Scenarios??

[Blathergut]

Okay, I toss this out for initial ideas.

How might we design/organize a campaign? How about I set it as 1809 Austria versus French (but perhaps if designed right, it might apply to any combination).

Initial Scenarios (up to ___ points??)
-defend a bridge crossing...victory points awards for??...timed??
-defend _______?? while hoping for reinforcements to arrive? (but small...like a regiment or perhaps small division)

First Major Encounters (up to ___ points??)

Initial Full Battle (up to 1000 points??)

Retires/Pursuits (up to ___ points)

Opposing points randomly decided at start? You know if you are 100 points short of your opponent before you design your force?

[KeefM]

That sounds liike a great idea . . . herewith the link to one I wrote and played last year - made for an interesting game: viewtopic.php?f=69&t=46795

The trick is to try and keep the key elements of the game intact AND to produce something that is equally balanced. Dare I mention them herein, but both Napoleon At War and Flames of War (WW2) do exactly that (as do the Games Workshop game systems). Those rule sets only use scenario games - and for competition/tournament play too. I know there has been a lively debate over the years around the FoW sceanrios as to whether these necessarily favoured certain army mixes. The other problem is that scenario play also needs some consideration of terrain-setting. In a tournament this can be resolved by pre-set terrain. There is no reason why that can't be the case for FoGN though. NaW puts me off a bit because of the general weakness in their terrain placement rules which leaves a bit to be desired. Let's face it, if other gaming systems can solve the problem of equally sized armies rocking up to play a randomly selected scenario, then surely we can do it for FoGN !

In a perfect world we could combine the FoGN terrain setting rules with either FoW or NaW or GW scenarios for a FoGN game. The Auckland, NZ guys tried out a FoW scenario for FoGN and, by all accounts, it worked very well.

I do really like the idea of added uncertainty about army size and victory points rather than just a straight up points game.

[KendallB]

Andrew Hunter and I discussed a way of introducing the attacker/defender chits from the Empires In Arms board game in order to vary the setup and victory conditions. We should get something down for that.

[terrys]

I like games with scenarios - as long as the scenario doesn't make it impossible for one side to win.
It is very difficult to make scenarios terrain and army neutral though.
We designed FOGN as an attacker/defender scenario to avoid the usual 'encounter' battle that's prevalent in most points-based games.

Having said that, just how many scenarios are there for a Corps level Napoleonic game?
I can't think of many battles where the objective was something other than to defeat the enemy.
Occupying specific features during the battle was only important if it increased the likelihood of victory.

I'd certainly be willing to listen to any suggestions for making one-off battles more random.
However, I don't think that using objectives (other than LOCs) is a correct approach for Napoleonics....The most important objective is always to defeat the enemy army.

[shadowdragon]

I like games with scenarios - as long as the scenario doesn't make it impossible for one side to win.
It is very difficult to make scenarios terrain and army neutral though.
We designed FOGN as an attacker/defender scenario to avoid the usual 'encounter' battle that's prevalent in most points-based games.

Having said that, just how many scenarios are there for a Corps level Napoleonic game?
I can't think of many battles where the objective was something other than to defeat the enemy.
Occupying specific features during the battle was only important if it increased the likelihood of victory.

I'd certainly be willing to listen to any suggestions for making one-off battles more random.
However, I don't think that using objectives (other than LOCs) is a correct approach for Napoleonics....The most important objective is always to defeat the enemy army.

Certainly the objective for army vs army is to defeat the enemy army, but I would think the a corps level mission that is part of army level battle could sensibly have terrain objectives if seizing those objectives contributed to the army defeating the enemy army.

[MikeHorah]

Here are my ideas

There is no fundamental reason why scenario based games have to be corps level . Divisions are the building blocks which may produce force levels either side of a Corps. All force levels can be expressed in Divisions – which may specify mixed and cavalry and with a maximum of points for a given force level ( that needs to be worked out) . This will work best with 15mm and below to improve the ratio of table space to units

1. predefine a campaign and /or year and region to set the range of lists that can be drawn on as in “1809 Wagram Campaign” or “1810 Spain”
2. set the terrain differently – before either player knows their objectives or which side of the table they are on, and ensure there are watercourses and built up areas on both sides of the table and roads exiting from all 4 sides . Select a minimum number of terrain pieces- say 10 plus/minus the difference between 2x D6 rolls – red die negative -from the ones available for the terrain type for the campaign type dice if there is a choice.
3. The players dice for either the offensive or defensive role and then chose blindly ( and secretly) from one of at least 12 mission or objective cards for each role. Each card states the objective, the success conditions and the force level and the % attrition points that can be sustained which if reached means the objective had failed to be delivered- the smaller the force the higher the %. ( Haven’t worked out the method of calculating those yet- any ideas?)
4. The usual set up and initiative /attacker/defender limitations will need to be dispensed with and a different set up system used. Maybe attacker up to 18MUs in and defender up to 24MUs – again any thoughts ? But the flank march and off table reserve provisions will be worth keeping to maintain some fog of war and uncertainty about the forces the other player actually has.
5. The Defensive players’ forces are laid out using laminated cards initially with the unit(s) written underneath and with a fixed ratio of blank cards say 1 in 4 . The latter cannot be moved. The former can but a fixed distance. Once in a line of sight they are revealed to the opposing player.Make cards the size of 3 small units in tactical
6. All objectives assume an LOC is to be maintained unless they state otherwise. But both players should place an LOC marker on the table even if their objective does not require them to maintain it .

7. Objective cards - some examples- will need tweaking

Offensive
a) Advance and defend - Move to and hold a line of your choosing 36 MUs in width in the enemy’s half of the table. There must be no breaks wider than 2 base widths in the line and no enemy units may breach that line for 4 of your consecutive active player turns from the end of the turn you first establish the line - 4 divisions any type including Corps Commander – medium or average attrition %
b) Advance Guard - As above but only 18MUs wide for 3 turns; then retire to defend your LOC only 2 Divisions either or both of which can be mixed high attrition %
c) Conduct a reconnaissance in depth into the enemy’s half identifying all his units and entering the space within at least 12 MUs of his rear edge with at least one steady unit. One division can be cavalry or mixed – at least 5 units – high attrition % No friendly LOC required.
d) Drive deep into the enemy’s half and cut his LOC – two divisions can be cavalry or mixed High attrition % No friendly LOC required

Defensive
a) Occupy and hold a line of your choosing 24 MUs in width in your half of the table and at least 18 MUs in from your long edge. There must be no breaks wider than 2 base widths in the line and no enemy units may breach that line for 5 of your consecutive active player turns from the end of the turn you first establish the line - 4 divisions any type including Corps Commander – low attrition %
b) Occupy and hold all built up areas in your half of the table 3 divisions any type including Corps Commander – medium or average attrition %
c) Escort an ammunition and reserve artillery train of 4 caissons from one short edge of the table to the other short edge both in your half . The entry and exit points must be at least 12 MUs in from your long edge. You can only afford to lose one. A caisson is captured ( and recaptured) by a steady unit in base to base contact at the end of the capturing player’s active turn. Caissons move at foot artillery speed. Use limbered guns to represent them so the objective is not so obvious to the opposing player. When and in what order and whether individually or as group(s) they enter the table is at your discretion. A caisson exits the table at the end of your active payer turn if it is in front edge to table edge contact. Two divisions of any type medium or average attrition % . No friendly LOC required
d) Occupy and hold all river crossings in your half ie fords and bridges on both sides of the crossings with at least one steady unit on either side. One division per crossing in your half of the table up to a maximum of 3 Divisions – low attrition % .

I can think of many more

It is the interplay of these objectives that makes the game interesting and once having achieved your own objective you have the option subject to your attrition limit to try to prevent the other player achieving his.

[sonic]

For tournament scenarios I see no reason why a lot of the principles of FOW scenarios can't be applied. Objectives in FOW may very easily be replaced with LOC's in most scenarios, as the effect of losing your LOC is so serious it is almost game over as a consequence or soon will be. Note that LOC's don't necessarily then have to be at the back.

FOW scenarios tend to introduce different axes of movement and off-table reserves and flank movements. Most of which is pretty compatible with divisional manoeuvres. The attack/defence game envisaged by FOGN fits right into many of the scenarios and in other ones then encounter movement is something which is of interest to me playing napoleonic corps sized games.

I certainly think it is worth consideration as a good start for tournament scenarios - which necessarily should be for equal point sized forces. Even FOGN initiative dice-rolls easily will determine attacker/defender in scenarios.

[BrettPT]

I second sonic in recommending a look at FOW scenarios as an inspiration.

Good to see you turning your mind to this aspect Mike.
My initial thoughts on reading your post was of play balance. Having a random differing objective for each side would make it tricky to achieve games with balance for both sides, as the potential number of scenario combinations would be large.
There is also the potential issue of mutually obtainable objectives and a 'dead' game.

Ie, one side has to hold towns and the other has to line up on the opposing sides half of the table.
What if the towns all fall near the defender's baseline? You could get a game where little happens.

One aspect about FOW scenarios is that many are timed. The attacker has say 6 turns to achieve their ends or else the defender wins.
One idea that could easily be adopted, perhaps to replace the current extra unit rule for+3 initiative rules, is a 'desperate attack'.
This would represent a situation where a corps must break through their opponents quickly regardless of cost. What Ney at Quatre Bras and Grouchy at Wavre should have been doing springs to mind.

Say all defending units (except any off table reserves) must deploy within 6mu of the centreline of the table.
The attacker has (say) 6 turns to inflict 30% losses on the defender without losing 50% of his own force. If he does, he wins. If not, he loses.

Another idea could be a variation of the FOW fighting withdraw scenario, with a LOC marker that starts in the middle of the table and moves towards the baseline replacing the objective markers of FOW.

Cheers
Brett

[shadowdragon]

This is just a quick brain f...., but if you wanted to use scenarios in a tournament you could have every player play each scenario in a fixed set once. Players could then get points for each scenario according to how well they do compared to the average for that scenario for all players. One interesting aspect is that players would not know how well they are doing until the very end of the tournament. It would take a bit of thinking to get it right and scenarios should run the range of fighting withdrawal, hasty attack, etc.

[terrys]

I had a chat with Mike about scenarios today and we came to the conclusion that in order for them to work some changes to the terrain rules would have to be made:
1) At least one building would have to be placed in each half of the table (regardless of whether or not they are required in a scenario).
2) A river would have to have at least one crossing point, and 2 it it was more than 2 ft in length.
There may be other requirements, but we'd have to see what ideas come up for actual scenarios first.

An idea we have to create more of a fog-of-war is the use of unbalanced armies - as already used in some competitions.
For example:
Each player would choose 3 armies from his list of 700pts, 800pts and 900pts.
Each player would play each round with one of these selections:
1 game of 700 pts
2 games of 800 pts
1 game of 900 pts
(with variations for competitions with more rounds....3x800pts for 5 rounds and 2 of each size for 6 rounds).
Each army size would have a 4 scenario cards to choose from. Obviously the objectives and break points for the 700 pt armies would be easier than those for the 900 pt ones.
The 4 cards would be chosen by the players before the competition starts, and each player would choose which card/army he is going to use before each game (unknown to his opponent).
This could be either before or after terrain placement (we'd have to test to see the effect).
If we had only 4 scenario cards for each army size it would still give us 12x12 = 144 possible combinations.

Winning a game with a 700pt army would be worth more points than winning with 900pts.
Bonus points would be gained or lost based on achievement of objectives, and would be at least equal to the points for breaking your opponents army.
Initiative could still be used for deployment and terrain placement, and for the bonus unit, but there would be no restriction on the movement of the 'defender' in the first 2 moves - that would be built into the scenario.....although we'd have to be careful about what happens when both sides have a 'defensive' scenario.

Official scenarios could be placed on the web for free download.

Comments? ... Ideas ?

[MikeHorah]

A bit of stream of consciousness stuff This is a two pint problem Watson...

I don't think it is either/or - to respond in general terms . How you devise scenarios for tournaments and how you do scenarios for more general play does not have to be identical and can overlap - or not . For the former I agree balance is pretty important in timed games . Less so for the latter.

Terry and I chatted about it this am and he has some ideas too based on old Ancients approaches . He will be much better at suggesting ways to do it for tournaments than I of course .

I do take the point that FOG(N) already has an element of asymmetry and scenario built in which is one of its strengths. Overly compatible and comfortably achievable objectives that result in stalemate can be overcome by either player then going over to the offensive to trigger an attrition result but is there time in a tournament?

He also described a FOW game he had recently seen which was over in two moves so easy was one player's objectives.

But I do think the more cards the better, actually, not the opposite as it is that wide range of possible combinations that generates the game and the fog of war. As with any set of objectives they need testing to find the weaknesses and weed out ones that just don't fit or are plain dull.

The system I described in my earlier post was used by a group of us including Terry ( not least) for several years in the 1970's and early 80's for 5mm ACW . We still have the two brain cell ( two sides of A4 ) playsheet. It was based on converting SPI's Terrible Swift Sword big board game to a less fiddly more visually satisfying miniatures game. It has record keeping and used specially designed dice ( different numbers stuck on ordinary D6s. ) so not on the same page as current gamesets. In many (but not all) ways Fire and Fury is a much better tactical system, but some of it was, as far as I can, tell unique.

That ACW set is where ,for example , the FOG POA approach may have come from I believe. We did not call it that just
" plus/minus" but I can see how that must have shaped Terry's input to FoG(AM) even to specifics such as the automatic +/-2 .
no other POAs for flank and rear attacks. Our view back then was that was as bad as it could get and that anything else was overkill.

But we wanted unpredictable encounter battles like Gettysburg so the scenario cards were the logical development.

And the point of this seeming " good old days" digression is?

That they became "operational" level games as much as "grand tactical" ones. Getting your Corps deployed on line from an extended column of route and choosing where and when to deploy Corps artillery and where to place you supply columns while the battle was still emerging after first contact were operational level decisions.

So the question for me, given what folks are saying, is whether FoG(N) as a single Corps Grand Tactical game is really the right vehicle for that approach of ours. As I have often said my canvas is 12x6 and my games whole day ones and I am totally sure they would work for that for FOG(N) with more than one Corps per side. They do for 15mm FOG(AM) scenario games and even some 28mm . But not everyone has the luxury of time and space that I have (it's the players I lack )

So maybe we need more than one scenario worksteam? One that is designed for shorter ingle Corps Grand Tactical time limited tournament style play and one for the more leisurely operational level Corps plus game with space and room for manoeuvre and time for many game turns .

But even then is this era really one for encounter battles with both sides potentially on the move? ( rhetorical question )

I think there is enough there and I could name a number of big battles that had that flavour. So here's an idea why don't I/we pick some of those out and try writing them up as generic scenarios? You don't name or date them nor either side - just red and blue force - and see if they work as such. If anyone thinks that's worth doing I'll have a first go . See who can guess which battle it was?

[MikeHorah]

Terry got his post in first!

[MikeHorah]

Ok I have had a first go at a large scenario based on a real battle but designed to be used with opposing compatible lists from across the piece. So even if it is for example an 1814 battle it can be used for one using 1809 lists . It is in effect a " hidden scenario" within the FOG(N) timeframe.

Is this interesting and useful as a concept? Anyone want to try it out? Any suggestions for changes eg the set up parameters? I have some others up my sleeve but before inflicting them on an unsuspecting world want to know if this kind of thing has any traction. It is important not to know what battle this is based on and ideally the opposing players should not see the other side's brief so a game master is probably needed if only at the start.

DRAFT
FOG(N) Hidden Scenario One MH April 2014

• Scale Army level – more than one Corps per side ideally 2 or players of more per side
• Designed for 8x5 or bigger table
• Chose armies from opposing lists from any single campaign or year/region.
• No pre battle initiative.
• Terrain - France and central Europe wooded hilly terrain with villages in both halves and with at least three parallel but unconnected roads at least 15 MUs apart across the table some going through woods. . Set up the terrain in advance. After setting up terrain dice to see which force is on which side.
• Blue Force deploys all of its army and moves first. Red may not move for two moves . Each side may have up to two LOCs that do not have to be on the table edge

Notes

• The points set are based on using reformed average drilled troops with for the maximum basic types listed in the scenario with no assumptions for special capabilities or attachments and on the cost of competent generals. These can be varied within the overall points total and the limitations etc of the lists chosen
• Compatible and opposing lists should be chosen for the two forces.
• If the list(s) chosen do not allow some types eg Irregulars or lancers then they are not used.
• Divisions may be imported from other lists if the selected lists(s) allow
• List Maxima for a given unit type ( within the scenario limits eg for shock cavalry) may be exceeded with the exception of Guards whose maxima must be adhered to.
• Minima do not apply.
 
Blue Forces

Following a clash the day before between the blue advance guard and a red rear guard the latter have withdrawn. Your objective is to carry out a major advance with a view to re-engaging the enemy who are believed to be in retreat but whose precise positions are not known . Success criteria - trigger a Red Force defeat ie 50% of their ACV in attrition points.

Divide your army into 3 or 4 columns advancing across the width of the table. An outflanking movement is not permitted. Move from initial deployment positions up to 15 MUs in from your long edge and with a minimum or 12 MUs between units of each column

You have up to ten divisions, which must be organised into at least two Corps including three infantry only divisions, and two cavalry divisions. The remainder may be mixed. Total points 2,500, chosen from the following :

• Line Infantry up to 90 bases
• Light Infantry up to 20 Bases including attachments and any irregular light infantry (if in list)
• Light Cavalry up to 20 bases including any irregular light cavalry and up to 4 Lancers (if in list)
• Heavy Cavalry up to 48 bases – half of which may be shock cavalry (If in list)
Cavalry bases include attachments
• Foot artillery Bases up to 10 bases including attachments – any type permitted by list and in list ratio of light/medium to heavy
• Horse Artillery up to 8 bases including attachments

Commanders C-in C plus up to 12 including up two Corps Commanders, and up to 10 Division commanders. Brigade commanders must be found from within the maximum of 12. The C-in-C cannot be an exceptional commander, regardless of the list, the rest according to list chosen and pro rata .
 

Red Forces

Following contact with a blue force you believe to be superior to your own, one of your divisions had to retreat the preceding day You are expecting the blue forces to advance and plan to counter attack. Deploy your forces in any position more than 12 MUs from the centre line in your half to meet that attack with your own counter attack and carry out an outflanking manoeuvre ( on or off table ) with up to one third of your divisions (which must be pre designated). You may not move forward of the centre line until your second active game turn except with the outflanking force if it is off table. Success criteria - achieve more attrition points against the Blue forces than they do of you.

You command 6 Divisions which must be in two Corps of which one division may be cavalry two infantry and the rest may be mixed. Choose from the following :

• Line Infantry up to 85 bases
• Light Infantry up to 10 bases including attachments and any irregular light infantry (if in list)
• Light Cavalry up to 24 Bases including any irregular light cavalry and up to 4 Lancers (if in list)
• Heavy Cavalry up to 20 Bases including up to 10 Shock Cavalry
• Foot Artillery up to 16 bases including attachments any type permitted by list and in list ratio of light/medium to heavy

Commanders C-in C plus up to 8 including up two Corps Commanders, and up to 5 Division commanders. Brigade commanders can be separately purchased outwith the total of 8 according to list chosen. Commander quality according to list chosen . If an exceptional Corps Commander is permitted by the list the C-in C can be exceptional .

Total points 2,000

[BrettPT]

I like the type of thing you have come up with Mike/Terry, it would be a great addition to the game to have a 'scenarios' book or .pdf with these kinds of game options.

For tournament play I think that play balance (ie each side having an equal chance of winning) is crucial. Scenarios should also ideally represent something that could/did actually take place in a Corps v Corps action.
A distinction can be made between scenarios for 'friendly' games (which could be in a separate scenario book and cover a wide range of options) and those for tournament play, which would be included in the rule book and be limited, formal and rigorously play tested. Tournament organisers could include the wide ranging scenarios in a tournament if they chose, or limit the tournament to the scenarios in the rule book (or indeed have no scenarios at all).

We've chatted about tournament scenarios at our club, I offer the following ideas:

1. Most tournaments have 4 (or occasionally 6) rounds. The 'standard' game should still be the most common. So 2 tournament-suitable extra scenarios are probably all that is needed (the first and last rounds being the standard game, with a couple of scenarios thrown in the middle).

2. River crossings are an obvious choice, however (as we saw in our recent Natcon) they can encourage draws, and forcing a river crossing with some armies (ie those without excellent shock infantry or lots of guns) can be pretty tough. Also, the defender can sit about 4 MU behind the river (especially one that requires a CMT to cross) with cavalry, usually safe from medium range fire, then allow the attacker to cross and charge him from within 2 MU.

For these reasons I'm not convinced that a river crossing scenario is a good option for tournament play, with equal point armies. Perhaps a disparity in points for the two sides could change this.

3. Fighting Withdraw could work. This would represent a rear guard or isolated Corps slowly falling back against an enemy vanguard or isolated Corps, delaying them as much as possible. The defender wants delay the attackers advance by falling back slowly. The attacker wishes to cut the retreating Corps off by breaking its line of communication. Both sides are conscious of not incurring too many casualties in doing so.
I'm sure there are plenty of examples of this type of action. Russia in 1812 springs to mind.

- The defender must deploy all troops (apart from any off-table reserve) within 8MU of the centre line (ie can deploy on the opponent's half if desired).
- The attacker starts 10 MU from the centre line as normal.
- The defender's LOC marker starts on the central 'free' road, with its rear 2 feet in from the defender's table edge (on a 6x4 table) and can move up to 4MU in each defender recovery phase along the road back towards the defender's table edge (no double moves allowed for LOC marker).
- If the defender's LOC exits the table and neither side has broken, the game ends and the defender gets all 5 bonus points.
- If the attacker has a (non wavering) unit in contact with the enemy LOC road, at a point between the enemy baseline and the current position of the LOC marker, at the start of any enemy recovery phase, the game ends and the attacker gets all 5 bonus points.
- Normal points for troops left in own army/enemy killed would apply.

This would give a (usually) 7 turn game (in 15mm on a 6'x4' table). The normal restrictions on movement in the first 2 turns, and army break points would stay in place (ie 30:10, 40:20 or 50+). The +3 initiative (extra unit) rule would not be used.

The idea behind this scenario is to attempt to create a swirling kind of battle, where the attacker seeks to get around the defender's line and cut their communications. The defender would probably usually keep a division in off-table reserve to protect against wide ranging enemy cavalry getting behind them, while their forward (on-table) troops steadily fell back keeping enemy at bay. The attacker would then have the alternate option of trying to overwhelm the enemy forward troops in the hope of getting a 30:10 victory by breaking the enemy army rather than encircling it. Both sides would feel time pressured, with the game ending after 7 turns.

4. Impetuous Assault
This represents a "must hold" or "must break through" at any cost battle - the 'fate of France is in your hands' kind of thing. Quatre Bra is the obvious example.
This scenario could possibly replace the current +3 (extra unit) battle for instances when one side rolls +3 on initiative.
- A normal battle, except that the attacking army will not break unless it reaches 50% losses (ie ignore 30:10 and 40:20 breakpoints for the attacker).
- The defending army break points are as usual (ie they can be 30:10 or 40:20 beaten).
- If neither side is broken after 6 turns, then the game ends defender gets all 5 bonus points.

The idea behind this scenario is to encourage a battle where one side throws in the lead, perhaps recklessly and regardless of losses, under a feeling of tight time pressure.

For both of these scenarios, a disparity in army points could be built in, the defender having (say) 700 points instead of the usual 800. Play testing for balance would be needed.

[MikeHorah]

[quote="BrettPT"]I like the type of thing you have come up with Mike/Terry, it would be a great addition to the game to have a 'scenarios' book or .pdf with these kinds of game options. quote]

Thanks BrettPT .

I think this reinforces my earlier thought that there are two parallel work streams here; one for short and tournament standard games and one for bigger games . The first of the type you set out can be put together with a standard format and added to and /or selected from ,for tournament use .That is probably the one to proceed with first but does need a group of tournament and standard game players to design, it input to it, try them and comment - may be working off- line?


The second will be less uniform and more a collection of relatively ad hoc and varied scenarios but all expressed in FoG(N) terms. They can edited to ensure that last aspect but rather less require an overarching design framework. Once set up as dozen or so " straw men" one just invites additions and edits them.

But such games are more dependent on shared resources including having enough people and will be adapted and modified as suits a club or group.

[Amra]

In July we will run a scenarios based tournament ( you have 2 army lists , 800 & 650 pts ) in Melbourne

http://www.leagueofancients.org.au/Events.aspx

Stand by & we will let you know how it goes and will post the ( now play tested:) ) scenarios .

[JJMicromegas]

In July we will run a scenarios based tournament ( you have 2 army lists , 800 & 650 pts ) in Melbourne

http://www.leagueofancients.org.au/Events.aspx

Stand by & we will let you know how it goes and will post the ( now play tested:) ) scenarios .

I am very interested in the scenarios that you are playing, I am interested in running a competition at our club here in London in November.

[Amra]

it's looking great at the minute . Some 22 entries so far .

[Saxonian]

Richard posted the link to the tournament scenarios

http://www.leagueofancients.org.au/Gaming.aspx

Enjoy