USK Rules - IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ENTRANTS

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:55 am

As previously stated the version used for Usk will be V 4.06 with the 5.00 ref sheets that go with it.

One additional rule which we have not yet managed to find foolproof wording for -

It is not permitted to flank charge an enemy BG by wheeling into it from a side-to-side overlap position (or a similar non-touching position which may occur due to previous inability to conform).

Suggesting wording welcome, but that will be the umpire's ruling at Usk, present wording nothwithstanding.

The general idea is that you should not be able to beat a BG in a line, pursue it, then wheel into a flank charge on the adjacent enemy BG.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:26 pm

The scoring system to be used at Usk will be as follows.

Use the Victory Conditions specified in the rules.

(I will call "last pair of bounds" 15 mins before the time limit, and then you finish the pair of bounds you are on and don't start any more - this will correspond to the timing for the concurrent DBM tournament).

Points will be allocated as follows:

Draw: 16:16
Marginal Victory: 20:12
Moderate Victory: 24:8
Decisive Victory: 28:4
Defeat enemy's army: +4 to victor's score : -4 on defeated's score

No firm decision has been made regarding the allocation of BGs to each player in each team. The simplest system would be for each player to move roughly half the battle groups in the army, divided at some arbitrary point from right to left of the army. We will leave this to your individual whim for Usk, but if anyone can come up with a more formal method for future doubles tournaments, we would be interested in suggestions.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:40 pm

Here is the list of armies taking part at Usk.

Alexandrian Macedonian 330 BC
Graeco-Indian 180 BC (Sunday only)
Moorish 47 BC (Scratch - design team army 1)
Ancient British 43 AD (Scratch - design team army 2)
Early Imp (Principate) Roman 190 AD
Early Visigothic 330 AD
Late (Dominate) Roman 350 AD
Gepid 408 AD
Abbasid Arab 850 AD
Ghaznavid 962 AD
Ghaznavid 1090 AD
Castilian 1340 AD
Lancastrian English 1462 AD

I don't plan to do the draw by date, because this will result in like fighting like and won't test the system.

donm · Post by **donm** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:26 pm

Richard,

Will you be setting any home terrain lists for the armies taking part?

Don M

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:18 pm

donm wrote:Richard,

Will you be setting any home terrain lists for the armies taking part?

Don M

Yes, I will, I am glad you reminded me

bddbrown · Post by **bddbrown** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:47 am

Will we be able to see the army lists (source rather than what people have handed in - we need different terms for these two things!) that people are using so we know what could be in the army?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:49 am

bddbrown wrote:Will we be able to see the army lists (source rather than what people have handed in - we need different terms for these two things!) that people are using so we know what could be in the army?

Good point. I will e-mail everyone all the (source) lists being used.

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:19 pm

What a nice mix of armies to play around with. Terry and I used Ghaznavid in a civil war with almost no similarities between the two armies. So even those two might be very different.

I suggest we put the army lists fo all those playing - not their design of course - on the wall so we can all muse them over. Should be fun. Can wait.

Si

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:46 pm

The idea of putting the various army lists (not individual orders of battle) on the wall sounds like a good idea to me.

Hammy

Feeling rather nervous about facing Ghaznavids and Castilians.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:44 pm

Territory Types as follows - I hope correct this time.

Alexandrian Macedonian -330 Agricultural, Hilly, Developed
Early Imp (Principate) Roman 190 Developed, Agricultural, Woodlands, Hilly
Early Visigothic 330 Agricultural, Woodlands, Hilly
Late (Dominate) Roman 350 Developed, Agricultural, Woodlands, Hilly
Gepid 408 Agricultural, Woodlands, Hilly
Abbasid Arab 850 Agricultural, Hilly, Developed
Ghaznavid 962 Steppe, Agricultural, Hilly
Ghaznavid 1090 Steppe, Agricultural, Hilly
Castilian 1340 Developed, Agricultural, Hilly
Lancastrian English 1462 Agricultural, Hilly

Graeco-Indian -180 Agricultural, Hilly, Woodlands, Tropical
Moorish -47 Agricultural, Steppe, Hilly
Ancient British 43 Woodlands, Agricultural, Hilly

Source army lists have been e-mailed to all entrants.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:10 am

Clarification of Scoring System:

Use the Victory Conditions specified in the rules, except that if you defeat the enemy army before the time limit, this is not an automatic Decisive Victory. You still need to calculate the level of victory as below, then add/subtract the defeated army bonus/penalty.

??? A side that inflicted at least 4 more attrition points than the enemy and >= 3:1 gains a Decisive Victory.
??? Failing that, a side that inflicted at least 3 more attrition points than the enemy and >= 2:1 gains a Moderate Victory.
??? Failing that, a side that inflicted at least 2 more attrition points than the enemy gains a Marginal Victory.
??? Failing that, the game is a Draw.

Score as follows:

Draw: 16:16
Marginal Victory: 20:12
Moderate Victory: 24:8
Decisive Victory: 28:4

Defeat enemy army: +4 to victor's score : -4 on defeated's score

---------------------------

Thus, for example, if you defeat the enemy army, but only by 1 attrition point, the score will be 20:12

A walkover victory, inflicting at least 3:1 attrition points (and at least 4 more than the enemy) will result in a score of 32:0.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:50 am

Looking at the scoring system it struck me that armies with lots of BG's could be on the verge of a relatively easy victory but be considered by the score system to have lost.

Consider an army with say 15 BGs vs one with 9 (which is what we had in my game with Alan last week).

At one point Alan had lost 3 BG's and I had lost 4. In terms of attrition points I was actually behind yet Alan needed another 7 AP's to break me while I needed 3 to break him.

I could have ended up with 4 more AP's than Alan yet having broken his army.

I am not sure this feels right.

Looking at the scoring if for example I had lost 11 BG's and Alan 9 the result would be a 16-16 draw even though Alan's army had been defeated and mine was 4 AP's from breaking.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:13 am

hammy wrote:Looking at the scoring system it struck me that armies with lots of BG's could be on the verge of a relatively easy victory but be considered by the score system to have lost.

Consider an army with say 15 BGs vs one with 9 (which is what we had in my game with Alan last week).

At one point Alan had lost 3 BG's and I had lost 4. In terms of attrition points I was actually behind yet Alan needed another 7 AP's to break me while I needed 3 to break him.

I could have ended up with 4 more AP's than Alan yet having broken his army.

I am not sure this feels right.

Looking at the scoring if for example I had lost 11 BG's and Alan 9 the result would be a 16-16 draw even though Alan's army had been defeated and mine was 4 AP's from breaking.

Actually it would be 20:12 in your favour, but I take your point.

This aspect will need addressing. Part of the discussion at Usk, no doubt.

One of the reasons we have not already addressed it, was that it mitigates the effect of bumping up the number of BGs by cheap crap hiding at the back. However, I don't think that this is enough to compensate for the effect you describe.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:33 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Actually it would be 20:12 in your favour, but I take your point.

Would it? One side has caused 11 AP, the other 9 so the side that has caused 11 AP gets 20 and the other 12. Then modify it by the victory / defeat and you end up with 16-16...

As I read the score at present the difference doesn't care which side it goes to. It really isn't a major issue for the weekend so probably best left till then.

Sorry for stiring

Hammy

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:12 pm

hammy wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:Actually it would be 20:12 in your favour, but I take your point.

Would it? One side has caused 11 AP, the other 9 so the side that has caused 11 AP gets 20 and the other 12. Then modify it by the victory / defeat and you end up with 16-16...

As I read the score at present the difference doesn't care which side it goes to. It really isn't a major issue for the weekend so probably best left till then.

Sorry for stiring

Hammy

OK that is bizarre yes. Well it will have to stand for Usk, but we will need to rethink it a bit.

What we wanted, if possible, was a method that did not require % calculations to be made. That may not be possible.

The victory conditions in the rules were never intended for tournaments. We hoped to get away with using them for Usk, but clearly a less broken method will be required for serious tournaments.

Even then, however, we will want a simple method in the rules. The tournament scoring system will probably go on the web page and not in the rule book.

donm · Post by **donm** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:08 pm

If none of us are going to Usk to win, does it really matter what scoring system we use.
The only reason we need one is to sort out the draw each round.

Don M

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:50 pm

donm wrote:If none of us are going to Usk to win, does it really matter what scoring system we use.
The only reason we need one is to sort out the draw each round.

Don M

It does not matter at all, except in so far as it helps us to decide the eventual scoring system in the rules/on the web-site.

Part of the purpose of running a Beta Tournament is to test aspects of the rules that might not arise in club games, and to look for imbalances that might not be apparent in historical match-ups.