Page 2 of 9
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:44 pm
by hammy
Polkovnik wrote:I assume you realise that this can potentially give a much higher proportion of terrain on the table than the normal setup rules on a 6' by 4' table ?
That is partly why players can only have 2-3 pieces plus the compulsary.
FWIW the 650 point on a 5 by 3 format is the only one I have ever seen a table end up with absolutely no terrain at all in :O
I think it was a case of some well placed open spaces and one roll of a 6 to remove the only non open space that actually fitted on the table.
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:25 pm
by david53
nikgaukroger wrote:Polkovnik wrote:
I assume you realise that this can potentially give a much higher proportion of terrain on the table than the normal setup rules on a 6' by 4' table ?
Well as the format has been run a few times now - all very successfully I may add - I think we can assume he is
Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:00 pm
by Polkovnik
david53 wrote:Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave
I wasn't suggesting there was anything bad about it or that it wouldn't work well. Just that with a higher proportion of terrain on the table, this gives a significant boost to armies that rely on terrain.
And we have played it. You do get a lot of terrain on the table. A single maximum sized large piece is huge on a 5' by 3' table.
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:19 pm
by david53
Polkovnik wrote:david53 wrote:Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave
I wasn't suggesting there was anything bad about it or that it wouldn't work well. Just that with a higher proportion of terrain on the table, this gives a significant boost to armies that rely on terrain.
And we have played it. You do get a lot of terrain on the table. A single maximum sized large piece is huge on a 5' by 3' table.
What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:24 pm
by nikgaukroger
david53 wrote:
What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies
At 650 points it should not stop you using a shooty mounted army - Hammy's first run of the format was won by Ian Speed's Skythians (by beating my Pontics).
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:55 pm
by hammy
nikgaukroger wrote:david53 wrote:
What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies
At 650 points it should not stop you using a shooty mounted army - Hammy's first run of the format was won by Ian Speed's Skythians (by beating my Pontics).
The top three from each of the events I have run using this format were:
Code: Select all
Games Expo 08 - 16 players
1 Ian Speed Skythian or Saka
2 James Hamilton Seljuk Turk
3 Simon Green Alexandrian Macedonian
Game 08 day 1 - 10 players
1 Neil Howard Later Hungarian
2 Paul Dawson Kushan or Indo-Skythian
3 Mathew Poole Medieval Crown of Aragon
Game 08 day 2 - 6 players
1 Graham Finney Middle Hungarian
2 Simon Clarke Palmyran
3 Neil Howard Later Hungarian
Games Expo 09 - 28 players
1 Ian Speed Ancient British
2 Simon Hall Gallic
3 Phil Powell Libyan Egyptian
Game 09 day 1 - 12 players
1 David M Allen Dominate Roman
2 Robert Taylor Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian
3 David Redhead Skythian or Saka
Game 09 day 2 - 12 players
1 James Hamilton Early Libyan
2 Robert Taylor Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian
3 Stephen Clarke Ordonnance Burgundian
Games Expo 10 - 36 players
1 Paul Longmore Dominate Roman
2 Peter Butler Ilkhanid Mongol
3 Kevin Johnson Later Ottoman Turkish
At the first few it looked like shooty cavalry were a good bet but as the game has matured there is now a more ballanced set of winning armies
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:01 pm
by david53
nikgaukroger wrote:david53 wrote:
What a five by three table does stop lots of shooty Cavalry armies
At 650 points it should not stop you using a shooty mounted army - Hammy's first run of the format was won by Ian Speed's Skythians (by beating my Pontics).
my experience of using the same is coming third on the saturday
on the sunday using a proper mongol army coming well down the list
I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:11 pm
by hammy
david53 wrote:I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army
I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:24 pm
by hammy
Another area that needs a special rule for 5 by 3 tables has been pointed out to me.
It is possible that if the player with initiative deploys an ambush right on the centre line then the other player can deploy an ambush marker in contact with it. This is because the player without initiative can deploy up to 18 MU in to the table.
In 28mm on a 6 by 4 table using 40mm MU it is even worse, the player without initiative can deploy ambushes on the other players side of the table....
I was going to suggest that non initiative ambushed were limited to 6" from the centre line but there is a problem with that as it is actually not as far forward as non ambushing skirmishers can deploy.
The player who noticed this issue suggested that an ambush cannot be placed where it can be 'seen' by an enemy ambush, if we add in that they cannot be placed on the enemy side of the table then I think that covers both bases.
There has also been a comment that with 40mm MU it would be possible for one player to place terrain that covered getting on for 1/3rd of the table. Personally I don't have a big problem with that but then it is unlikely that I will be playing 25mm.
Thoughts anyone?
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:51 pm
by david53
hammy wrote:david53 wrote:I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army
I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.
How so?
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:40 pm
by hammy
david53 wrote:hammy wrote:david53 wrote:I myself find the loss of a foot effects the time it takes to shoot down a heavy foot/medium foot army
I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.
How so?
Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:25 am
by philqw78
hammy wrote:Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.
Like yours
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:55 am
by hammy
philqw78 wrote:hammy wrote:Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.
Like yours
Indeed, when in Rome.....
The way to win open tournaments IMO is to take an army that can clobber girly shooty armies.
Should I endup playing at Stockport I will most definitely not take a girly shooty army.
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:56 pm
by squiggie
Hammy
Do we have an idea yet on which day you will do FOGR and which will be 25mm?
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:15 pm
by hammy
squiggie wrote:Hammy
Do we have an idea yet on which day you will do FOGR and which will be 25mm?
In the light of a grand total of two requests for particular days one for 25mm on Sunday and one for FoG:R on Saturday I am going to go with that.
It is still possible that the FoG:R may be a two day bash but that would need a minimum of 8 players over the weekend.
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:04 pm
by peteratjet
hammy wrote:
Another area that needs a special rule for 5 by 3 tables has been pointed out to me.
In 28mm on a 6 by 4 table using 40mm MU it is even worse, the player without initiative can deploy ambushes on the other players side of the table....
I was going to suggest that non initiative ambushed were limited to 6" from the centre line but there is a problem with that as it is actually not as far forward as non ambushing skirmishers can deploy.
The player who noticed this issue suggested that an ambush cannot be placed where it can be 'seen' by an enemy ambush, if we add in that they cannot be placed on the enemy side of the table then I think that covers both bases.
There has also been a comment that with 40mm MU it would be possible for one player to place terrain that covered getting on for 1/3rd of the table. Personally I don't have a big problem with that but then it is unlikely that I will be playing 25mm.
Thoughts anyone?
I thought you going with the general rule that deployment distances for the 4'x6' tables with 40mm MU would be taken as inches, not MUs. Surely this would apply to ambushes (and field fortifications) too.
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:43 pm
by hammy
peteratjet wrote:I thought you going with the general rule that deployment distances for the 4'x6' tables with 40mm MU would be taken as inches, not MUs. Surely this would apply to ambushes (and field fortifications) too.
That would seem to make sense.
It leaves the question of terrain sizes, should they be based in 1" MU or 40mm?
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:01 pm
by Polkovnik
hammy wrote:david53 wrote:hammy wrote:
I think that the smaller table does a good job of evening the playing field in open tournaments.
How so?
Well, armies based on undrilled foot have IMO a somewhat better chance on a smaller table than they do on a large table in tournaments where girly shooty armies are the order of the day.
Maybe if they are MF. I wouldn't use an army based on HF in this format, as way too much terrain can go down.
I can't see any HF armies being competitive with the amount of terrain that is possible.
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:08 pm
by Polkovnik
Polkovnik wrote:david53 wrote:Its not as bad as you think you need to play it to see now it works as far as I know I have done this event for the last two years at two events in each year(18 games I think) and have seen it work very well even if my armies do badly.
Dave
I wasn't suggesting there was anything bad about it or that it wouldn't work well. Just that with a higher proportion of terrain on the table, this gives a significant boost to armies that rely on terrain.
And we have played it. You do get a lot of terrain on the table. A single maximum sized large piece is huge on a 5' by 3' table.
In our game this week, I went for maximum terrain, and my opponent chose 3 minimum sized pieces.
My opponent rolled 3 sixes and removed all three of my non-compulsory choices, yet over half the table was still dominated by terrain.
Had my three pieces remained on the table, I don't think there would have been room to deploy and move a single small BG of cavalry and remain a safe distance from troops in terrain.
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:28 pm
by SonofTosh
hammy wrote:Another area that needs a special rule for 5 by 3 tables has been pointed out to me.
It is possible that if the player with initiative deploys an ambush right on the centre line then the other player can deploy an ambush marker in contact with it. This is because the player without initiative can deploy up to 18 MU in to the table.
In 28mm on a 6 by 4 table using 40mm MU it is even worse, the player without initiative can deploy ambushes on the other players side of the table....
I was going to suggest that non initiative ambushed were limited to 6" from the centre line but there is a problem with that as it is actually not as far forward as non ambushing skirmishers can deploy.
The player who noticed this issue suggested that an ambush cannot be placed where it can be 'seen' by an enemy ambush, if we add in that they cannot be placed on the enemy side of the table then I think that covers both bases.
Thoughts anyone?
In fact I suggested the ambush cannot be placed if either their or the enemy ambush would be visible to the other. This takes care of them being in terrain with different visibility (2mu and 4 mu for instance.)