Slitherine

Hi,

We'd like some feedback on the 25mm Field of Glory period at Roll Call this year.

Did everyone like the army points size, table size, movement distance etc? If not what would you like to see different?

Bruce.

(Taking cover).

Hi Bruce,
I played in the 25/28mm games at Roll Call this year and was very happy with the points and the table size, playing on 8ft long or 93.5" by 4' 6” the depth of the tables is OK to use 1" = 1 Mu as in the 15mm games, if you go with deeper tables over 5ft then you will have to go with 1 Mu = 40mm movement to make the deployment the same as in the 15mm games.

As for Food on both days it was OK a bit limited on the choice of food but I can live with that

Looking forwards to next year Roll Call and hoping I can make it that weekend

Hi Bruce,

I enjoyed the competition immensely, thanks to you and the team for all your hard work.

It was good to be able to play an 800AP game with 25mm on a (nearly) 8' wide table.

The only quibble I have is that making the table deeper by six inches made it much harder for my mainly HF army to get results. I'd like to see a couple of inches added to deployment zones to give them a decent chance.

Dave

daveallen wrote: The only quibble I have is that making the table deeper by six inches made it much harder for my mainly HF army to get results. I'd like to see a couple of inches added to deployment zones to give them a decent chance.

Dave

Actually that's a point for the 15mm as well. Was it spotted that the table sizes meant that all armies started 6-8 inches further apart than on a "normal" 6x4 ?

In DBM it was the distance from the centre line that counted for deployment, but in the FoG rules its always the distance from the back ..?

madaxeman wrote:

daveallen wrote: The only quibble I have is that making the table deeper by six inches made it much harder for my mainly HF army to get results. I'd like to see a couple of inches added to deployment zones to give them a decent chance.

Dave

Actually that's a point for the 15mm as well. Was it spotted that the table sizes meant that all armies started 6-8 inches further apart than on a "normal" 6x4 ?

In DBM it was the distance from the centre line that counted for deployment, but in the FoG rules its always the distance from the back ..?

If I end up playing on over deep tables I normally try to agree with my opponent to consider the base line as a few inches from the back of the table. It means that there is less risk of troops getting knocked off if nothing else.

All my opponents were more than happy to play on the bigger sized tables.

All four of my games finished in good time so it wasn't a problem.

Bruce,

No problem with the way it is for me.

I think it important to keep the 800 pts so that it is different to the other comps.

All being well I will be there again next year, hopefully with a much better army

Don

I know I didn't play this year (again ) due to FoG:R responsibilities, however, the 800 points and larger table is what attracts me to entering 25mm at Roll Call so I'd hope it was the same next year when hopefully I'll finally make it.

The only quibble I have is that making the table deeper by six inches made it much harder for my mainly HF army to get results. I'd like to see a couple of inches added to deployment zones to give them a decent chance.

See - it wasn't just me!

We had the same in 15mm - I've offered to tape the tables to 4' myself next year!

What is 6” between friends?

petedalby wrote:

The only quibble I have is that making the table deeper by six inches made it much harder for my mainly HF army to get results. I'd like to see a couple of inches added to deployment zones to give them a decent chance.

See - it wasn't just me!

We had the same in 15mm - I've offered to tape the tables to 4' myself next year!

We'll take you up on that offer!

petedalby wrote:

The only quibble I have is that making the table deeper by six inches made it much harder for my mainly HF army to get results. I'd like to see a couple of inches added to deployment zones to give them a decent chance.

See - it wasn't just me!

We had the same in 15mm - I've offered to tape the tables to 4' myself next year!

My free company got 4 decisive results, and at leastone "touchdown" with the men at arms!

I played on both adjusted and non adjuststed tables,my HF Anglo Irish coped with both ,only dropped 7 points overall,even chased down Mr Ruddocks skirmish heavy SHNC for a 24-1 so no problem either way from me
David

davidandlynda wrote:I played on both adjusted and non adjuststed tables,my HF Anglo Irish coped with both ,only dropped 7 points overall,even chased down Mr Ruddocks skirmish heavy SHNC for a 24-1 so no problem either way from me
David

Aaah - but should someone not be telling us whether the tables are supposed to be adjusted or not?

Under the "rules as written", they should not be adjusted... but the tourney rules stated the tables were to be 6x4?

What takes precedence?

(who cares?)

I enjoyed the 800pt, 8x4 "open" theme of the competition. It avoids excluding an individuals favorite army, espically when you consider the investment made to build a 25mm Army.

I hope this next year is the same.

Hi Bruce,

Have you got the dates for next year Roll Call yet mate

CLAVDIVS wrote:Hi Bruce,

Have you got the dates for next year Roll Call yet mate

Yes. Just going to get them put up on the web site now. 23rd/24th of October 2010.