Warfare 2010

[nikgaukroger]

Kofun Nara. Not that the LH and Bw/Swd cav were a problem , but 2 armies I fought almost certainly avoided defeat because of the extra depth. I think the table should be marked at the correct width.

If the comp rules stated that the tables were to be 6x4 and you didn't measure that out then more fool you for being an idiot - you got the reward for not following the rules. I can assure you that if asked that the umpires would have supported you asking for a 4' deep table.

[dave_r]

Elephants beat lancers

Not clear cut at all. In the game tonight my lancers killed two BG's of Elephants, one of them broke in the process.

Now, that needs looking at. Any examples of lancers charging elephants? I assume not flank or rear. I would suggest that this is very broken.

Actually, one was a flank charge. This caused the other BG of Elephants to break, but they were already fragmented.

Go through the maths. It's not that unlikely if the Elephants are average and the Cavalry are Superior with a general.

Again, the devil is in the detail, as always.

[philqw78]

Courtesy Phil's pasting service

Tim and Richard were customers at the weekend.

[nikgaukroger]

Not marking the tables at 4' deep is at least in part due to my personal loathing of the artificiality of table edges. Real-life generalship involved making a plan to suit the terrain and the opponent, but very rarely seems to have included coping with impassable cliffs and/or water-features completely surrounding both flanks and the rear of both armies.

Which may well be a noble sentiment, however, with games designed for playing, and having a good chance of a result, on a 6x4 table in normal competition timings, this may not be such a good idea.

[rbodleyscott]

It'd be interesting to see whether the variation in table depth affected results.

Not if you measured it before the game started, like the people I was sitting alongside.

Hmm. So you steppe boys will happily play on 4' instead of arguing for 4'6". Not in my experience.

I didn't even notice the table depths. The subject wasn't mentioned by any of my opponents. (Including two of the three Kofun-Nara Japanese players).

Who are you Azrael? The public has a right to know.

Presumably, you are one of the following:

Jon Akers
Pete Townsend
Steve Murton

[nikgaukroger]

Jon Akers.

[azrael86]

Jon Akers.

Indeed. Although Nik and Richard appear to be arguing the opposite cases: if the depth wasn't mentioned, then Richard presumably you deployed with extra 6MU separation (if playing on a wider table) whereas Nik is saying that everyone should have played on 6x4 (which makes sense) but could have been simplified by stating it on the draw board.

The other option would be to have zones defined from the centre line, not the table edge: then the problem goes away.

[hammy]

The other option would be to have zones defined from the centre line, not the table edge: then the problem goes away.

Actually they don't. The biggest problem with deeper tables is more is more depth for skirmshers to run away and hide in. Measuring from the centre line helps a bit but still gives that extra 3" of wiggle room. Or put another way it still means another turn for heavy foot to cross the table.

[nikgaukroger]

Jon Akers.

Indeed. Although Nik and Richard appear to be arguing the opposite cases: if the depth wasn't mentioned, then Richard presumably you deployed with extra 6MU separation (if playing on a wider table) whereas Nik is saying that everyone should have played on 6x4 (which makes sense) but could have been simplified by stating it on the draw board.

The other option would be to have zones defined from the centre line, not the table edge: then the problem goes away.

IIRC the online comp rules said 6x4 tables. It isn't hard to measure - you obviously did as you say some tables were 6MU wider * - and then work out where 4' would get to, as I said if you then didn't mention this to your opponents that is your fault and you get the consequences. I don't think Richard and I are arguing different cases, it is just that he didn't notice that they may be wider and nobody raised it with him - I'm sure if it had been he would have agreed to play on 4' deep.


* not all were as the ones I played on in the classical pool were about 4' 1", I guess it depended where you were in the hall.

[rbodleyscott]

if the depth wasn't mentioned, then Richard presumably you deployed with extra 6MU separation (if playing on a wider table)

Presumably so, though the possibility that the table depth differed from the norm never occurred to me, and nobody raised the issue within my hearing. (Well you may have done, as you were on the next table in one of my games, but if so I was concentratring on my own game and didn't hear it).

As Nik says, if my opponent had asked to play on exactly 4 foot depth I would have agreed - I have done so in the past.

[azrael86]

As Nik says, if my opponent had asked to play on exactly 4 foot depth I would have agreed - I have done so in the past.

...implying that it was a choice, not an obligation!

[nikgaukroger]

As Nik says, if my opponent had asked to play on exactly 4 foot depth I would have agreed - I have done so in the past.

...implying that it was a choice, not an obligation!

Not so - Richard has said he hadn't noticed the table depth, but that if it had been pointed out he would have been obliged to play on 4' deep.

If the depth was such an issue to you why did you not raise it?

[azrael86]

If the depth was such an issue to you why did you not raise it?

I raised it with one opponent, but as a question. I vaguely recall getting a ruling aeons ago (No idea who from but def prefog, maybe pre dbm) that - to the effect of "it's that wide, so it's that wide"! Which is reinforced by the fact that many comps do mark width when it isn't right.

If the definitive view is that tables should always be 4' that's a good thing - rollcall was on wide tables last year, so this year I ruled out using heavy foot there.

[azrael86]

* not all were as the ones I played on in the classical pool were about 4' 1", I guess it depended where you were in the hall.

the tables on the right were wider. Because of how dragons got split it is possible that some players played all 4 games on 4' or on 4'6". Which was my original question.

[peterrjohnston]

From an umpiring view also thanks to everyone for making it an easy job - especially those ruled against who all took it in the right spirit - and to my opponents, Keith, Dave, Jim and Peter, who put up with the times I had to go and be an umpire.

We use player-umpires all the time here, and as it tends to be the same players who end up umpiring it was becoming a problem, not just for the umpire (distracted concentration for one) but for opponents who are losing not insignificant amounts of game time. We decided the umpire's game now has one extra pair of turns to compensate. Not extra time, as the umpire is often busiest at the end of games. Given umpires also decide the variable game time, there's no advantage gained there either. Depends on how time constrained you are, especially lunch breaks and Sunday afternoon.

IIRC the game well enough at normal time called, in the last tournament when I was umpiring I went from a marginal draw to a loss as a consequence, but it's fair to the opponent as well.

[nikgaukroger]

If the depth was such an issue to you why did you not raise it?

I raised it with one opponent, but as a question. I vaguely recall getting a ruling aeons ago (No idea who from but def prefog, maybe pre dbm) that - to the effect of "it's that wide, so it's that wide"! Which is reinforced by the fact that many comps do mark width when it isn't right.

If the definitive view is that tables should always be 4' that's a good thing - rollcall was on wide tables last year, so this year I ruled out using heavy foot there.

The only definitive thing is that if the comp rules say 4' wide then you are entitled to play on 4' wide - however, different comps may vary in table depth (and indeed width, and that is OK (and if the players choose to agree something else then who cares).

[nikgaukroger]

From an umpiring view also thanks to everyone for making it an easy job - especially those ruled against who all took it in the right spirit - and to my opponents, Keith, Dave, Jim and Peter, who put up with the times I had to go and be an umpire.

We use player-umpires all the time here, and as it tends to be the same players who end up umpiring it was becoming a problem, not just for the umpire (distracted concentration for one) but for opponents who are losing not insignificant amounts of game time. We decided the umpire's game now has one extra pair of turns to compensate. Not extra time, as the umpire is often busiest at the end of games. Given umpires also decide the variable game time, there's no advantage gained there either. Depends on how time constrained you are, especially lunch breaks and Sunday afternoon.

IIRC the game well enough at normal time called, in the last tournament when I was umpiring I went from a marginal draw to a loss as a consequence, but it's fair to the opponent as well.

Probably works in Italy where there is a more relaxed attitude to the timing of the start of games - here in the UK we get all draconian about these things and so delays in getting a score sheet in can be an issue

To be honest, when player-umpiring I have yet to have an opponent be anything other than relaxed about things - although if possible I prefer to be a non-playing umpire.

[david53]

If the depth was such an issue to you why did you not raise it?

I think someone is just arguing for the interest he wants it to raise.
How stupid to complain afterwards at the size width and not at the time you were quite happy to play on that size table so why complain now unless you just enjpoy doing it sees plain daft to me.

[azrael86]

Now, that needs looking at. Any examples of lancers charging elephants? I assume not flank or rear. I would suggest that this is very broken.

Actually, one was a flank charge. This caused the other BG of Elephants to break, but they were already fragmented.

Go through the maths. It's not that unlikely if the Elephants are average and the Cavalry are Superior with a general.

Again, the devil is in the detail, as always.

Veering off topic - if you are saying a flank charge into elephants broke them, then another unit broke from seeing it, that is one thing.

I thought you said that elephants breaking when frontally charged by lancers is a reasonable outcome - which it just isn't. If the maths work then the rules are wrong.

[grahambriggs]

Veering off topic - if you are saying a flank charge into elephants broke them, then another unit broke from seeing it, that is one thing.

I thought you said that elephants breaking when frontally charged by lancers is a reasonable outcome - which it just isn't. If the maths work then the rules are wrong.

I believe that there may be evidence from Indian sources of horses being trained to take on elephants. But i agree with the general point; it sounds like a loser for the horses. Perhaps the intended toughening of elephants in v2 will help.