Page 22 of 22
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:57 pm
by rbodleyscott
philqw78 wrote:Ghaznavid wrote:Reasonable, but as stated before I think NOT winning the PBI is actually an advantage to LH armies.
Yes, smaller armies have more need to win PBI so they can get the match ups they want early. LH armies, especially with lots of filler, can move their battle winners around behind the screen of rubbish.
Or deploy them off table as a flank march.
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:24 pm
by azrael86
hammy wrote:kevinj wrote:The problem is in the format of tournament games.
Agreed. I think that Open competitions don't show FOG at its best, but obviously give the opportunity for the most entries. It may be worth surveying people to see just how many could enter different themes, or whether certain themes just don't contain sufficient interest for some.
What about PoW style pairs of armies?
I like this idea. It could form an alternative to Doubles, so that one player from each team uses the army that their team has brought, and the other uses their opponent's choices.
Yes, each pair brings a pair of armies then their opponent gets to choose which side. You will not get any horribly ballanced pairs if you do that.
Interesting, if only to see how long it takes to degenerate into writing the worst possible list for a reputedly good army...
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:42 pm
by hammy
azrael86 wrote:hammy wrote:Yes, each pair brings a pair of armies then their opponent gets to choose which side. You will not get any horribly ballanced pairs if you do that.
Interesting, if only to see how long it takes to degenerate into writing the worst possible list for a reputedly good army...
You do get to see the lists before you choose.
Picking armies with deliberately bad lists is another tournament format entriely.
The thing there is that each player writes the worst army list they can then the lists are allocated randomly to other players and the player who's army finishes last gets a prize while the player who wins with a pants army also gets aprize.
It was quite fun in DBM as you could create some truly horrific armies if you tried.
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:24 am
by kevinj
The thing there is that each player writes the worst army list they can then the lists are allocated randomly to other players and the player who's army finishes last gets a prize while the player who wins with a pants army also gets aprize.
The variant I played was that each round you played with your opponent's choice, so you always faced the rubbish you'd designed. Some people were especially ingenious at coming up with really unpleasant armies to play with.
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:01 pm
by azrael86
hammy wrote:
You do get to see the lists before you choose.
Which would render several aspects of the game much less effective - ambushes and flank marches for starters.
hammy wrote:
Picking armies with deliberately bad lists is another tournament format entriely.
The thing there is that each player writes the worst army list they can then the lists are allocated randomly to other players and the player who's army finishes last gets a prize while the player who wins with a pants army also gets aprize.
It was quite fun in DBM as you could create some truly horrific armies if you tried.
As mentioned in another thread, DBM rather leant itself to that, due to pips and the command structure. Amongst the sad losses to FOG are the unreliable ally general and command break point. It seems unlikely that Fog would generate quite the chaos that DBM could out of christian nubian or rajput....