Slitherine

Here is an idea for the deep thinkers among the group to ponder. It has been suggested that we do something a little different for the Doubles event at Cold Wars in March, 2011. In the past the format has been two players running one 1000 point army, with all the usual rules for army design in effect.

The new idea is for each of the two players to bring a separate, legal 650 point army. The two armies must either be the same list (including the same region, special campaign, etc.), or one must be a permitted ally of the other. In either case they must be the same year. Neither army gets an ally general discount on its CinC, and both must be legal as for the main list for that army (as opposed to the ally list). Either army could also bring along any permitted allies. Neither army would be in line of command for the other. The players would need to designate one list as the overall CinC's list for purposes of determining PBI and terrain choices.

This would have the advantage of getting more toys on the table, and of changing the usual parameters a bit. Some oddities would include the potential for multiple ICs, and up to eight generals per side (assuming that the players wanted to pay that many points, of course).

Any comments?

Marc

I think this is a great idea! Something to keep in mind is that generals would only benefit their own army, i.e., if you buy an IC, your teammates' units would get no benefit from him. Likewise, your generals couldn't fight in the front ranks of your teammate's units. Think of them like allied generals.

iversonjm wrote:I think this is a great idea! Something to keep in mind is that generals would only benefit their own army, i.e., if you buy an IC, your teammates' units would get no benefit from him. Likewise, your generals couldn't fight in the front ranks of your teammate's units. Think of them like allied generals.

Right. I made mention that neither army would be in line of command of the other.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

iversonjm wrote:I think this is a great idea! Something to keep in mind is that generals would only benefit their own army, i.e., if you buy an IC, your teammates' units would get no benefit from him. Likewise, your generals couldn't fight in the front ranks of your teammate's units. Think of them like allied generals.

Right. I made mention that neither army would be in line of command of the other.

Marc

I just thought I'd translate.

Marc,

Sounds interesting. My team will play it any way you want to run it.

Kevin

As you may know that is the way that the UK doubles circuit started out, under 7th edition, with 2 allied 1250 pt armies. It worked rather well, although that many points tended to make for very tough armies (madaxeman's archive may go back that far, or there were some write ups in slingshot). Under FoG it seems likely that Romans, Swiss and the like will be popular.

ROMANS ROMANS ROMANS

I think this is a great idea and would be a lot of fun. Certainly different things would do well, but then that at least for me is part of the fun.

I would divide each 650pt army into quarters and at each deployment you would deploy one quarter of each army.

You could either nominate one of the two armies as the to be used for initiative or just combine mounted and take the "best" general leading either army or take the 650 pt army with the highest initiative.

azrael86 wrote:Under FoG it seems likely that Romans, Swiss and the like will be popular.

In tha past we played doubles on a 5x8 board. 1000 pts disappeared. While I agree the selection may change there are still flanks. And at 100 a flank march was not needed, but at 1350 it becomes an option.

Marc, note you may want to increase the deploymen zones somewhat.

hazelbark wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Under FoG it seems likely that Romans, Swiss and the like will be popular.

In tha past we played doubles on a 5x8 board. 1000 pts disappeared. While I agree the selection may change there are still flanks. And at 100 a flank march was not needed, but at 1350 it becomes an option.

Marc, note you may want to increase the deploymen zones somewhat.

I would just play it on a 4x8, the 5 foot depth is not IMO fun.

ethan wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Under FoG it seems likely that Romans, Swiss and the like will be popular.

In tha past we played doubles on a 5x8 board. 1000 pts disappeared. While I agree the selection may change there are still flanks. And at 100 a flank march was not needed, but at 1350 it becomes an option.

Marc, note you may want to increase the deploymen zones somewhat.

I would just play it on a 4x8, the 5 foot depth is not IMO fun.

Either that, or make it 2x600 not 2x650. To be fair I wasn't criticising Swiss or Romans, both were very successful and deserve representation.

By my calcs you could field 10 BG's of undrilled Superior Kn, which would be fairly imposing n a table 6' wide!

Keeping in mind the size of tables at the Con and the typical size of drop cloths. I would try to keep at 4 x 6 if possible.

Bill