|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 20, 2017 20:19:10 GMT
Maybe it's a daft question but since I have never taken part in a tournament., I was wondering on what restrictions (if any) are imposed on troop choices by organisers?
Are allies allowed?
I do understand that some if not all organisers do insist using the same list of troops for each and every game in the tournament or do some allow otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 21, 2017 6:04:56 GMT
I can't speak for all tournaments Haardrada but in Canberra the three tournaments here allow for allies but also stipulate that a fixed 12 element list to be used for the whole event. Cancon went a step further and made competitors stipulate whether the dismounting elements would be foot or mounted and were required to stay the same for the duration as well.
The tournaments I run (DBA With A Twist in May and Landwaster in November) have always been fixed list events. Cancon changed over with the publication of DBA3 because of the addition of allies to the mix. Prior to that at Cancon a player could choose their elements at deployment.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 21, 2017 7:07:58 GMT
Maybe it's a daft question but since I have never taken part in a tournament., I was wondering on what restrictions (if any) are imposed on troop choices by organisers? Are allies allowed? I do understand that some if not all organisers do insist using the same list of troops for each and every game in the tournament or do some allow otherwise? Organisers differ in their approach, but in the UK......normally allies are allowed. At the Portsmouth events, which are defined geographically and historically (eg 'The Western Mediterranean area, 300-201 BC') the ally must fit the time period. Also the organiser may insist it fits geographically, too. Restrictions are usually posted in advance, to allow players to work it out themselves before arriving unprepared at the venue (!). ie a 'fixed list' as per macbeth's post above. And all tournaments (that I can recall) insist on the same army composition for the whole tournament (apart from the x/y or x//y options in the lists). Otherwise certain lists, with multiple choices, would give players too much flex to adjust their army to the opponent, and no flex for the 'limited options' armies. The mounted/dismounted conundrum is bubbling away....I think at Britcon it may have been 'stay mounted or stay on foot' for the day. Wasn't there.... The requirement to use the same army for the whole tournament used to be specified in the lists intro paragraphs (in v2.2 and before). I don't have my v3 book with me to check. Hope this helps?
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 21, 2017 7:54:47 GMT
Martin, The "tournaments" section, top of page 13, makes the same stipulation for DBA 3.0. Specifically that the same 12 elements must be used for all games, except that some elements may be deployed mounted or dismounted. Scott
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 21, 2017 9:38:49 GMT
Yet there was an Antipodean visitor at one of last year's PAWS competitions who was surprised when I told him that he was supposed to keep to the same 12 elements for the entire day, so presumably the practice isn't universal.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 21, 2017 10:41:52 GMT
Thanks Scott. So it's still in the book, then....
Also, thanks Denis, had forgotten that one. One player I met at one of the UK tournaments about 4-5 years back, as I deployed, started saying...."so you have spears and cavalry. so I'll choose x, y , z from my successor list", at which point I felt obliged to get a ruling from the powers that be/umpire. The same player had changed his army for all of his previous 3 or 4 games, and had been doing very well, too....strangely enough!! Problem can be that once one player chooses his variants, the opponent could then choose his variants, causing player 1 to change his options....ad infinitum.
Fixed lists seems to work. Hott tournaments here seem less inclined to force a single list, but there's an element of 'fun variety' very often....more the excitement of getting different toys on the table than battlewinning super-combos.
M
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 21, 2017 12:51:31 GMT
Insofar as I have experienced, before the initial matching at tournaments, the players are required to write down and turn in what army they are using and what the make up is for the elements along with terrain type. None of this is allowed to change from game to game throughout the duration of that event.
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 21, 2017 13:53:42 GMT
Maybe it's a daft question but since I have never taken part in a tournament., I was wondering on what restrictions (if any) are imposed on troop choices by organisers? Are allies allowed? I do understand that some if not all organisers do insist using the same list of troops for each and every game in the tournament or do some allow otherwise? Organisers differ in their approach, but in the UK......normally allies are allowed. At the Portsmouth events, which are defined geographically and historically (eg 'The Western Mediterranean area, 300-201 BC') the ally must fit the time period. Also the organiser may insist it fits geographically, too. Restrictions are usually posted in advance, to allow players to work it out themselves before arriving unprepared at the venue (!). ie a 'fixed list' as per macbeth's post above. And all tournaments (that I can recall) insist on the same army composition for the whole tournament (apart from the x/y or x//y options in the lists). Otherwise certain lists, with multiple choices, would give players too much flex to adjust their army to the opponent, and no flex for the 'limited options' armies. The mounted/dismounted conundrum is bubbling away....I think at Britcon it may have been 'stay mounted or stay on foot' for the day. Wasn't there.... The requirement to use the same army for the whole tournament used to be specified in the lists intro paragraphs (in v2.2 and before). I don't have my v3 book with me to check. Hope this helps? Re Britcon Yes it was stay mounted or stay on foot. However this caused some debate on the day. I think the arguments roughly are: If it's historical why disallow it? To which the answer is, on some occasions it can provide players with an unfair advantage.
The thing I dislike about it is that it could encourage players to start searching the army lists for competition winning army lists, as without this flexibility you're at a disadvantage if more people adopt it. This may undermine the thing I really like about the majority of the current DBA scene in the UK, which is most people treat it as fun not serious competition.
Interestingly, I think the decision to ban dismounting at Britcon was because people had come up against an army in a previous competition which had Camels which could dismount as spear and camels which could dismount as bow, once you started the game and saw what you were up against. (Seem to remember this army won, though it did have an excellent general behind it as well!)
There are of course the other tournaments where you don't necessarily play with your own army, either using someone else's most of the time, e.g. Tarrington, or the armies are provided for you, e.g. The Northern Cup.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 21, 2017 21:25:47 GMT
Martin, The "tournaments" section, top of page 13, makes the same stipulation for DBA 3.0. Specifically that the same 12 elements must be used for all games, except that some elements may be deployed mounted or dismounted. Scott I read this but forgive me if I am wrong., it does not make it clear that elements that choose to remain mounted have to remain mounted or are allowed to dismount in the game?Or is this enforced in some competitions and not in others? I was surprised the mounted/dismounted rule was enforced in a recent event due to the Qaramita army winning the previous competition, but I also recall that a second Qaramita army and a Lithuanian army had also been used in the same competition and had not done so well.
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 22, 2017 0:05:41 GMT
I am a great fan of there being a wide variety of tournament formats - the important thing is to ensure that the format is explicitly declared in the promotional material. I always state that my tournaments are 15mm Scale, Open, Fixed List using (now) DBA3. I go on to define Open as being that players take on whatever opponent with their own army (as opposed to being a matched pairs or geographic/chronologic restriction) and Fixed List meaning that you have to use the same chosen 12 elements for all rounds.
My preference for a fixed list is because we run a handicap trophy and it is easier to rate the armies if there are no changes between rounds. As far as dismounters go, I allow them but the element rating for those elements is the sum of the foot and mounted options. Players that bring the Tibetans, Lithuanians, Qarmita, Burgundian Ordonance or similar to the fray will have a very high rating and so will fall well short of winning "The Maurice" or "Grand Maurice" trophies.
During the DBA2.x era the Australian Standard for dismounting was that the player had to decide at the start of each game whether to be on foot or on horse and could not change during the game. I myself allowed dismounting during the game but did not allow it to be a group move.
On the other hand I do enjoy the intellectual challenge of finding a versatile army that is in no way a "Power Army" for the tournaments that allowed chopping and changing each round. The army I found that fitted this bill best was II/55b Blemmye. There was a core of 4x3Bw tat was compulsory and a Cv General. But the rest of the army allowed a mix of Cm, 4Sp, 3Ax and 3Cv - nothing there that was a world beater, but you could either set terrain and choose the army if you were defender, or make the best of your opponents ground as the attacker. This army was 50% of my world title winning ensemble (the other being Christian Nubian).
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 22, 2017 7:55:34 GMT
The events I organise in NZ require that a player must define the list, the list year if there are options, and if an ally is being used the ally are prior to the event.
Then on the day the element selection used in the first game to be maintained throughout. This goes someway to equalising the Swiss army knife type to those armies with more limited options without over taxing me, or the players to organise themselves, or encouraging late entries. We after all almost always have a late entry.
Elements that can dismount may do so at the start of each game, or during the game, where allowed by the lists.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2017 10:15:24 GMT
Martin, The "tournaments" section, top of page 13, makes the same stipulation for DBA 3.0. Specifically that the same 12 elements must be used for all games, except that some elements may be deployed mounted or dismounted. Scott I read this but forgive me if I am wrong., it does not make it clear that elements that choose to remain mounted have to remain mounted or are allowed to dismount in the game?Or is this enforced in some competitions and not in others? I was surprised the mounted/dismounted rule was enforced in a recent event due to the Qaramita army winning the previous competition, but I also recall that a second Qaramita army and a Lithuanian army had also been used in the same competition and had not done so well. I guess I ought to comment as I was the spawn of the devil who banned dismounting during the Britcon tournament! Sheffmark has articulated the arguments for and against earlier in the thread and all I can say is that, in the end, I leant towards the argument that allowing dismounting during the game gave a flexibility advantage over other armies. Having said that, the arguments that banning dismounting takes away from the historical flavour of those armies and clearly goes against the principles laid down on P13 of the rules about multi-game tournaments also have merit. Whether the decision was right or wrong, I would like to emphasise that the discussions were conducted with enthusiastic good humour and that everyone seemed to enjoy throwing dice, pushing toy soldiers around, admiring other armies, chatting with others about history and gaming and generally riding that emotional rollercoaster that is DBA! ... and that, for me at least, is the whole purpose of a tournament and is what I have been fortunate to experience in each of the tournaments I have taken part in on the UK circuit over the last couple of years. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2017 10:17:56 GMT
My preference for a fixed list is because we run a handicap trophy and it is easier to rate the armies if there are no changes between rounds. As far as dismounters go, I allow them but the element rating for those elements is the sum of the foot and mounted options. Players that bring the Tibetans, Lithuanians, Qarmita, Burgundian Ordonance or similar to the fray will have a very high rating and so will fall well short of winning "The Maurice" or "Grand Maurice" trophies. Macbeth - I would be interested in learning more about your handicap system if possible. Thanks, Simon
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 22, 2017 20:03:57 GMT
I read this but forgive me if I am wrong., it does not make it clear that elements that choose to remain mounted have to remain mounted or are allowed to dismount in the game?Or is this enforced in some competitions and not in others? I was surprised the mounted/dismounted rule was enforced in a recent event due to the Qaramita army winning the previous competition, but I also recall that a second Qaramita army and a Lithuanian army had also been used in the same competition and had not done so well. I guess I ought to comment as I was the spawn of the devil who banned dismounting during the Britcon tournament! Sheffmark has articulated the arguments for and against earlier in the thread and all I can say is that, in the end, I leant towards the argument that allowing dismounting during the game gave a flexibility advantage over other armies. Having said that, the arguments that banning dismounting takes away from the historical flavour of those armies and clearly goes against the principles laid down on P13 of the rules about multi-game tournaments also have merit. Whether the decision was right or wrong, I would like to emphasise that the discussions were conducted with enthusiastic good humour and that everyone seemed to enjoy throwing dice, pushing toy soldiers around, admiring other armies, chatting with others about history and gaming and generally riding that emotional rollercoaster that is DBA! ... and that, for me at least, is the whole purpose of a tournament and is what I have been fortunate to experience in each of the tournaments I have taken part in on the UK circuit over the last couple of years. Simon Hi Simon I am in no way criticising your (or anyone elses) decision to impose restrictions on tournaments, in fact I am pleased with the responses to this thread that show healthy and divers alternatives to tournament organisation.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2017 21:39:59 GMT
I guess I ought to comment as I was the spawn of the devil who banned dismounting during the Britcon tournament! Sheffmark has articulated the arguments for and against earlier in the thread and all I can say is that, in the end, I leant towards the argument that allowing dismounting during the game gave a flexibility advantage over other armies. Having said that, the arguments that banning dismounting takes away from the historical flavour of those armies and clearly goes against the principles laid down on P13 of the rules about multi-game tournaments also have merit. Whether the decision was right or wrong, I would like to emphasise that the discussions were conducted with enthusiastic good humour and that everyone seemed to enjoy throwing dice, pushing toy soldiers around, admiring other armies, chatting with others about history and gaming and generally riding that emotional rollercoaster that is DBA! ... and that, for me at least, is the whole purpose of a tournament and is what I have been fortunate to experience in each of the tournaments I have taken part in on the UK circuit over the last couple of years. Simon Hi Simon I am in no way criticising your (or anyone elses) decision to impose restrictions on tournaments, in fact I am pleased with the responses to this thread that show healthy and divers alternatives to tournament organisation. Thanks Haardrada - just to reassure you I didn't take your comments as criticism but thought them to be all part of a constructive debate on the subject! Cheers, Simon
|
|