Slitherine

petedalby wrote:FWIW I think we should be exploring smaller tables / more points and anything else which adds variety - and still with no need to change the scoring system.

So more variety please tournament organisers. Let's get away from 800 AP on a 6 x 4 table.

What a spat of wisdom broke out while I was engaged elsewhere. Absolutely variety is good.
FWIW I have played 400 points on like a 2x3. It gave a surprisingly fun quick game.
5x3 800 points is also a very good game. A lot more going on than I suspected.

What is great about all these is they bring in different army options. While I realize that some people only have one army, the ability to have variety makes the game last.

ShrubMiK wrote:If you want a competition where the overly competitive big boys kick all the rabbits into a separate competition beginning with round 2, why not just hold separate competitions, and instead of playing round 1 have some additional quality drinking time?

But there is already a well attended competition where there are differing levels of players. Campaign had three divisions. Obviously MAWS won the top division.

Obviously MAWS won the top division.

I was there and first prize defintely went to Reigate.

petedalby wrote:

Obviously MAWS won the top division.

I was there and first prize defintely went to Reigate.

Only because the organiser can't count!!!

I personally apportion blame to the MAWS team captain, who obviously didn't do a very good captain's job

dave_r wrote:

petedalby wrote:

Obviously MAWS won the top division.

I was there and first prize defintely went to Reigate.

Only because the organiser can't count!!!

He counted our score correctly as we had the wit to check so that we knew exactly how many points we needed in the last round while MAWS had a bye and were able to pick over the bones of your abject surrender. Thus we knew exactly what score was required to win going into the last round.