|
|
Post by scottrussell on Sept 27, 2017 21:35:16 GMT
Well in fact Martin, I beg to differ! I think I asked a similar question about 2.2 many years ago and received a reply from Bob. For single games (as opposed to tournament games) there is nothing in the rules which specifies that you have to define your army composition prior to actually setting it out. A relatively brief scan of the 3.0 rules doesn't seem to identify any change. it depends how friendly your "friendly" games are, I suppose. What normally happens in our games is that one of us provides a matched pair, and then says something like "i fancy trying the Carthaginians with the two elephant option against the Polybians with the 3Ax option", how do you feel about trying that?". There may be a bit of negotiation: " If you are not using the auxiliary option, do you mind if I use the Gauls as war band rather than auxilia?", but these are just to try to produce a game of interest on both sides of the board. There is little point in playing a friendly game if one player is seriously disgruntled with his lot from the outset. But having said all of that, there is no mention in the rules of how or when armies are decided, but there is a definite sequence in the deployment section which dictates when the armies are set out, and no indication of when the army is actually defined. Scott Fair enough.....no mention in the rules. Friendlies is friendlies.....you are absolutely correct that there is no hard and fast rule. Players can choose to run it any way they like. If, however, someone were to have attended any of the tournaments that you and I have played at over the last ten years or so with a multi-choice army which he then varied at each deployment * what would the result have been? How would the 'GM' (or whatever term you prefer) have ruled? And if I run out a dodgy army combination in a friendly/non-tournament game which will be hard pressed from the word "go", my aim is not to end up 'seriously disgruntled from the outset' but to give my opponent as hard a run for his money as possible. Horses for courses, I guess. Martin * especially a high aggression one, with a chance to view the enemy before choosing composition most games. Martin, I actually agree with you entirely. Friendlies is friendlies, tournament games is tournament games. The rules for tournament games are defined but even there the only stipulation would appear to be that the 12 elements initially deployed must then be initially deployed in all subsequent games. The rules still don't say at which point the army composition has to be first determined. Some GM's insist on army lists in advance, others at the point where the entry fee is paid on the day. Even in the UK where sharp practice is an anathema, some players bring two armies "because they can't make their mind up", or all of the elements for the army "because that is what was in the box". Possibly they do not see this as sharp practice, but it is clearly possible to gain an advantage in this way, obviously in the first game if the 12 elements are not initially written down, but also for the entire tournament for example by only using the artillery element if the tournament field is full of elephant heavy armies. With regard to friendlies, I am sure we are all happy to try out a clearly outmatched army, just to see how it would get on, but I think we would all be a bit disgruntled if we felt that we were being placed at a disadvantage, possibly repeatedly, by sharp practice. Personally I would prefer the 12 elements to be defined in advance, either by agreement in friendlies, or by advance notice in tournaments. Nobody should have been able to vary elements at deployment over the last 10 years because that is clearly against the rules as written. I would expect the GM to have ruled that the twelve elements deployed at the start of the first game were deployed at the start of every subsequent game. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 27, 2017 22:13:59 GMT
Actually, a case could be made for the defender having chosen the battle site/terrain getting a chance to vary his army based on the options after terrain placement.
Home field advantage.
Attacker on the other hand doesn't invade with a Swiss Army knife army.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 27, 2017 22:36:56 GMT
I think that buried somewhere in the army list introduction there is a ruling from on high by PB that states you put your "Chosen 12" together and play it for the game or for the series of games in a tournament. The only exception for swapping around with single diagonals is the dismounting Kn/Bd group (double slash discounters are covered separately). I have the rules with me at work but this particular issue doesn't concern me enough to clarify.
The rule (if it still exists - because it was DEFINITELY there in 2.2) is more honoured in the breach than in the acceptance. What is more important is that any tournament specifies how it will be played out at that event. Here in Oz we have a wide variety of rulings that are fully spelled out in the tournament promotional material
1) I am off to MOAB this weekend where I have to specify my armies on the day (Books I & II day 1, Books III & IV day 2) and can pick and choose the elements (including allies) at deployment. This is the perfect place for a Swiss Army Army (in which the Swiss themselves with wall to wall either Pk or Bd and no allies - do not fit the bill).
2) In November I will be running Landwaster 2017 and I ask for the players army choice and fixed list in advance so that I can rate the armies for the handicap prize - naturally there will be one or two stragglers that will not get their list to me in time but I will get it from them before the day starts. Dismounting troops Kn/Bd or Cm//Lb are allowed as per the standard rules but give a much higher rating so penalise anyone gunning for the "Grand Maurice" in January.
3) Come January at Cancon 2018 we will have another 2 day event breaking up into Books I & II then Books III & IV where there is a strict deadline to submit lists and in these ones the "Chosen 12" must have the status of any dismounters chosen and fixed for the duration of the event.
Different situations allowing the choice of different armies. I personally like the idea of allowing these differences. The hard and fast rules of the game are writ in stone, but I see the tournament rules as being like the Pirates' Code - more like a set of guidelines than actual rules 
And thus far at no stage has anyone ever suggested that the terrain pieces (1-2 compulsory and 2-3 optional) be chosen in advance of the tournament and fixed for the duration of the event. A defender can choose from the complete selection of legal pieces and vary the size and shape between games.
After all - remember back to WRG7th where the rules specifically stated that the negative dice had to be Red in colour. Was anyone that tried to enforce that rule hailed as a hero of orthodoxy ?? 
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Antoine on Sept 27, 2017 22:54:57 GMT
I'll try to play it this way next time |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 27, 2017 22:59:05 GMT
Upon further reflection (all of 20 minutes or so) a case could be made for both players even in a tournament being allowed to vary their army from within the options after learning who their opponent would be.
After all when the Mongols invaded China, Europe, and elsewhere they had a good idea of what they would be facing.
Of course a lot of armies in history didn't have that much flexibility and brought what they had to the table.
Armies in the lists though with a number of options have those options for a reason - often that reason is that a different times against different opponents in different terrain the historical army varied its composition and tactics. The Han brought different armies onto the steppes to face the horse tribes there than those they used against infantry armies in China.
Not as much of a case in a themed tourney against historical opponents, but in an open tourney where one could face Vikings on round and an NKE army the next.
Of course an open tourney is ahistorical to begin with and it is all a game which is a big part of why there are favored armies for such tourneys.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 28, 2017 0:40:01 GMT
What constitutes "The Rules?" Everything in the book? If so, then consider the text under the heading "Multi-game Tournaments."
"Army composition and allies must be declared by the start of the first game and cannot be changed between games; except that an element listed as / or // can be deployed at the start of each game as either mounted or dismounted. "
I have always followed this "rule" and required players to have their armies set at the start of the first game. For me the only problem is -- when does a game start? I have made an assumption that this occurs when players roll for invader/defender. Before they roll -- start the game -- they must have their armies set. I do not require a list prior to the event. In some events in the past, I have asked players to write down their army name and year, and composition, to facilitate first round matching. Players can bring any armies they want, with any composition they want to the site. They can try to gather intelligence as to what armies are present, but once they sit at the battlefield, with the dice in their hand ready to roll for invader/defender, they must have their army and its 12 elements selected.
An open tournament is a game, not the reenactment of a historical battle. Thus I have no problem with fixed armies, nor with random terrain. Thanks to "Macbeth" for mentioning the concept of freely selecting terrain. It might be fun, to do an event with pre-selected fixed terrain. The defender could roll for placement each game, or even tighter, use the same placement and pieces as was in the first game of the event. These are variants and not anything I advocate for standard events.
I personally think the best way to run a DBA tournament is Matched Historical Pairs. Each player brings two armies and alternates between his and his opponent's army. I also like the duplicate style tournament, where there are 2 fixed battles, with 4 different armies and each player does each battle with each army -- 4 games.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 28, 2017 18:14:13 GMT
I think Bob's way is the best way.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2017 10:30:14 GMT
Regarding deployment and army composition, it's very interesting how people play the game differently when there is no written rule to direct them. I wonder if PB would say that that the absence of the specific rule is the rule? That is, army composition is declared at deployment if you follow the set-up rules.
I would've thought the best time would be after dicing for invader/defender but before terrain placement.The invader could write down his 12 elements including allies and landing party but keep it hidden. The defender doesn't need to do anything as he deploys first.
I look at this as simulating to an extent the historical process. The invader would know roughly the terrain of the defender and the type of troops available and bring what he thought would do the job (ie he read the army list!). Once the army takes off then here would be little change. The defender would then be able to try and define the specific battlefield with greater option on the troops available.
As an aside, when I play solo, I use dice to choose the troops for each side. This gives great variation and mimics historical errors (don't bring just hoplites to Aetolia, Demosthenes!)
Jim
|
|
