Derby Teams (UK) - 3rd & 4th October

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:42 am

hannibal wrote:I think that some penalty is now in order. The competition rules mention a points deduction, so I could do that, but maybe we could think of something more imaginative - maybe for the first game I would make them deploy all their army first? But happy to take suggestions - why don't we do a straw poll among the righteous? Please post your views on here & I'll go with the most popular/ imaginative!

I have to admit I feel uncofortable when things like this are enforced. I remember on IWF tournament where my opponent had an illegal list and it could not be rectified so the umpires decided that the player in question had to show their list to their opponents before each game. It was a 2 list comp so this was a big penalty. Anyway, I looked at his list and just skimmed it as it felt wrong to study it. What I wanted to know was if he had Bw(X), he didn't so I went with my mounted Patrician list. What I didn't notice was that he had loads of Sp(I) and had I chosen my warband list it would have been a massacre.

If you want a mild penalty give the opponents of players with illegal lists the choice of winning or losing the initiative or something like that.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:46 am

uneven numbers ?

late lists?

give the late lists the byes - that'll teach em

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:27 am

I'm in favour of some sort of penalty some thoughts would be:

1. Opponent gets to choose the territory type,

2. Must deploy whole army first,

3. Must show opponent their list before the game starts,

4. Points deduction,

5. Opponent can choose to move first or second, possibly chosen after deployment has been completed,

6. Must buy each opponent 2 beers

7. Start the game with a 2AP penalty.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:37 am

nikgaukroger wrote:I'm in favour of some sort of penalty some thoughts would be:

I would have thought a loss of 5% of points scored over the whole weekend. Very good players could overcome most of the above. Poorer players would suffer terribly. If losing 5% of points all would lose a couple of places, not so bad if you are near the bottom anyway, awful if you are near the top.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:33 am

Some version of no.6 would be the best choice. I am not enthusiastic about game penalties. It rather sours the event. Late lists are a 'social problem' not a game issue. If there is a penalty, I would prefer to see organisers refuse entries from repeat offenders who have no good reason for late lists.

Some lists may be missing for good reasons. Andy, I believe, offered to float between pools to make up numbers. It would be a bit harsh penalising someone trying to help. One would hope the others are not dishonorably trying to pick a good army after seeing the r and r. If this were happening I think the social pressure would soon put an end to it.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:42 am

Im with you there Roger. Im sure no one would take unfair advantage (ie cheat) by making a decision only now the lists are out there.

though I cant see where that would help much looking at the lists

edit - actualy I can see where it would help - if i was torn between SHNC and something else - i wouldnt take the SHNC as there are already 2 of em in the pool.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:06 am

There is quite a large advantage in choosing lists after you have seen what else is in period, there maybe a perfectly valid reason for a list not getting in on time, but it is now Tuesday and the competition starts on Saturday. As a listchecker it is a real pain to have to hurriedly check lists near the deadline as errors can easily get missed and corrections are difficult.

I think that late lists should be penalised - after all, the point of a penalty is to try and ensure the offender doesn't do it again. This should be enough to make it that the player doesn't want to do it again but not so draconian that it makes the weekend a mockery. If there is no penalty, or a penalty so mild that it makes bugger all difference then how is this going to stop the same person doing the same thing time and time again?

Personally I prefer this option:

5. Opponent can choose to move first or second, possibly chosen after deployment has been completed,

After all, the PBI roll is determined by army selection - so you may want to lose the PBI and therefore take a PBI of zero army. If your opponent has a PBI of 4 then it is hardly a bonus that you automatically win this roll.

However following terrain selection and troop deployment then if you get the chance to move first or second this is an advantage, but not a game losing one in itself. This could be quite easily rationalised by saying due to the late muster then the army was too busy frantically deploying to take the initiative on it's first turn.

hannibal · Post by **hannibal** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:14 am

OK, thanks for the input. Interesting views aired! I agree with Dave, this should not be draconian but should impose a slight disadvantage. I think we're talking 5 offenders (excluding Andy McKay who I think will be a floater). I will do the following

1. For game 1, offenders must deploy their army first, in its entirety irrespective of the initiative roll
2. For games 2-4, opponents of offenders can choose whether to move first or second, irrespective of the initiative roll.

I think this gives a fair balance

Cheers
Marc

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:16 pm

Keen to know how it goes this weekend - best of luck!!

Hope the previous Derby wrinkles have been ironed out!

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:22 pm

petedalby wrote:Hope the previous Derby wrinkles have been ironed out!

So do I

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:37 pm

Excellent.

Does that mean we can have an updated Runners and Riders?

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:37 pm

hannibal wrote:OK, thanks for the input. Interesting views aired! I agree with Dave, this should not be draconian but should impose a slight disadvantage. I think we're talking 5 offenders (excluding Andy McKay who I think will be a floater). I will do the following

1. For game 1, offenders must deploy their army first, in its entirety irrespective of the initiative roll
2. For games 2-4, opponents of offenders can choose whether to move first or second, irrespective of the initiative roll.

I think this gives a fair balance

Cheers
Marc

I'd like to thank Marc for taking on board what the people wrote, I'm with Dave R it is an advantage for those with late lists I can't think why with four days to go of the event people have'nt got lists in. Still at least now I can see who's going to beat me.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:40 pm

Is'nt it strange in the Middle East period ie S & S and Decline that no Crusader Armies have appeared.

Apart from the Arab Conquest the remainder could if wanted field large amounts of Bow/Sword?

Lots of running round shooting then I think?

Looking forward to it.

Dave

list_lurker · Post by **list_lurker** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:48 pm

At least there is one Roman in the Roman period!

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:48 pm

david53 wrote:Is'nt it strange in the Middle East period ie S & S and Decline that no Crusader Armies have appeared.

IMO there are some useful anti-shooty armies available in the 2 books so I'm a bit surprised nobody has gone for any of them - I briefly considered but as I don't actually own ony of them ...

I did (briefly) consider a very silly Ghaznavid with 5 nellie BGs

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:50 pm

list_lurker wrote:At least there is one Roman in the Roman period!

Always one weirdo

list_lurker · Post by **list_lurker** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:54 pm

At least there is one Roman in the Roman period!

The real question will be how many Romans will there be in the non-roman armies

Robert241167 · Post by **Robert241167** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:58 pm

Hi Dave

I was surprised to see in the SoA and selected EE armies theme that I have the only army from EE.

It will be strange not facing any shooty cavalry armies.

Rob

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:59 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
david53 wrote:Is'nt it strange in the Middle East period ie S & S and Decline that no Crusader Armies have appeared.
IMO there are some useful anti-shooty armies available in the 2 books so I'm a bit surprised nobody has gone for any of them - I briefly considered but as I don't actually own ony of them ...

I did (briefly) consider a very silly Ghaznavid with 5 nellie BGs

I thought about the dailami for a while but not got over losing all four games im France with them.

IMO with what little experience i have playing against another shooty cavalry army I think them the most fun stressful but fun still.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:04 pm

Robert241167 wrote:Hi Dave

I was surprised to see in the SoA and selected EE armies theme that I have the only army from EE.

It will be strange not facing any shooty cavalry armies.

Rob

I'll catch up with you again just you wait,

I'll look forward to seeing you at Derby.

I think theres a lot off Knight armies and Longbow in your event.

Still it should be a laugh.

At least in mine there'll be only a few people saying that they can't catch the LH.