Changing Army Lists During a Tournament??

[Blathergut]

With following the discussions about LH armies and Dom Swarm armies (and beer drinking in Rome...loved the reports from there!), I just wondered:

Have you souls on that far side of the pond ever run tournaments where you were told your oppponents army and then allowed to craft an 800pt list from your army and then fought? Repeat for next opponent(s). Anyone ever try this?

[jlopez]

With following the discussions about LH armies and Dom Swarm armies (and beer drinking in Rome...loved the reports from there!), I just wondered:

Have you souls on that far side of the pond ever run tournaments where you were told your oppponents army and then allowed to craft an 800pt list from your army and then fought? Repeat for next opponent(s). Anyone ever try this?

There were quite a few French competitions in DBM days that allowed you to take two lists for the same army so for example you could take Hannibal and lots of good infantry in one list and design another Later Carthiginian list with lots of mounted. Once the draw was announced you decided which army list to use based on your opponent's list. It made for quite interesting decisions when both players had versatile lists to design lists from.

Julian

[dave_r]

It made for quite interesting decisions when both players had versatile lists to design lists from.

I think this is the critical point. Having two lists actually decreased the pool of armies that were viable in two-list competitions. There were a couple of high profile comps like this in the UK for DBM. Personally, I never liked them.

They tended to favour those armies who could have two (or more) wildy different variations.

[hammy]

I agree with Dave (which is rather worrying).

Two list tournaments favour armies where you can get two really different lists so in effect you bring scissors and paper to a scissors, paper, stone game. Some lists actually allowed you to almost do everything in one go.

You will never see one dimensional armies in two list tournaments although you might see one dimensional lists from an army that can have more than one personality.

Making your list before each game would favour people with lots of toys and really restrict armies to ones that are the most flexible.

[Blathergut]

Hmmm..maybe it's a case of tournament types vs play to enjoy types.

[nikgaukroger]

I play tournaments to enjoy.

[Blathergut]

I don't mean that as a negative. Just seems some see tournaments a different way. I'd play an army I enjoy, like the ancient Spanish, which wouldn't have too many variations other than Sertorious's drilled dudes. I doubt it would be too effective in tournaments, but would be fun. But some seem to look at armies from the way they handle in tournaments, not that that's a bad thing or anything, just kinda different. But no put-down or anything meant.

[expendablecinc]

I don't mean that as a negative. Just seems some see tournaments a different way. I'd play an army I enjoy, like the ancient Spanish, which wouldn't have too many variations other than Sertorious's drilled dudes. I doubt it would be too effective in tournaments, but would be fun. But some seem to look at armies from the way they handle in tournaments, not that that's a bad thing or anything, just kinda different. But no put-down or anything meant.

I think rather than "enjoyment" being the factor its the nature of more formal competitive play that lends itself more to the list. Assuming that noone likes to play games where they consistantly lose when they are actually trying to win and that we are playing this game for the spectacle and feel of model gaming theres a mix to be had between finding a decent army and army list- and finding an army that you really want to play with.

There are some rare folks at one end of the scale that simply like pushing and looking at a large scale battle completely regardless of the outcome (more akin to the train modellers) and there are those at the other end of the scale that are simly looking at the statistical advantage to be gained by the various lists in terms of troops available, terrain, allies, and sum of its parts effect. Each gains enjoyment from what they do and in my experience regardless you end up getting enjoyment from the other aspect as well.

Some may think I am crazy for getting enjoyment from poring through the lists in my favourite books looking for a list composition I like (eg crown of aragon or latin greek with amulgvar allies) both lists can be almost identical but the aragon chaps get offensive spear as well.

Others may wonder how someone can doggedly refuse to relinquish thier dbm Irish AxO army despite its refusal to win any on table combat.

[Keith]

If you have the figures and want to lug them along I think you should be able to submit an army for each period so that you can play historical matchups where possible.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

I dont think you would have time to make a new army list between each game, competitions in the UK are already too short in my humble opinion.

2 lists might work but then again people have pointed out the issues with this.

Ive found some people do find a certain amount of enjoyment in building the army lists.

[hammy]

Even in two list tournaments there are som 'romantic' players who bring the army they love and often don't bother with a second list. They still get thier games and probably enjoy them almost as much as they would in a one list event. The downside is that there is less variety of opponents and a lot of oposing armies will be more optimised to beat the 'romantics'.

Another issue would be list checking. Do you get each list checked before the games start? If you wait until the game is underway and then discover that your opponents list is wrong what do you do then?

IMO it sounds like an interesting idea but it is not really practical.

[CLAVDIVS]

I also agree with Dave R & Hammy on this, but changing the order of March in each game this could be quit easily be done especial in a long competition such as Britcon playing 6 games over the weekend.

[Blathergut]

ya...never thought about just changing order of march...even that would make for some interesting thinking before the match

[grahambriggs]

Many people struggle to get their army list correct when they have days on end to fiddle with it. I suspect many more would be incorrect if you changed it before every game at a competition. There just isn't time to do this in most competitions.

[timurilenk]

There were a couple of high profile comps like this in the UK for DBM. Personally, I never liked them..

I agree that changing/creating the list at each round would cause too many problems - especially with incorrect lists and the logistics of checking would be unmanageable.

Also the changing of march order would cause more room for suspicion which the set-up system of FOG has largely eliminated.

I disagree with Dave on the two list competition though - at the end, DBM became a bit of a treadmill (which I got off) of samey 400pts vanilla. I am enjoying wargaming again now largely because of the new experience of the rules, but also that there are some different competitions around - Hammy's low point smaller table at Expo, Rampage with variable AP lists, the 350 points at Valhalla etc. Having some two list competitions would add to this IMO (of course if there were too many or this became the norm it might be a problem).

Ian

[hazelbark]

I think the better way to do this, is any player in the bottom half of the field after the 2nd round is able to adjust their army list.

Define "adjust".

This way players having a rough day or newer players learning from experience can try new things quickly.

[expendablecinc]

..IMO it sounds like an interesting idea but it is not really practical.

And more easily managed in a league style comp. Our club has this as an annual event. This year players pick an army date sub type and any special campaign but can otherwise change thier list from game to game. Each players plays each other entrant once thorughout the year and the winner is on overall points total.

anthony

[Legionbuilder]

I really like the idea of having "more than one list" for each of my armies before I get there. As long as both lists are okayed and approved - I don't see the harm. That way you can "react" to your opponent's army
I am still learning and I make MISTAKES every game
I have not yet played in a full day of tournament games just one in an evening

[LambertSimnel]

ya...never thought about just changing order of march...even that would make for some interesting thinking before the match

Another idea (but not necessarily a good idea) is to allow the BGs to be reorganised while the troops stay the same. For example changing 3 * 4 element BGs into 2 * 6 element ones