Battle Reports for The Necro 2009

You just finished the best game of your life and you have to let the world know just how cool it was! Post your report here with all the glorious details.

Postby ChrisLS » Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:11 pm

Apparently, Eric had played on that table the round before, and both he and his opponent stated that the table was nearly unplayable. Tom, the organizer, said that since it was very different from the other tables available, he felt it would provide a more even experience for all players if we used the same terrain. I can understand the ruling, even if it virtually guaranteed me a loss.
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby Smeagol » Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:56 pm

BostonNazgul wrote:im pretty sure you and i are experts on those types of tables tim!

Ttrue, taht Osgoliath table was miserable for two cavalry commanders.
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Postby BostonNazgul » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:43 pm

Apparently, Eric had played on that table the round before, and both he and his opponent stated that the table was nearly unplayable. Tom, the organizer, said that since it was very different from the other tables available, he felt it would provide a more even experience for all players if we used the same terrain. I can understand the ruling, even if it virtually guaranteed me a loss.


yeah, consistency is good rule of thumb i guess, i can understand playing the same board, the old GW method, cant say i feel that bad for that player though, after all that means they have been on the top tables for most of the event! :D
User avatar
BostonNazgul
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Jack Napier » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:23 am

ChrisLS wrote:Apparently, Eric had played on that table the round before, and both he and his opponent stated that the table was nearly unplayable. Tom, the organizer, said that since it was very different from the other tables available, he felt it would provide a more even experience for all players if we used the same terrain. I can understand the ruling, even if it virtually guaranteed me a loss.



No comment
User avatar
Jack Napier
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:39 pm
Location: Orlando

Table

Postby Gartl » Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:37 am

Having run dozens of events I would not have changed a designated table because a player didn't like it. Of course, I also never put a person on the same table twice in the same tournament.
It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing. - Boromir FOTR
User avatar
Gartl
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 am

Postby orcishthug » Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:28 pm

As I recall the general view was that the Shire table was magnificent (it is) but questionable for reasonable tournament play. It is perfect for scenario play (Clensing of the Shire, Battle of Bywater......perfect hobbit ambush locations on the sunken road and bridge over sunken stream, just like the Hildebrant paintings).
Eric gave it a go in round 4 anyway and they struggled through contest of champions in a fairly close game despite terrain driven anomalies. That was the only tournament game played on that table as far as I can recall (for the described reasons). Play on that table was pretty much pitched as voluntary (for the described reasons). It was not unreasonable to then not play the next (final) round on that same table.
I'm sure everyone else would have gladly thrown their body into the breach and played a second game in a row on a (comparatively for tournament play) screwy set piece terraign table when they were in a 3-4 way race for the battle point lead. :wink: I think it was handled correctly with the bonus that at least one game was played on the table during the tournament.
I hope to be able to use it for scenarios sometime. The Hobbit scenarios Eric runs are good introductory games for everyone. Kids love beating on ruffians, orcs and wargs with Hobbits.
Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Welshmen never yield
orcishthug
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Florida

Postby BostonNazgul » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:10 am

that sounds right then if it was only played on once, good judge call; just would have seemed very inconsistent it it had actually been used all weekend.
User avatar
BostonNazgul
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Smeagol » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:26 am

I'd have loved to play on it, but it wasn't to be. I play on busy tables when I can manage to bring my own terrain to the store. The GitD tables were very much like what I'm used to playing one, though the Osgoliath table was a bit extreme even by my standards.
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Postby febber » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:56 pm

While the table was difficult to play on, I would gladly have played on it. As it was, Dave and I played on the other table and I had to mark my archers with beads as they were moving forwards as I could not get them to stand where they could actually move to. But Dave is a great guy and we just handled it flexibly so as not to take all day.

The Shire table actually had more extreme slopes on each terrace and you wouldn't have been able to place figures on/near them, even though it was designed as rolling terrain. You would have to make some allowances to play on that board.
All-time LOTR Grand/National Tournament Record: 92-18-45 (W-L-D), 63 major victories
21 awards in 35 events inc. 5x Best Overall; 2x 2nd Overall (w/o Best General); 9x Best General
2007 National Circuit Champion
2008 National Circuit Champion
User avatar
febber
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby ChrisLS » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:38 pm

Wow, I just found out one error we'd made in the Round 5 game against Eric - according to the Ruin of Arnor book, Hobbit archers are unarmed, and so should receive a -1 to all fight rolls. We didn't do this - did anyone else?
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby orcishthug » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:13 pm

That vacu-formed terrain was a little friendlier, but I remember playing against Eric's Hobbits on it when I used my Dragon and three mordor troll list (one a chieftain plus one morannon orc to make 5 figures). Hobbits kept falling over when the terrain flexed.
I don't recall ever differentiating archers in HTH when playing with and against Hobbits. I assume everone has a hand weapon of some sort, although I may be mixing that up with WFB. If they are supposed to be like a two hand weapon (in this case no hand weapon) at -1 thats news to me. I don't remember it coming up.
I continually forget the two hand thing with Khazad Guard etc. so I always use the one hand option. I did notice the crazy fiefdom guys (Lamedon?) only have claymores and can't opt for no -1.
Shirrifs have FV 3 and I recall it being impotant to get one in on the combat when swarming.
I'll have to review the rules when I get back from the end of the Earth (Camden Arkansas) to my reference books.
Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Welshmen never yield
orcishthug
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Florida

Postby ChrisLS » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:21 pm

Normally you are correct about the all models having hand weapons. However, the profile of the hobbit archers specifically says they are unarmed.
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby Smeagol » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:07 am

ChrisLS wrote:Wow, I just found out one error we'd made in the Round 5 game against Eric - according to the Ruin of Arnor book, Hobbit archers are unarmed, and so should receive a -1 to all fight rolls. We didn't do this - did anyone else?
I only engaged hobbit archers twice and like everyone else Eric didn't mention the -1 modifier. I would like to think the player who knows his army would remember the rules to his own army. I guess I'll have to bring all of my books to tournaments again to police my opponents. That is a pain.
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Postby orcishthug » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:35 pm

Its probably something introduced between Scourging of the Shire and Arnor book that wasn't noticed. I know it is an inadvertant oversight apparently missed by all the experts (and there are several) playing against the army as well. I don't think it came up at Adepticon and Frank hasn't mentioned it in local games that I know of. If you want to attribute overt sinister motives.....go crazy...if it makes you feel better.
Consider us all educated.
Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Welshmen never yield
orcishthug
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Florida

Postby Smeagol » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:54 pm

E-mail and forums are a good way to misinterpret/misrepresent the meaning of a comment since vocal tones and body language are missing.

Sinister motives, no I don't think so. It's a mistake that someone who plays with an army regularly should have caught was more to my meaning. I don't play with or against hobbits regularly so there is no reason I would catch it. The Scouring of the Shire is not the most recent armybook so it shouldn't be used as a reference during play since the hobbits in that book have daggers.

My policing comment was not the best choice of wording, but those of us that have played in several tournaments have run across players that don't know their own army's rules, forget the inconvenient rules or have them armed with weapons they don't have (Murin and Drar being the example I'm thinking of). We've even run across forces that didn't obey the rules in LOME in a couple of tournaments, even GW's judges made these mistakes. I've only run across one case of blatant cheating and it wasn't at the Necro.

I make mistakes about forces I'm learning to play on a regular basis. One of the reasons I will play a force to death before a tournament is to make sure I know their rules well enough not to have to look them up during game play and more importantly I don't "cheat" my opponent out of a win. I've done that a couple times in the past in non-tournament games and I'm always embarrased by it. I expect better of myself.

Again it made no difference in my battle with the hobbits, they slaughtered me fair and square. Publically I'll blame Tom for that loss. :P Privately I know I should have just fought a Meeting Engagement and ignored the objective. A draw was easy to achieve against that force.
Last edited by Smeagol on Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Battle Reports (LotR)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron