Slitherine

philqw78 wrote: Why not just hand the period to Mr Evans?

So he can get 4 ties like last year?
c'mon Ruddock here's you chance to mention how you had to carry the team last year to...was it 4th place?

Dawn of Chivalry – 1050AD to 1149AD

Is the year range excluding all Heavy Armoured knights? Might be worth adding that for clarity.

Temujin, Osman, Timur and the East – 1200AD to 1500AD

You have not included Serbs, are you going to ban them as allies?

If you do, then perhaps you want to look at the Hungarians as a potent tournament army that keeps all its toys. Perhaps worth reviewing.

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote: Why not just hand the period to Mr Evans?

So he can get 4 ties like last year?
c'mon Ruddock here's you chance to mention how you had to carry the team last year to...was it 4th place?

I carried myself to first place in period

Just let me know which period you are entering Mr Hazelbark and I will gladly give you a lesson. Although given the recent slew of performances outside of the top 1/3rd, maybe we wouldn't meet

hazelbark wrote:

Dawn of Chivalry – 1050AD to 1149AD

Is the year range excluding all Heavy Armoured knights? Might be worth adding that for clarity.

I believe that for the armies listed 1149AD excludes them anyway.

hazelbark wrote:

Temujin, Osman, Timur and the East – 1200AD to 1500AD

You have not included Serbs, are you going to ban them as allies?

If you do, then perhaps you want to look at the Hungarians as a potent tournament army that keeps all its toys. Perhaps worth reviewing.

No restriction on allies.

An interesting list. I like the somewhat tighter restrictions.

The Attilla version with the compulsory allies is a dog.

Hey, I won a tournament with this army!
It's a bit touchy but definitively fun

olivier wrote:

The Attilla version with the compulsory allies is a dog.

Hey, I won a tournament with this army!
It's a bit touchy but definitively fun

I take my hat off to you.............again!

You guys seem IMHO to be heading down two slippery slopes here.

First off why are you even discussion using an International Tournament to in effect play test a couple of rule changes that are (apparently) under discussion in V2. "Armoured Knights Move the same as Cav". Until that is a rule in the game we play why would you basically make a "house rule" for an INTERNATIONAL event?

Secondly, The selection of periods or themes based on anything other than "all inclusive" date ranges (no matter how resonably thought out) will always run the risk of appearing to cherry pick not only the armies you want to play but the ones you want to play against. I am not saying that this is what you are doing but I will say that someone will always suspect this and you run the risk of lossing the faith of your attendees and hurting your event.

No One HATES chasing shooty cav armies around the steppes more than me but "house rules" and "narrow" themes have no place in an international event when people work for the right to represent their country.

Gino
SMAC (Number 4 on the USA waiting list)

On the second point, Nik isn't playing, so can hardly be accused of Cherry picking armies. It is the same for everybody and as in every themed event, picking the right army is part of the challenge.

I am in agreement for the first point though.

Incidentally, Gino, If you are fourth on the waiting list, does that mean if all the Beltway Arse Bandits had a "nasty accident" then you would be playing. Not suggesting anything, but do they play at the same club or something? A collapsed ceiling can do horrible things to people you know? Not wishing to tell the future or wish anybody any harm, but you've got to wonder about those wooden beams and all that, if they got set alight they'd set the whole building going incredibly quickly.

dave_r wrote: Not wishing to tell the future or wish anybody any harm, but you've got to wonder about those wooden beams and all that, if they got set alight they'd set the whole building going incredibly quickly.

This would only work if someone had the fore thought to quietly nail the door shut after they were all inside. (Where did I leave my hammer?)

Gino
SMAC

dave_r wrote:On the second point, Nik isn't playing, so can hardly be accused of Cherry picking armies. It is the same for everybody .

Doesn't really matter if he plays or not. The perception will be that, for reasons X,Y, and Z, certain armies are being purposefully eliminated from the tourney. I would hate to be the poor slob that practices all year with his Med Cypriots then convinces three better players to win 2nd place in his countries tourney, then convinces same three better players not to attend ITC so that he can fill even one vacancy from the 1st place team and then after all this exhaustive work (which some feel is harder than just learning to play the damn game well) he then finds out that because General Major Everyman writes up the themes to exclude Cypriots because he was abused once during a travel video about Cyprus his beloved army is not available to him. This would be seen as a negative to someone that put in this kind of effort.

Gino
SMAC....Wishing Bill McCambell well on his rock climbing expedition this weekend. "No, I wasn't holding that rope."

kal5056 wrote:

dave_r wrote:On the second point, Nik isn't playing, so can hardly be accused of Cherry picking armies. It is the same for everybody .

Doesn't really matter if he plays or not. The perception will be that, for reasons X,Y, and Z, certain armies are being purposefully eliminated from the tourney. I would hate to be the poor slob that practices all year with his Med Cypriots then convinces three better players to win 2nd place in his countries tourney, then convinces same three better players not to attend ITC so that he can fill even one vacancy from the 1st place team and then after all this exhaustive work (which some feel is harder than just learning to play the damn game well) he then finds out that because General Major Everyman writes up the themes to exclude Cypriots because he was abused once during a travel video about Cyprus his beloved army is not available to him. This would be seen as a negative to someone that put in this kind of effort.

Gino
SMAC....Wishing Bill McCambell well on his rock climbing expedition this weekend. "No, I wasn't holding that rope."

After playing all year with one army he would be pretty bored with it don't you think? I think this is largely a myth anyway - players tend not to use the same army all the time, so this isn't a problem. Certainly at the top end of the tree, which Lisbon certainly is.

The army I won the biblical period with last year is now not available, so I have to plan, practice and finalise an army for Lisbon in September. And I only have six months! Sometimes that is the fun part. The guys at the club love it when I get a right kicking because I've tried an idea that just doesn't work.

Italy normally picks the team end of May. As usual, from end-June to September we'll have no meetings, and July/August it can be hard to even get practice games as everyone is on holidays. I suspect most of the southern European countries are the same. Having special rules that change interactions would seem to be a penalty against those teams that are unlikely to have had any practice with it.

it is a fair point to discuss the rule change issue. On one hand I think this is a LOT of advance notice. On the other hand it does make the period more interesting and i favor it.

kal5056 wrote:Secondly, The selection of periods or themes based on anything other than "all inclusive" date ranges (no matter how resonably thought out) will always run the risk of appearing to cherry pick not only the armies you want to play but the ones you want to play against. I am not saying that this is what you are doing but I will say that someone will always suspect this and you run the risk of lossing the faith of your attendees and hurting your event.

I think this is total Bull. All inclusive date ranges are for the>>> well i will self censor here.

History is more interesting. More interesting games are more interesting. Insisting on the any army i think lacks imagination, but no doubt your view is commonly held. But if we follow it we are doomed.

dave_r wrote:Incidentally, Gino, If you are fourth on the waiting list, does that mean if all the Beltway Arse Bandits had a "nasty accident" then you would be playing. Not suggesting anything, but do they play at the same club or something? A collapsed ceiling can do horrible things to people you know? Not wishing to tell the future or wish anybody any harm, but you've got to wonder about those wooden beams and all that, if they got set alight they'd set the whole building going incredibly quickly.

Tsk, tsk, Ruddock. I know it's hard for you to be looking up at us on the podium. You'll get a crick in your neck if you're not careful.



Marc

hazelbark wrote:well i will self censor here.

History is more interesting. More interesting games are more interesting. Insisting on the any army i think lacks imagination, but no doubt your view is commonly held. But if we follow it we are doomed.

Not sure why having a date range that allows for all armies of the historical time frame dooms those of us playing a historical game. The entire premis of FOG is to have a way to fight anachrinistic (sp) battles. What is the next mutation of this idea?

"Only historical battles can be fought."

Period one will be Hebrews against Philistines

Period 2 will be Rome against Carthage

Period 3 will be Vikings against 3 priests and 4 choir boys from Scotland (Joe had the figures)

Period 4 will be Later Crusader against Sassan...of no Maml....of no Some Muslim army that can be forced to take foot troops, but not Arab Conquest because those might stand a chance of winning.

You get my point.

Again, you talk about the IWF dying under the weight of it's own beurocracy and rules based on individual desires.....I want to be the first to invite you all to the argument that will be used next year to form a "World's Team Comp." because who can be bothered to do things behind which that NO ONE can find subversive motives.

I am not saying that anyone is promoting this for any reason other than a strong beleif that it is the best thing to do but do not let anyone looking for it even see a duck let alone look at how it walks or quacks.

Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote: The entire premis of FOG is to have a way to fight anachrinistic (sp) battles.

Well I would disagree with you and I will let the authors state their own view.

kal5056 wrote: Again, you talk about the IWF dying under the weight of it's own beurocracy and rules based on individual desires.....I want to be the first to invite you all to the argument that will be used next year to form a "World's Team Comp." because who can be bothered to do things behind which that NO ONE can find subversive motives.

Separate argument. First Nik is opening this up to a free discussion. Seocnd the ITC is a proprietary event and not owned by any organization and not me. Third someone wants to start another event I am all for it.