Slitherine

Currently looking at 8 so 4 games. If it changes to 6 will have five games but still use 4 lists, first game will be with smallest army, so that will end up being used twice.

why don't we go for 5 games anyway... ??? outcome wont affect me.. but it could be interesting overall as we will just about play everyone....

Peoples thoughts?

nigelemsen wrote:why don't we go for 5 games anyway... ??? outcome wont affect me.. but it could be interesting overall as we will just about play everyone....

I would like the 5 game format very much and would be very happy to set-up a draw using the same principles as Tom laid out for the 6 person 5 game format.
Isabel would like it as long as she doesn't have to play me!

steads wrote:

nigelemsen wrote:why don't we go for 5 games anyway... ??? outcome wont affect me.. but it could be interesting overall as we will just about play everyone....

I would like the 5 game format very much and would be very happy to set-up a draw using the same principles as Tom laid out for the 6 person 5 game format.
Isabel would like it as long as she doesn't have to play me!

<Like>

I Know I don't have a problem with it, I suspect Bob, and Tom can be talked into it, that leaves Andrew and Paul who will be driving to and from so a latish finish Saturday may be something they don't want. Although with the first game being the smallest armies it should take under 3 hours unless two players start being very cagey. Also most of the armies are go at it gung ho types. French and Swedish, so someone generally will be attacking.

Will try not to have Stephen and Isobel play each other which is why not playing each other in the first two rounds as a hope they would get separated in the scoring so as not to appear next to each other, with Isobel riding high and Stephen holding the rest of the tournament up. . For other rounds there may be a little jiggery pokery to keep them apart, basically if the draw is not majorly compromised by keeping them apart, but no promises, and if they are 1 and 2 at the start of a round they will be fighting each other, unless the rest of the draw couldn't cope with that.

I suspect, on game 3+ there is every chance Stephen and Isobel will have to play each other as both are very good players with a strong list selection.. So I suspect they will be up in the top three over the weekend....

now for me... how to deal with those pesky Swiss DF of Toms...

I will agree to 3 games on the Saturday but only on the basis that we start slightly earlier say registration at 8:30am and start first game at 8:45am and have a shorter lunch or play through lunch.

Otherwise it may create a domestic problem for me.

Bob

viking123 wrote:I will agree to 3 games on the Saturday but only on the basis that we start slightly earlier say registration at 8:30am and start first game at 8:45am and have a shorter lunch or play through lunch.

Otherwise it may create a domestic problem for me.

Bob

Iz and I are good with that

Earlier start fine for me for 5 games

Just seen Bob's email. I'm going to struggle with the 5 game format as I have a 2 hour drive each way to contend with - so may I have to concede game 3. I'll see how I'm doing on Saturday. Earlier start isn't a problem but I'd honestly rather not have a (close to) 16 hour day including the commute.

As I said in my post we needed to get input from Paul and Andrew before deciding, as they where the ones driving. We do have the hall Saturday evening so we can stop the third game after 1.5-2 hours and continue it Sunday morning. Or revert to 4 games, don't want to make Paul have too long a day as that's unfair as most of the rest will be staying localish.

I will have the tables set up (with help from Tom and Bob) for 8:45 start if everyone is there. We could go for the first 4 games being player decides size, see how we are going including possibly starting game 3 on Saturday, finishing sunday, and if we have enough time make game 5, the one where the smallest armies have to be used.

benjones1211 wrote:As I said in my post we needed to get input from Paul and Andrew before deciding, as they where the ones driving. We do have the hall Saturday evening so we can stop the third game after 1.5-2 hours and continue it Sunday morning. Or revert to 4 games, don't want to make Paul have too long a day as that's unfair as most of the rest will be staying localish.

I will have the tables set up (with help from Tom and Bob) for 8:45 start if everyone is there. We could go for the first 4 games being player decides size, see how we are going including possibly starting game 3 on Saturday, finishing sunday, and if we have enough time make game 5, the one where the smallest armies have to be used.

understandable... Ill prob be their early so happy to help set up as well

Draws out...

See you game 2 Tom

Well? Come on then - how did it go?

Enjoyable weekend..

But next year can we please drop the 50:50 rule

So no water with the whiskey, then? I'm not sure that will improve your game, Nigel.....

I will post the full details of the results later but the finishing order was: -
1. Paul Kitcher
2. Tom Elsworth
3. Stephen Stead
4. Bob Medcraft
5. Nigel Emsen
6. Izzy Stead

RonanTheLibrarian wrote:So no water with the whiskey, then? I'm not sure that will improve your game, Nigel.....

go on how do you know?

Here are the full details of the results from last weekend's competition. I have included details of which size army was used in each round as this is a key part of the competition.

Oxford 25mm FOG AM/R Competition 2016
Place Player Number Player Name Army Opponent Score Total Score
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
1 4 Paul Kitcher TYW French 5 2 3 1 6 11 21 14 24 19 89
2 5 Tom Elsworth Italian Wars French 4 3 1 6 2 9 22 13 20 4 68
3 2 Stephen Stead ETYW Swedish 1 4 6 3 5 13 4 13 7 18 55
4 6 Bob Medcraft TYW French 3 1 2 5 4 24 7 7 5 6 49
5 1 Nigel Emsen Norman 2 6 5 4 3 7 15 11 1 11 45
6 3 Izzy Stead ETYW Swedish 6 5 4 2 1 1 3 10 18 11 43
65 72 68 75 69
Average score per round 10.83 12.00 11.33 12.50 11.50



Player Number Player Name Army Size of Army used in each round
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
4 Paul Kitcher TYW French smallest 2nd Smallest smallest 2rd largest Largest
5 Tom Elsworth Italian Wars French smallest 2rd largest smallest 2nd Smallest Largest
2 Stephen Stead ETYW Swedish smallest 2rd largest Largest smallest 2nd Smallest
6 Bob Medcraft TYW French Smallest - 650 Smallest - 650 2nd Largest- 783 2nd Smallest - 716 Largest - 850
1 Nigel Emsen Norman smallest 2rd largest Largest 2nd Smallest smallest
3 Izzy Stead ETYW Swedish Smallest - 641 2nd Smallest Largest Smallest - 641 2rd largest

We are proposing to run the competition next year and would welcome comments to why people did not play this year and what changed need to be made to the format to encourage them to play next year.

Sounds like a good time was had by all - only 12 points separating 3rd from 6th, so obviously close. Three observations:-

1) It's difficult to say how successful it was as a contest, since only one person brought a non-Renaissance army - and given Nigel's penchant for the "unusual" and the normal (or should that be norman?) consequence of that, his final position was not a huge surprise. How about forcing everyone to play at least one, or maybe two games with A/M armies, possibly the same choice in national terms (eg 100 Years War French and TYW French)?

2) The lack of a suitable 25/28mm army in this scale might put me off next year. Are there any spares around, as more availability (or perhaps more prior knowledge of it) could boost numbers, I suspect?

3) Another "downer" is the proximity to the BHGS FoG:R Doubles, the weekend before (ie two full weekends in a row), which would also make participation difficult, unless combined with divorce; the Doubles was cancelled due to lack of support (only two pairs entered)* - with the same response next year and a similar cancellation, you might benefit from the fall-out. However, it is worth noting that all FoG:R competitions in 2016 - especially doubles - have had fewer entries than 2015 and 2014. Is there a bigger problem with FoG:R itself that needs to be addressed?

Personally, I would like to give this a try next year.