Slitherine

hazelbark wrote: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.

I hadn't noticed that. While I think the rule change (and hence special rule) is a good one, I think it is better to play the current set of rules "as is."

hazelbark wrote:Third someone wants to start another event I am all for it.

I was using an extreme example as a cautionary tale. Despite several of our own ego's and feelings of self importance we are a very small group of people and the last thing we need is further sub-division. Hell, it is only a year or two ago that Ricky figured out long division.

Gino
SMAC

ethan wrote:

hazelbark wrote: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.

I hadn't noticed that. While I think the rule change (and hence special rule) is a good one, I think it is better to play the current set of rules "as is."

And Marc keeps telling everyone that he is the only sensible member of the Beltway.

Gino
SMAC

hazelbark wrote:First Nik is opening this up to a free discussion.

Lot's of discussion ...YES
Any hint in the verbage that he is being or will be swayed....NO

Recall the questions about "Why no Selucids?" (((Prob one of the top 10 most played (ie favorite) armies in the game)))

Response was a reiteration of the statement that the lists "were not intended to be all inclusive."

Doesn't sound like a negotiation (nor perhaps should it be). One will lose one's mind if they try to please everyone. Especially when stepping outside of the expected norm.

That is why I propose a slower approach to change.

Tighten up the time frames but keep them all inclusive once the dates are decided. - Seems like a resonable compromise to me.

Then if you want to see something besides HA Knights chasing Shooty Cav Arabs around the Steppes in Period 4 perhaps period 4 ends at 1149AD this year.
While Period 1 could be 5000BC to 800 BC to eliminate the Armoured Hopilites and allow more light chariot armies to be viable.

Same result but (IMHO) the proccess will fall under less scrutiny and will be open to less disparaging opinions.

Gino
SMAC

hazelbark wrote: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.

It may well be advance notice, but no one (sensible) would practice with it until they know both that they are part of the team and in that period. Like I said, timing makes that awkward.

A few points:

• The pools posted are up for comments and suggestions and not final.
  Ditto the Special Rule.
  One thing that is not really up for discussion (within reason) is that the pools will only be set by date range - some may be, but most will be a list of allowable armies as, IMO, that is the best approach and I think a premier international event should set standards.
  Things that would make a pool a poor one are: an obviously dominant army, too few "popular" armies (or reasonable morphs) so that teams may struggle to find a player for a pool, etc. - so if you think any of the pools suffer from that please yell.
  Feel free to suggest other pools, but please note what I said above about what I think makes a good pool.

I like the pools - as long as they throw in a good number of choices then they're fine. We have a 3 team comp in Derby and the themes are:

Pool #1 Alexandrian & successors 850pts. Specified range of lists from ROR and IF 355 to 30 BC
Pool #2 Early Byzantine Theme 900pts. Specified range of lists, mainly from D&F 493 to 962 AD
Pool #3 W Europe Early Feudal 800pts. Specified range of lists mainly from WFTS and OOF 1000 to 1149 AD

Recall the questions about "Why no Selucids?"

I suspect that Nik has excluded them because of their cataphracts - just as he has excluded all other cat-heavy armies?

Personally I like the Armoured Knight change but fully understand the concerns raised about practice so on balance I'd drop it - sorry. And the Huns still look like the odd man out.

dave_r wrote: The guys at the club love it when I get a right kicking because I've tried an idea that just doesn't work.

Its even better when you have an idea that does work and you still take it up the ****

The guys at the club love it when I get a right kicking because I've tried an idea that just doesn't work.

Have you ever had an idea that has worked?

peterrjohnston wrote:

hazelbark wrote: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.

It may well be advance notice, but no one (sensible) would practice with it until they know both that they are part of the team and in that period. Like I said, timing makes that awkward.

I think that is a very fair point. I would encourage all nations that might attend along with playerrs who might attend or have attended discuss and see what they think.

I think a lot of people don't play with armoured knights often enough. And the big vulnerablity is they receive hits on 4. So they are vullerable to bow fire.

MatthewP wrote:

The guys at the club love it when I get a right kicking because I've tried an idea that just doesn't work.

Have you ever had an idea that has worked?

Throw lots of five's and sixes to wipe out your opponent, completely destroying his morale and ability to fight.

Ring any bells Poole?

Dawn of History – 3000BC to 701BC
Any army dated before 700BC.

You may want to look at the neo assyrians. I think they get their HF starting in 704. May want to look at that list and ask will it create a preponderance of army choices. First its a common owned army. Second it has done well in a lot of comps. Third, you may think the post 704 options give it advantages the period doesn't need. Also I don't remember the years on the Dynastic Egyptians with their good hoplite foot. Should double check those dates.

Throw lots of five's and sixes to wipe out your opponent, completely destroying his morale and ability to fight.

Ring any bells Poole?

Every game you've ever beaten me in. (both of them)

nikgaukroger wrote:
Dawn of Chivalry – 1050AD to 1149AD
Oath of Fealty

Feudal Catalan, etc.
Early Hungarian

Swords and Scimitars

Later Crusader
Georgian
Seljuk Turk
Cuman
Cilician Armenian


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


Oath of Fealty

Early Hungarian

Swords and Scimitars

Later Crusader
Georgian
Seljuk Turk (Rum)
Cuman
Cilician Armenian

Probably should introduce the traditional no team can pull the same army for different periods. Also you might want to consider knocking some duplicates out but that probably less critical.

MatthewP wrote:

Throw lots of five's and sixes to wipe out your opponent, completely destroying his morale and ability to fight.

Ring any bells Poole?

Every game you've ever beaten me in. (both of them)

Although I feel it need mentioned that we've only played twice.

Although I feel it need mentioned that we've only played twice.

You've forgotten the others.

Couple of passing observations.

The 1200-1500 allows Later Crusader and Catalan, but omits Latin Greek. It also allows that rare beast, early ottomann turk. Anyone EVER seen EOT in FOG? Especially if LOT is an option.

Never seen and not recorded as a used army in the FoG ELO Rankings.

Why have a little when you can have a lot?

Subtle... a word not often associated with dave... :)