|
Post by constabledavid on Oct 15, 2017 20:30:49 GMT
As everybody knows I hate DBA3.0, but enjoyed my only game, I won but it was very close at 4:3. Bakewell is really worth going to and the local shops are good. It is very near Chatsworth and the Dales if you want to go for a few days.
David Constable
P.S. - Went to confess my sins today in the abbey.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 15, 2017 21:03:07 GMT
As everybody knows I hate DBA3.0, but enjoyed my only game, I won but it was very close at 4:3. David Constable P.S. - Went to confess my sins today in the abbey. You say you hate it, but your secret is safe with me P.
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 16, 2017 8:02:25 GMT
Simon, I don't know how avidly you have recorded the statistics, but I wonder how the choice of armies used (own v opponents) distributed itself throughout the table, and how players did with their own army pair? Paul And I both used our own armies only twice, although with different results (I won two from two with my own pair, using the Mountain Indians both times). I have always felt that I did worse with my own pair at Alton, although my opponents there have always had more time to think about the choice. Here I suspect that the unfamiliarity of the Mountain Indians, combined with the marked difference which resulted from substituting the 2 x HCh which are almost always used in the Classicals, with 2 x LCh, and which possibly went unnoticed by my opponents, was a decisive factor. Did anyone have an even more extreme distribution, as was one of our concerns for the format? Personally I thought that the format worked very well. Scott Scott I used my Palmyran/Sassanid match up three times in the day. Twice my opponents chose the Palmyran and sportingly Phil Steele chose Sassanid "because he fancied playing with them" In the two trial games prior to the competition the Palmyran seemed the stronger of the two, so I changed two fast bow for two Ps to even it up a bit. Even with this change the Palmyran won all three encounters. The pip drain of having 2 Hd and an Elephant for the Sassanids, plus having to get in against the 2 remaining Palmyran Bows or be shot up meant that most of the problems lay with the Sassanids, which they generally didn't manage to overcome. Another fun day gaming though and great to see some new players attending. Thanks again to Mrs Simon for the great brownies and flapjack. Mark
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 16, 2017 8:04:19 GMT
As everybody knows I hate DBA3.0, but enjoyed my only game, I won but it was very close at 4:3. Bakewell is really worth going to and the local shops are good. It is very near Chatsworth and the Dales if you want to go for a few days. David Constable P.S. - Went to confess my sins today in the abbey. "As everybody knows I hate DBA3.0, but enjoyed my only game" Poor Dave, you can actually hear his torment in this simple statement can't you?!!
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 16, 2017 8:20:15 GMT
As everybody knows I hate DBA3.0, but enjoyed my only game, I won but it was very close at 4:3. Bakewell is really worth going to and the local shops are good. It is very near Chatsworth and the Dales if you want to go for a few days. David Constable P.S. - Went to confess my sins today in the abbey. "As everybody knows I hate DBA3.0, but enjoyed my only game" Poor Dave, you can actually hear his torment in this simple statement can't you?!! I feel very confident that a couple more Bakewell therapy sessions will sort him! Simon
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 9:23:22 GMT
I will be dragging him kicking and screaming to Tarrington in a few weeks. He really puts himself through it. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 16, 2017 9:45:28 GMT
Simon, I don't know how avidly you have recorded the statistics, but I wonder how the choice of armies used (own v opponents) distributed itself throughout the table, and how players did with their own army pair? Paul And I both used our own armies only twice, although with different results (I won two from two with my own pair, using the Mountain Indians both times). I have always felt that I did worse with my own pair at Alton, although my opponents there have always had more time to think about the choice. Here I suspect that the unfamiliarity of the Mountain Indians, combined with the marked difference which resulted from substituting the 2 x HCh which are almost always used in the Classicals, with 2 x LCh, and which possibly went unnoticed by my opponents, was a decisive factor. Did anyone have an even more extreme distribution, as was one of our concerns for the format? Personally I thought that the format worked very well. Scott Scott, I will have a look over the score sheets - I have ten out of the 14 and have e-mailed those who might have taken them away. If anyone still has their score sheet could they please text or e-mail me a photo of it? I will look at it later today. Simon
|
|
|
Post by diades on Oct 16, 2017 11:59:32 GMT
Curious! At the other UK Matched Pairs Tournament where you bring your own pair (as opposed to the Northern where it is all prepared beautifully for you), Alton, you know you will play six rounds; three with your opponent choosing from your pair of armies and three where you will be presented a pair to choose from. How did Bakewell operate if some players only used their own pair twice and chose four times?
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 16, 2017 14:03:21 GMT
Curious! At the other UK Matched Pairs Tournament where you bring your own pair (as opposed to the Northern where it is all prepared beautifully for you), Alton, you know you will play six rounds; three with your opponent choosing from your pair of armies and three where you will be presented a pair to choose from. How did Bakewell operate if some players only used their own pair twice and chose four times? If you and your opponent (random first round, thereafter decided by Swiss Chess), had both played with their pair of armies an equal number of times, then whose pair of armies was used was decided by dice throw. If one person had used their own armies more than the other, then the other person automatically got to play with their own. The person not using their own armies got to pick the army from their opponent's pair that they wanted to play with. In the event that a player whose armies were being used had been required to use the same army from their own pair more than three times, then they could choose which army rather than their opponent. Hope that makes sense! Simon
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 16, 2017 16:18:40 GMT
Will there be photo's, gents?
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 16, 2017 16:40:20 GMT
Loved the format
Managed victories and got crushed with my own troops and when using opponents armies
TBH it was just great to play different peeps with different armies
Was hooked on DBA already and def want to do more events
As to winning and loosing I think I played with mine three times and won once Played with opponents three times and won twice
As my forces were exactly the same as each other it means my opponents outwitted me with my own
Terrain, skill and luck of the dice making for great games other than my complete slaughter at the hands of my so called club mate, still grinding my teeth about that one
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 16, 2017 17:47:34 GMT
Will there be photo's, gents? I am afraid my phone ran out of juice but I have put some up on my blog at derwentgamer.wordpress.com/I think Phil Steele took a few and will put them on his blog. Cheers Simon
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 16, 2017 19:32:01 GMT
Very nice they are, too. And looking forward to seeing Phil's blog when he gets around to it . Always an excellent read.
M
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 20:13:20 GMT
Curious! At the other UK Matched Pairs Tournament where you bring your own pair (as opposed to the Northern where it is all prepared beautifully for you), Alton, you know you will play six rounds; three with your opponent choosing from your pair of armies and three where you will be presented a pair to choose from. How did Bakewell operate if some players only used their own pair twice and chose four times? If you and your opponent (random first round, thereafter decided by Swiss Chess), had both played with their pair of armies an equal number of times, then whose pair of armies was used was decided by dice throw. If one person had used their own armies more than the other, then the other person automatically got to play with their own. The person not using their own armies got to pick the army from their opponent's pair that they wanted to play with. In the event that a player whose armies were being used had been required to use the same army from their own pair more than three times, then they could choose which army rather than their opponent. Hope that makes sense! Simon Diades, Simon and I worked on this format together. The issue with it, which is perhaps not immediately obvious, is that you could play all of your games with your own (or conversely your opponents') armies. I was curious to see if this actually happened. I suppose the odds might be 1 in 64 if truly random? But this would perhaps only happen in you had more than 64 competitors?? Scott
|
|
|
Post by constabledavid on Oct 17, 2017 15:09:49 GMT
My torment is old age.
I cannot take in rule changes that are so big, trying to play at the club verses Scott and Greg I find myself asking questions, the trouble is I am thinking 4th WRG now.
Going to Bakewell I got a junction wrong, I forgot the route temporarily, with a map in hand.
Playing I am OK if playing with somebody who knows the rules, and I forget history.
David Constable
|
|