Slitherine

Is possible please there can be more of the major 15mm competitions (BHGS, Campaign, warfare stc) without the 50:50 rule on superiors/elites please? I feel it is starting to stifle army selections, including all mounted lists. I do understand it was introduced to restrict min/max armies, but I think we are drifting too far the other way...

Currently I believe it is only Britcon and 25mm themes where you can look to bring an army without the 50:50 rule...

Even being this weekends 25mm mini competition where it was even brought in for that one.

Peoples thoughts?

nigelemsen wrote:Is possible please there can be more of the major 15mm competitions (BHGS, Campaign, warfare stc) without the 50:50 rule on superiors/elites please? I feel it is starting to stifle army selections,

In what way do you think it is stifling army selections?

Asking as I have no concept of what is being chosen as I have more or less been away from gaming for a couple of years.

FWIW I think it probably has reasonable historical basis (and I wish we'd written the lists more along those lines for mounted), however, given it has been an add to to the lists as published I appreciate there may well be unintended consequences.

Not sure if it's the final word on competition rules, Nigel, but the 2017 Burton Doubles announcement on this forum, doesn't appear to have that rule (just that heavy/medium artillery must be put down first). I'm thinking of taking 1632 Swedes.....

'Wayof The Warriors' did not, but did have major limits on minima for warriors and maxima for cavalry.

Rather than making a lame pun about being "cutting edge", I shall merely enquire as to whether you intend to follow up this year's success, by holding it again next year?

Too right, but probably a week later so we don't clash with games expo or half term!

With Hoofmeister Harley not playing as much, perhaps there is an argument for letting it slide a little..?

To be fair - and I've only been playing in tournaments just over two years - I can't recall Alasdair using (m)any souped-up armies. It was usually the numbers that got you in the end. And the camels.

madlemmey wrote:Too right, but probably a week later so we don't clash with games expo or half term!

Games Expo also now being The Challenge...

Is it? Ohhh!

Interesting.

Mounted armies get hit far worse by 50/ 50 rule as 4's of cavalry dont work and 6's are to expensive, whereas 6's of foot do work

I have been watching these restrictions being brought in from Australia with concern.

As most here in Melbourne know I play a similar style in all periods in all rules.

If you put your 5 guns on an angle defensively and they never fire and my 6 or 8 guns are pushed forward [ with risk]
But they fire all game , don't blame the rules.
You will lose

Small superior armies need a plan and are risky.

If you want vanilla armies shuffling forward with no plan bring in all these stupid restrictions.

Anyone can take whatever they like. Or just ban mounted armies.

Or don't play those rules.

I think the term is bums on seats.

alasdair2204 wrote:Mounted armies get hit far worse by 50/ 50 rule as 4's of cavalry dont work and 6's are to expensive, whereas 6's of foot do work

Not sure to many of us will agree with this.

It is your combination of mounted, dragoons and artillery that is so effective, so I think any discussion must include all three troop types and their inter- action with other troop types.

If that combination was so effective, why did all the armies of the period have so much infantry.

As I said in another post on here, I think it is time for a refresh.

Don

My issue is not much has been done about the all infantry armies which are just as unhistorical and to be fair cavalry armies have never dominated the competition circuit other than those used by me and it seems odd that these restrictions target one type of army, to bee fair I never use artillery in the earlier period

I only used to play 3 or 4 day I period 25mmgames until I joined league of ancients club and saw Vikings fighting assyrians

Fantasy. Good fun. Not a simulation

But when people go down this historical path they are kidding
themselves
There were mounted armies and there was artillery

In dbmm should bastarnae be f or x at the moment

Just have printed rules with no stick ons and maybe new people will play

I think the term is bums on seats.

This is true. As a competition organiser my aim is to try to provide as good an experience as possible for as many people as possible, because that ensures that people will continue to come. The principle aim of themes is to provide variety so that players are not seeing the same players and armies at each tournament. The aim has never been to punish specific players, but the reality is that if people see what they consider to be a winning formula they will try to replicate it. They won't do it as well, but people not following the formula will end up playing a succession of games against very samey armies. Interestingly, Britcon, the competition that Jon mentions above, is one that has very few restrictions and therefore gives the best indication of how things go. In the last 2 years 20/24 and 15/18 armies have been from WoR or D&G i.e. 5/6 of the armies came from 1/3 of the available books, and 1/3 of the available time period.

My issue is not much has been done about the all infantry armies which are just as unhistorical

I'll agree that we may have been a bit slow on this one, but the themes on which I've had an input this year (Roll Call 15mm, Challenge, Warfare) have all included minima for mounted as well as any other restrictions.

donm2 wrote: If that combination was so effective, why did all the armies of the period have so much infantry?

Because real horses were harder to find, and much harder to paint?

I find the insistence on a maximum of 4-packs of cavalry in some army lists quite contrived (and wrong historically), especially in the last half-century covered by the rules. I think the point made by the other poster about superior troops limiting the size of your army - and its break point - is a valid one; so, too, is the use of cavalry 6-packs, which do the same thing. By all means insist on an historical basis and rules of deployment for any army entered into a competition, but if someone can produce an historical precedent for their army, let it stand.

kevinj wrote: Interestingly, Britcon, the competition that Jon mentions above, is one that has very few restrictions and therefore gives the best indication of how things go. In the last 2 years 20/24 and 15/18 armies have been from WoR or D&G i.e. 5/6 of the armies came from 1/3 of the available books, and 1/3 of the available time period.

I think there are a number of issues causing that "log-jam" that aren't really related to the rules - one is the Anglo-centricity of wargaming: ECW and Anglo-Dutch are far-and-away the most common armies I've encountered from those two books; second, pretty much everyone I know who plays FoG:R has an ECW/TYW army (or can borrow one from Bob Medcraft!); another is that DoG armies can "double-up" as later WSS/Marlburian for other rules; a fourth is the paucity of information and ranges of figures for non-European armies for this period - having used one (kindly lent to me by Don Avis), I would love to have a generic mid-16thC Indian force capable of being adapted to any of the main types, but finding helpful books is difficult and I'm not a fan of any of the three main post-Ancient Indian figure ranges (Two Dragons, Essex, or Frei Korps).

I tried all the various Indian armies in the early days of FoGR and then put them away.

They only come out now in themed competitions that don't include any Europeans.

Being one of the people who have voted with their feet, my comments were my attempt to help.

Don