Slitherine

The Challenge has always been an Open tournament, but there is a widely held view that Fog R works better if it is themed. So I'm canvassing opinion to see what people want.

I would also like to bring back the 2 list tournament at Challenge, which it used when it started. For those who weren't around then (or can't remember that far back) you submit 2 versions of the same list which must be the same nationality/option and date but with different compositions. Then you choose which version you are going to use in each game before set up.

If you have any opinions (or theme suggestions) please post below or PM me.

Cheers,

Kevin

Unfortunately, I am always on holiday for this event.

Perhaps if you don't do it for this comp, you could do a two list format somewhere else please.

Don

Maybe two themes One early and one late by date not by book.

Dave

I don't think multiple themes are viable without significantly larger numbers than we typically get, which is 20-24 players for the larger comptetitions. My current view is that, if Challenge is themed, I'd like to go for an Early theme such as the pre-1570 one that we had at Roll Call last year, but I'm open to suggestions.

It might also be a good comp to try out some of the amendments that are being discussed on this forum currently ... ?

It might also be a good comp to try out some of the amendments that are being discussed on this forum currently ... ?

I don't think that we should be introducing changes at a major tournament without direction from the authors. Also, a number of the issues are really at a fairly early stage of discussion. For example, there seems to be a widespread view that Detemined Horse don't work as well as they should, but no real concensus on a solution. Realistically, any proposed changes would need to be playtested before could be considered.

kevinj wrote:

It might also be a good comp to try out some of the amendments that are being discussed on this forum currently ... ?

I don't think that we should be introducing changes at a major tournament without direction from the authors. Also, a number of the issues are really at a fairly early stage of discussion. For example, there seems to be a widespread view that Detemined Horse don't work as well as they should, but no real concensus on a solution. Realistically, any proposed changes would need to be playtested before could be considered.

Agreed, although perhaps some of the ideas (especially relating to Seedish Salvo in 2's) seems fairly well agreed by now don't they?

I also think that we are a fairly cohesive community in R, so its not like we'll get loads of waining and gnashing of teeth oif we try a couple of ideas. And "playtesting" at a competition might also flush out some of the "so, how might this change what lists people choose and how they put them together" factor that normal playtesting sometimes seems to miss

I'll almost certainly be trying V2 Ancients but I think the idea of resurrecting the 2 list format is an excellent one.

petedalby wrote:I'll almost certainly be trying V2 Ancients but I think the idea of resurrecting the 2 list format is an excellent one.

I don't like the two list format. It gives a huge advantage to those trick armies allowed to field fundamentally different forces from the same list. An example would be the Later Imperial Austrian which could switch between mounted and foot options.

I think there are now enough players in FoGR with a wide enough variety of armies to make a theme viable at the Challenge (though I'd like to stick with open at Britcon). How about the wars of Louis XIV?

Dave

I don't like the two list format. It gives a huge advantage to those trick armies allowed to field fundamentally different forces from the same list.

That's a fair point. The counter argument is that it allows you to take a version of your army that's set up to fight historical opponents, with an alternative verson that might give you a chance to counter anything out of the ordinary.

How about the wars of Louis XIV?

For me, that's too close to the theme for Godendag. Personally, I think the theme needs to be quite wide as we're only a few months away and I want to make it as inclusive as possible, but different to the other large competitions around this time (specifically Godendag and Burton). But let me know what armies you think it would include as it sounds like a theme that could be used somewhere.

kevinj wrote: I don't think that we should be introducing changes at a major tournament without direction from the authors.

This author's view is that organisers can do what they like at their competitions, especially where the organisers have at least as much experience of the game in question as the authors. If somebody has an idea that they think will increase the enjoyment of the players I say give it a go - and certainly don't get precious about the so called "major tournaments", it really dosn't matter, we're just playing toy soldiers

I get quite depressed with the all to regular "it isn't official" type comments when some change is suggested - bit of backbone chaps

madaxeman wrote: I also think that we are a fairly cohesive community in R, so its not like we'll get loads of waining and gnashing of teeth oif we try a couple of ideas. And "playtesting" at a competition might also flush out some of the "so, how might this change what lists people choose and how they put them together" factor that normal playtesting sometimes seems to miss

Real competition is by far the best form of play testing.

daveallen wrote: I don't like the two list format. It gives a huge advantage to those trick armies allowed to field fundamentally different forces from the same list.

I'm with Dave on this - I think it is a poor format and would be put off any competition that used it.

FWIW the Challenge only had it to begin with as it was set up to be the same format as the IWF competition, and not through any perceived advantages of the format.

Hi, and thanks to Kevin for volunteering to help discuss the format, list check and umpire for this year's event!

The BHGS website is currently in the process of being updated - Matt has returned as our webmaster (many thanks to Nobby for his work over the last however long!) and now has access to the site but needs time to get familiar with the site and get it up to speed.

Challenge is moving for 2013 ONLY. The date is 5-7 April 2013 (not 2012 as per the heading to this thread!), and the venue is LVS Hassocks, West Sussex, which is just off the A23. This is a change in venue forced upon us by refurbishment at the Ascot school, and we expect to be back in Ascot in 2014. The need to find a new venue has also contributed to the delay in making the announcement, and I am grateful in the end to LVS for making their sister-school available as a 1-off substitute.

Other than the change of venue, the basic format will remain the same - 15mm 800 points on 6' x 4' tables, but the decision on theme vs open, 1 or 2 list I am very relieved to able to leave Kevin to make based upon his soundings. There will be the usual 5-round format (3 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday) with the Friday funday. And the ever-popular beer fridge will be there again.

There will be on-site B&B accomodation as usual (although slightly fewer rooms available than last year), or for those seeking a little more mod cons there is a
Travelodge at Hickstead (one junction north on the A23, about 10 min.s drive from the school) or another at Horsham.

We will have the run of the school itself, which is an amazing place - a former nunnery converted now into a school for children with learning disabilities (no
comment about wargamers...). Very picturesque. Those into JK Rowling's ouevre may be amused to know that wheras the LVS Ascot has accomodation in blocks named after brewers, Hassocks' blocks are named Slitherine, Gryffindor etc. I haven't determined how to sort attendees into which house yet - I may draw names out of a Sorting Hat!

Entry will be £30 per entrant plus accomodation (the accomodation cost will be pretty much the same as last year, but unfortunately the base entry has had to
raise on last year to cover the additional expenses I am expecting, in particular the cost of PayPal). Once the details are up on the website and we have our PayPal buttons sorted out, we can start takng entries. Any queries in the meantime can come to me at my usual email address t_and_e.child@tiscali.co.uk, or of course via this forum.

kevinj wrote:

I don't like the two list format. It gives a huge advantage to those trick armies allowed to field fundamentally different forces from the same list.

That's a fair point. The counter argument is that it allows you to take a version of your army that's set up to fight historical opponents, with an alternative verson that might give you a chance to counter anything out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, if we're having a theme then you shouldn't face anything too 'out of the ordinary.'

[Picking up Nik's point. I always had the impression the two list format came from countries where competitions were few and far between or immense distances were involved, so a mismatched army would perhaps mean the ruination of a substantial proportion of their wargaming year. Not really a problem in the UK]

kevinj wrote:

How about the wars of Louis XIV?

For me, that's too close to the theme for Godendag. Personally, I think the theme needs to be quite wide as we're only a few months away and I want to make it as inclusive as possible, but different to the other large competitions around this time (specifically Godendag and Burton). But let me know what armies you think it would include as it sounds like a theme that could be used somewhere.

I was thinking West European and Eastern North American armies 1661 to 1699. That is from the Franco-Dutch war to the end of the War of TLA.

But if that's too similar to Godendag and Burton, how about the 30 Year War and we experiment with DH and Swedes. After all, it was the crucible in which their distinctive tactics were developed.

Dave

I am delighted to say that we have got the website up and active again, and details for the FOG competitions and entry arrangements are all available by Paypal. For FOG R I haven't yet stated whether it's themed or Open - we will announce that on the website and here as soon as I receive a decision. Final Flames of War details are still being sorted out, and I am hoping to run a Saga competition this year as well, details to follow once my Saga-heroes have had a chance to have a pow-wow.

http://www.bhgs.org.uk

Looking forward to it already!

Tim Child

I need to finalise this over the next week, so this is a last call for opinions.

Firstly, the opinion that has been expressed so far is overwhelmingly in favour of a theme. The two that I am currently considering are:

1) Western Europe 1620-1649, essentially the Thirty Years war and English Civil War.
2) The Early Renaissance (1494-1569), possibly European only.

The suggestion of a 2 list tournament has received a mixed response, as those who are keen to see it have also said that they will not be able to play, I intend to stick with he usual single list format for Challenge.

I'll be grateful for any views, either through the forum, by PM or grab me at Godendag next weekend.

Hi all,

We are already receiving entries, which is great news! Entries prior to 21 Feb are £30, and it's £35 thereafter. For some reason, most people last year entered quite late and therefore £30 is the same as those people paid last year. Please do enter as soon as possible, as (a) it makes my life a lot easier in terms of working out table-numbers to order and room-layouts, and (b) I would rather not be taking the extra £5 off you!

When paying by Paypal please could you makej sure that you make use of the notes facility so that it is absolutely clear to us who you are and what theme you are entering. On the payment by Paypal section, you need to seperately order 1 set of entry (+ however-many nights' single or twin accommodation) for each entrant (you can't order multiple entries and accomodation for you and several mates, although of course there is nothing to stop one person paying for several different entries).

Before clicking on Pay Now in the Paypal section, you should see a “add specal instructions to the seller” button. Click on that, and type something like “[your name], FOGR, twin with [your mate]. [your normal e-mail address]”.

The correct e-mail address for each player in the notes field is critical as the email addresses people use for their Paypal is very often wildly different to their actual name - as well as players paying for other individuals!

Once you've done that, click Pay Now, and the job’s a good’un.

Cheers,

Tim

Of the two options you're offering, I'd prefer the 1620-49 option. All the armies interact in that period, and even those of us who've played it quite a lot still have lots of armies within it that we can experiment with.
Some of the armies in the earlier period don't interact quite so well, and in particular there are one or two all-mounted armies available. If you do offer that period, I assume you'd apply exclusions to muskets and to pistol-armed horse.

All the best
Martin

The one problem of doing the later period would be the mass swedish armies that would no doubt appear.

Early option without any muskets or pistols may be a better option.

Mind this is just my choice.

Dave