WHO'S going to USK

donm · Post by **donm** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:06 pm

Thought it might be good to know who is going.

Steve Hacker and I will be there.

Be brave and 'come out.'

Don M

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:23 pm

My son Matt is giving it a go. Probably playing solo I'm afraid but he is still looking forward to it. He had a humdinger of a game against Paul Robinson on Sunday.

Si

plewis66 · Post by **plewis66** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:35 pm

Sadly, I can't, I got involved too late, and notice was too short...that is assuming it's a two day affair?

What's the situation with trying to get down for just one day, just to hang out and see what's up?

sfinn · Post by **sfinn** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:36 pm

There are three of us from High Wycombe, one IC in Bruce Brown while Phil Giles and I are the TCs.

I think it fair to say we have absolutely no idea which toys we are going to bring with us.

Cheers

Stephen

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:21 pm

plewis66 wrote:Sadly, I can't, I got involved too late, and notice was too short...that is assuming it's a two day affair?

It is

What's the situation with trying to get down for just one day, just to hang out and see what's up?

You would of course be very welcome.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:26 pm

I will be there with Martin Wilkinson

donm · Post by **donm** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:30 pm

I think it fair to say we have absolutely no idea which toys we are going to bring with us.

Cheers

Stephen

I was not going to ask that question until after the closing date for army lists.

For those who went to Ghent last year, should we consider a 'Beja' prize for army selection

Is Graham avaliable to present it

Don M

neilhammond · Post by **neilhammond** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:50 am

I'll be going, but I'm playing in the DBM comp. Jeremy Morgan and I discussed going in the AoW section but both concluded that we just didn't have enough time to get to know the rules well enough to play even a semi-coherent game of AoW. But I'm looking forward to seeing the AoW games running.

Neil

bddbrown · Post by **bddbrown** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:22 pm

As Stephen has already mentioned all three of us we'll be there. I am not sure any of us have an idea what we are taking. My short list has about 20 armies on it.

Who from the design team is going to be there (RBS being obvious I think)?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:37 pm

bddbrown wrote:As Stephen has already mentioned all three of us we'll be there. I am not sure any of us have an idea what we are taking. My short list has about 20 armies on it.

Who from the design team is going to be there (RBS being obvious I think)?

Me, Simon, Terry, JD McNeil

At present the plan is that we don't take part.

If there is an odd number of teams we may take turns to be the scratch team with an army of as many Poor troops as possible - including as many as possible of the main fighting troops. (It may be huge!).

bddbrown · Post by **bddbrown** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:40 pm

Good news to see so many of you there.

But why not play? It would be great to see people who know the rules playing some games. Even better to play you. And even better for you to play people - you'll get all sorts of direct feedback about how people are interpreting the rules.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:41 pm

bddbrown wrote:Good news to see so many of you there.

But why not play? It would be great to see people who know the rules playing some games. Even better to play you. And even better for you to play people - you'll get all sorts of direct feedback about how people are interpreting the rules.

A good question. What do others think?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:06 pm

OK, I'm not playing AoW at Usk but I agree with Bruce that it would probably be a good thing if you did play as you'll see exactly how people play a whole game and can discuss things as they happen rather than just dip in and out of games.

I'm sure if you were to play you can get others to babysit the DBM comp if you're concerned about that.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:31 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:OK, I'm not playing AoW at Usk but I agree with Bruce that it would probably be a good thing if you did play as you'll see exactly how people play a whole game and can discuss things as they happen rather than just dip in and out of games.

I'm sure if you were to play you can get others to babysit the DBM comp if you're concerned about that.

LOL, it wasn't that. I have played in the DBM comp for the last few years - it requires fairly low umpire input.

It was more a question that we thought that

1) If we played we might get too involved in our games and get less play-test benefit from the event.
2) Our over-competitive streaks might cut in and overwhelm our objectivity.
3) It would be something of a disaster if one of the team won the tournament.

We did consider joining in with deliberately nobbled armies, but if we did win any games that might be rather depressing for the loser!

However, it is not too late for us to join in if people think it is a good idea.

I have a couple of very bad Arab armies worked out

- as the phrase goes - "numerous but not dashing".

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:54 pm

I really don't think anyone would be upset if one of the team 'wins' the tournament.

Trying deliberately knobled armies would in some ways be a good test of the system.

How about having members of the team using armies that comprise troop/army types not represented by the other players?

I am going to Usk to have fun and try out a new set of rules with new people. I really don't care if I win or lose.

Hammy

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:55 pm

It is rare for all of us to get together in this way so I would prefer to see us working on the rules issues a fair bit ona separate table.

However this could be acheived by 1 team playing and another roaming and swapping over each game. Maybe we should do this.

If so I suggest we take something radically different. Maybe even something requested by the players.....

I am not unhappy with 2 playing and 2 working on the rules and roaming...how does that sound?

Si

donm · Post by **donm** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:59 pm

Me, Simon, Terry, JD McNeil

At present the plan is that we don't take part.

I have no problem with any of you playing. If fact I think it would be good to play one of you, as you could confirm what we are doing is right/wrong.

As to the winning, that is not why Steve and I are coming. I hadn't even realised it was being run as a comp.

Don M

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:19 pm

shall wrote: If so I suggest we take something radically different. Maybe even something requested by the players.....

Fair enough, so long as we have the figures for it - would prefer not to use incorrect figures for this tournament.

No doubt we can do a fairly wide range of stuff between us.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:30 pm

At the moment the teams taking part (excluding the design team) are as follows:

Damian Ranasinghe (Sunday only)
Peter Gregory & Jon Phipps
Thomas Bodley Scott
Matt Hall
Simon Clarke & Wayne Charlton
James Hamilton & Martin Wilkinson
Bruce Brown & Phil Giles
Stephen Finn
Mike Baldwin
Don McHugh & Steve Hacker

So to make up even numbers the design team can provide 1 team on Saturday, and then either 0 or 2 teams (which could be single players) on Sunday.

Damian will start Sunday with a score equal to the average of all the teams from Saturday.

donm · Post by **donm** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:30 pm

Richard,

Why don't you all break up and join with other players and let your partners take the leading role / army choice. That way we will have one competent player on as many tables as possible. I am sure this will help with the flow of the games, as I suspect the early games may be painful slow while we constantly check each others actions.

The winning is not important, it is the development of the rules that matters.

Don M