP and lost 1) - and the other guy didn't play defensive, it was just that with a load of units it is difficult to catch and break stuff without taking excessive risks - and when you have a smallish army against a large BG army you cannot often afford to lose units as the VP allocation works against you.

My next opponent was hun, with more units of 4LH than I could count. I could have just formed square, given myself rear support and lots of generals in proximity, but that is hardly a game. So i went out after him, and spent 3 1/2 hours chasing LH which I could not possibly catch or hurt, and coping loads of shot in return. Even with an army which is 100% superior things will will frag or break from enough shots, especially when you have to charge most times and get out of shape. The result was he lost 1 BG and 1 lost 2 - but the result ended up 13-7 to him - and as has been commented there was absolutely no chance of him ever losing - it was just if I could maneovure well enough to keep him from breaking through flanks or centre and breaking the army.

My fear is that this type of game is not really much fun and will dissuade new (or even experienced players) to question it. The LH army gets the terrain they want (generally) and if even if hurt with return fire can withdraw and regroup and go again. Playing against such an opponent wouldn't matter so much except that it does really limit your chances where there is a close comp.

There is a difference between a LH army and a Roman swarm army IMO, as the LH army does also have problems against those with lots of cheap shooters.

Believe that the best solution is via a revised VP point calculation - not realistic or disirable to change rules or lists.

Muz

[philqw78]

Right what we would need is a tournement that would agree to this and have a range of armies now why not as its a smallish event as Dave R thought one would need what about the next round of Northern Doubles. As its a nice friendly event I am sure there would'nt be a great shout saying not to do it. This would at least give evidence as to wheather it would work in bigger events.

The northern doubles would be a very bad idea as a tester as army lists are skewed by the scoring system in the NDL. Less BG can mean more points.

[grahambriggs]

Muz gives a good example of the difficulty of massed skirmish armies vs 'solid' armies. Several hours of chasing smoke is a little dull and could easily put off players. The bullfight is usually more fun for the matador than the bull.

[footslogger]

Muz gives a good example of the difficulty of massed skirmish armies vs 'solid' armies. Several hours of chasing smoke is a little dull and could easily put off players. The bullfight is usually more fun for the matador than the bull.

But would it have been any different if the Huns only had 12 BGs? Heavy foot vs light horse will be that kind of game regardless of the number of BGs.

[david53]

Muz gives a good example of the difficulty of massed skirmish armies vs 'solid' armies. Several hours of chasing smoke is a little dull and could easily put off players. The bullfight is usually more fun for the matador than the bull.

But would it have been any different if the Huns only had 12 BGs? Heavy foot vs light horse will be that kind of game regardless of the number of BGs.

How many BGs did they have then. I swarm on here has been stated as 15BG or more.

[grahambriggs]

Muz gives a good example of the difficulty of massed skirmish armies vs 'solid' armies. Several hours of chasing smoke is a little dull and could easily put off players. The bullfight is usually more fun for the matador than the bull.

But would it have been any different if the Huns only had 12 BGs? Heavy foot vs light horse will be that kind of game regardless of the number of BGs.

Well, if you have 12BGs and the opponent has 18 then they can happily trade BGs with you and will come out ahead. If they only have 12 then trading is even handed.

Also, if there's less incentive to take massed skirmishers then they'll be a little rarer perhaps.

[davidandlynda]

Thats possibly a different problem,some armies could disappear,for example I probably would n't play the Incas much,they usually come out at 17BG's in a 800pt army but you have to pick your spots and yes exchanging units is a benefit to them,much as the DomRom neither can take much on frontaly without much clenching of all parts of the anatomy,don't change much yet I'm having fun with them,hopefully I will have fallen out with them before Wellington I don't want to drag 2 boxes to NZ .
David

[babyshark]

I suggested the flat 1 AP = 1 VP maximum 10 scoring idea and other than Dave Ruddock nobody seems to have commented on it. There are two reasons I like this idea, one is it removes most of any percieved scoring benefit from swarms and the other is that it is far simpler to work out a score.

The other proposals are rules changes and are less likely IMO to be considered by tournament organisers.

Hammy:

Will you re-suggest your idea? I missed it when posted. And I may be too lazy to sift through six pages of this topic to find it.

I am always wary of the law of unintended consequences in making "reforms." A proposal to curb the perceived problems associated with swarm theory may very easily give rise to other issues.

Marc

[dave_r]

I suggested the flat 1 AP = 1 VP maximum 10 scoring idea and other than Dave Ruddock nobody seems to have commented on it. There are two reasons I like this idea, one is it removes most of any percieved scoring benefit from swarms and the other is that it is far simpler to work out a score.

The other proposals are rules changes and are less likely IMO to be considered by tournament organisers.

Hammy:

Will you re-suggest your idea? I missed it when posted. And I may be too lazy to sift through six pages of this topic to find it.

I am always wary of the law of unintended consequences in making "reforms." A proposal to curb the perceived problems associated with swarm theory may very easily give rise to other issues.

Marc

He just did!

Basically, for every AP of the enemy you break you get a point for. This is capped at 10. Armies don't break until their normal level.

So if you are facing a 19 BG army then when you get 10 AP then you have got your 10 VP, but don't get the army until you get 17 AP.

I argued this was rubbish as you would simply concentrate on breaking five units and then run away for the rest of the game.

[babyshark]

Hammy:

Will you re-suggest your idea? I missed it when posted. And I may be too lazy to sift through six pages of this topic to find it.

I am always wary of the law of unintended consequences in making "reforms." A proposal to curb the perceived problems associated with swarm theory may very easily give rise to other issues.

Marc

He just did!

Basically, for every AP of the enemy you break you get a point for. This is capped at 10. Armies don't break until their normal level.

So if you are facing a 19 BG army then when you get 10 AP then you have got your 10 VP, but don't get the army until you get 17 AP.

I argued this was rubbish as you would simply concentrate on breaking five units and then run away for the rest of the game.

Hmmm. I assumed that there was more to the idea than that. I agree that the unintended consequences seem to be pretty significant.

Marc

[madaxeman]

I argued this was rubbish as you would simply concentrate on breaking five units and then run away for the rest of the game.

I think you meant "I would" rather than "you would" here Dave...?