Slitherine

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:04 pm**

From Mike Bennett - posted at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/BHG ... ssage/1343

Apologies for cross posting (and even worse posting on FFJH in English), but I
am just starting to think about ITC for next year, and unfortunately the rules
situation looks no nearer resolving (indeed maybe it is time to give up hoping
for that, and just accept that ancients is now splintered). Considering rules
to be offered, and with a minimum of 6 teams required to make a set viable:
a.. FoG may be the most secure period now, with 6 teams entered last year,
assuming all return next year.
b.. DBM was 8, but may be doubtful, 2 teams transferred from DBMM and
indicated that they may not do so in a later year, and UK struggled in the end
to get a team, and is now struggling to hold tournaments
c.. DBMM we only got real interest from Denmark and Ireland, with a possible
from Germany
If there is anyone out there that would be seriously interested in DBM or DBMM
for Lisbon ITC 2010 please let me know. Clearly this type of format is very
vulnerable when numbers are low, and the risk is we get stuck, with no one
committing until they know if others will, and by then finding travel is
prohibitively expensive or everyone has left it too late.

Mike, Martin, Nik ands the guys from Lisbon

I suggest that those countries interested in sending a team in 2010 contact Mike as soon as possible.

Posted: **Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 pm**

Well I know that Team USA will be there to represent.

Marc

Posted: **Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:31 pm**

Quoted from the IWF announcement:

MatteoPasi wrote:A correction: at least 8 players from Italy

So will there be an Italian team at the ITC in Lisbon as well?

Posted: **Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:55 pm**

nikgaukroger wrote: So will there be an Italian team at the ITC in Lisbon as well?

Very possibly for FoG; I've already emailed Mike about it.

For DBMM I have no idea.

Posted: **Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:41 pm**

peterrjohnston wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: So will there be an Italian team at the ITC in Lisbon as well?
Very possibly for FoG; I've already emailed Mike about it.

Cool

For DBMM I have no idea.

Not an issue for this forum

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:53 am**

Different topic, but it fits somehow here.
Does anybody has the complete FOG results from last year's FOG-competition?
We would like to add these to the FOG-Hall of Honour

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:08 am**

nikgaukroger wrote:
peterrjohnston wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: So will there be an Italian team at the ITC in Lisbon as well?
Very possibly for FoG; I've already emailed Mike about it.
Cool

From what I'm told it's a 75% probability at the moment, if you follow... early days though, so...

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:25 pm**

Any word on periods for this?

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:23 am**

Nope. I'm waiting to get confirmation it is running before thinking about that - so the sooner we have 6 teams committed the sooner I start thinking.

Feel free to float ideas - however, the decision is entirely mine (as long as Mike is happy with it) and I like to be contrary

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:38 am**

Wrong way Nik. I'm not going to consider the ITC, much less work on trying to get a team together, before I know there will be a "period" that interests me.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:54 am**

Thats life I'm afraid.

Whatever I decide you can bank on 4 fairly broad pools - 'cos that is what Mike wants for any ITC comp - but whether those are book based as last year or, say, date based will depend on what I decide.

That said if you use last year's pools as a guide it probably won't be too different in approach - and they were sort of similar to the traditional DBM list book dates that has been used at the ITC.

The remit is for 4 pools that are broad enough that any country that enters a team will be able to field an army in each pool (this recognises that some countries have small player bases and also that in some countries players may not be able to afford a large number of armies).

So it'll be 4 broad pools and not 4 tight themes.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:22 am**

Sounds ok, although personally I wouldn't like Azteks in a medieval theme. (It's rare enough I get to play in a theme as is.)

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:37 am**

Ghaznavid wrote:Sounds ok, although personally I wouldn't like Azteks in a medieval theme. (It's rare enough I get to play in a theme as is.)

I don't think the Aztecs would either

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:13 pm**

nikgaukroger wrote:So it'll be 4 broad pools and not 4 tight themes.

I am glad to hear it, Nik. Broad periods are better, IMHO. I am all in favor of doing it just like the DBM periods; that is to say, based on a date range. Giving all army lists the chance to play improves the odds of a team being able to enter something in each period, and provides the potential for greater variety in opponents for the players.

If desired, perhaps the Aztecs, et al. could be moved to the "Book 1" period just to keep them with their closest technological relatives. <shrug>

I will also note that the sooner the periods are announced the better. In addition to the planning advantages, it is fun to speculate about army designs and strategies.

Marc

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:40 pm**

babyshark wrote:
If desired, perhaps the Aztecs, et al. could be moved to the "Book 1" period just to keep them with their closest technological relatives. <shrug>

Given the way Mr Briggs' Aztecs have been dicking over medieval armies lately I'm not sure they need it ...

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:12 pm**

babyshark wrote:
If desired, perhaps the Aztecs, et al. could be moved to the "Book 1" period just to keep them with their closest technological relatives. <shrug>

Marc

I am not sure aztecs in period 1 is healthy.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:13 pm**

hazelbark wrote:
babyshark wrote:
If desired, perhaps the Aztecs, et al. could be moved to the "Book 1" period just to keep them with their closest technological relatives. <shrug>

Marc
I am not sure aztecs in period 1 is healthy.

I think this would be very bad for most biblical armies

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:50 am**

ethan wrote:
hazelbark wrote:
babyshark wrote:
If desired, perhaps the Aztecs, et al. could be moved to the "Book 1" period just to keep them with their closest technological relatives. <shrug>

Marc
I am not sure aztecs in period 1 is healthy.
I think this would be very bad for most biblical armies

Perhaps, then, it is not desired. <shrug>

As an aside, would you leave them in Period 4? Move them somewhere else?

Marc

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:26 am**

Personally I would say either make a B&G theme (admittedly probably to special and therefore unlikely to happen) or not include them at all. These armies simply don't fit in with any others not from the Americas.

Posted: **Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:08 am**

Ghaznavid wrote:Personally I would say either make a B&G theme (admittedly probably to special and therefore unlikely to happen) or not include them at all. These armies simply don't fit in with any others not from the Americas.

yea. i think letting them in increases the fantasy nature that themes hope to avoid.

Slitherine

ITC Lisbon 2010

ITC Lisbon 2010