Fill the Table!

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:17 pm

JimmyThePict wrote:900pts on 6x4 then disadvantages those armies of cheap crap that can cover the table at 800pts, thus making less armies viable.

Which armies would you be thinking of here?

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:18 pm

JimmyThePict wrote:900pts on 6x4 then disadvantages those armies of cheap crap that can cover the table at 800pts, thus making less armies viable. I think 800pts is fine, the terrain rules allow for some narrowing of the table.

Nonsense. They can fill the table and put on two outflanking marches.

Any comment from people who used 900 point armies at Rampage?

Personally I'd be more inclined to go for 800 points on a 5x4 or 4x4

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:46 pm

lawrenceg wrote: Any comment from people who used 900 point armies at Rampage?

Only Rampage - what about the various 900 point doubles that have been run, or indeed the 1000 point doubles?

Personally I'd be more inclined to go for 800 points on a 5x4 or 4x4

No, more toys is always better

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:47 am

I prefer 800pts

jlopez · Post by **jlopez** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:43 am

I certainly feel that more points would make sense in an open competition. The way things are going here in Spain, at 800 points I'm increasingly of the opinion we need to impose a blitz system to allow HF armies a fighting chance of getting a result against skirmish/cav armies.

The third alternative is to restrict army lists into historical pools. We did just that the other week in Zaragoza with lists based around the enemies of the MRR and we had a great time bashing each other with HF for a change.

Julian

davidandlynda · Post by **davidandlynda** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:53 am

Bigger armies on smaller tables would lead to a very boring game,Yahtzee I believe it's called,its a lot cheaper to buy if thats what you want to do
900pts at Rampage didn't seem to make a significant difference ,having said that I didn't play any and used mine against an 800pt HYW
David

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:50 pm

Ever thought of moving on from the Ottomans then Pete.

Of course! I'm just restricted to the figures I have or can borrow - and of course time to get used to them!

Embarrassingly enough I am thinking of taking the Ottomans to Britcon - so that would be 3 comps this year - but all 3 lists will have been different - honest guv!

Pete

fredrik · Post by **fredrik** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:13 am

Interesting discussion, this!

I'm curious to hear from the designers if they believe that there is in imbalance in the game between the relative effectiveness of HF and mounted (shooty/evading) armies in a tournament setting, and if so if a resolution for this imbalance has been discussed for a future version of the game.

While I personally as primarily a HF player might have some reservations about the range and effectiveness of mounted archery, I believe this imbalance could be addressed by an amendment to the tournament scoring system. I would suggest awarding points not only for destroying enemy units but also for dominating table space - say X number of points for each quarter of the table that has only your troops contesting it, and only allow formed foot (MF/HF) or combat cavalry (Kn/Cat/CvLance) to contest.