Page 1 of 3

2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:12 pm
by hazelbark
The 2013 FOG AM US Open will be held Friday, May 3, through Sunday, May 5, at Game Kastle in Santa Clara, CA.

Details:
1) Version 2.0 of the rules and the 30 – 0 scoring system will be used for this tournament.
2) There will be space for 28 players. Each round is 3.5 hours with 3 D6 random time.
3) Entry fee is $35.00, paid at registration. Major credit cards are accepted.
4) One 900 point army from any of the FOG AM Companion books with V2 amendments.
5) Lists with deployment order due to Nik Gaukroger: nikgaukroger at blueyonder dot co dot uk no later than 4/23/13. Lists must be submitted on the official excel spreadsheet found on the FOG website.

6) Schedule:
5/3/13:
Registration: 6:30 pm
Round 1: 7:00 – 10:30 pm
5/4/13:
Round 2: 9:00 am – 12:30 pm
Round 3: 1:30 pm – 5:00 pm
Round 4: 6:00 pm – 9:30 pm
5/5/13:
Round 5: 9:00 am – 12:30 pm
Presentation of prizes: 1:00 pm

7) Game Kastle is located at 1350 Coleman Ave. (next to the San Jose airport),
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408)727-2452.

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:16 pm
by zoltan
Locked and loaded! Err, can I say that? :oops:

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:36 pm
by hazelbark
zoltan wrote:Locked and loaded! Err, can I say that? :oops:
Yes, but in California if you are open carry it must be unloaded until you are in your home or at a range.

But perhaps you meant your army is packed for its journey. We all look forward to feasting on NZ lamb at the US open. The question is, will English pudding come too?

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:47 pm
by dave_r
hazelbark wrote:
zoltan wrote:Locked and loaded! Err, can I say that? :oops:
Yes, but in California if you are open carry it must be unloaded until you are in your home or at a range.

But perhaps you meant your army is packed for its journey. We all look forward to feasting on NZ lamb at the US open. The question is, will English pudding come too?
There was English [Just] Desserts at the US Teams. This particular version of English cuisine will not be attending the Open.

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:49 pm
by zoltan
hazelbark wrote:
zoltan wrote:Locked and loaded! Err, can I say that? :oops:
Yes, but in California if you are open carry it must be unloaded until you are in your home or at a range.

But perhaps you meant your army is packed for its journey. We all look forward to feasting on NZ lamb at the US open. The question is, will English pudding come too?
Pudding seems an apt description for many wargamer physiques. I hope you don't find the lamb a little tough for your liking sir. Go on, jest won more waife-er....

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:15 pm
by Zephyr40k
OK, this is fun.

I'll bring the, er... wine? From Napa, you see. Or maybe the artichokes. I saw a few growing nearby recently.

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:05 pm
by zoltan
Zephyr40k wrote:OK, this is fun.

I'll bring the, er... wine? From Napa, you see. Or maybe the artichokes. I saw a few growing nearby recently.
Err drop the artichokes please and bring an extra bottle of Zin. Preferably from Sonoma Valley or Russian River rather than that other over priced stuff! 8)

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:48 pm
by hazelbark
reminder
Lists with deployment order due to Nik Gaukroger: nikgaukroger at blueyonder dot co dot uk no later than 4/23/13. Lists must be submitted on the official excel spreadsheet found on the FOG website.

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:53 am
by Dlauerman
We in NorCal Wine Country are quite aware of the Phages of Zin.

Yes, I DO use puns to distract myself from the pain of frequent losing.

Dave Lauerman

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:30 pm
by babyshark
I just sent in my list to Nik, and a day early, too. Woohoo!

Marc

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:49 pm
by dave_r
babyshark wrote:I just sent in my list to Nik, and a day early, too. Woohoo!

Marc
Maybe Marc will double his win total for the year in the first game ;)

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:01 am
by babyshark
dave_r wrote:
babyshark wrote:I just sent in my list to Nik, and a day early, too. Woohoo!

Marc
Maybe Marc will double his win total for the year in the first game ;)
Ruddock thought he was a wit, but he was only half right.

:lol:

Marc

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:04 pm
by dave_r
babyshark wrote:
dave_r wrote:
babyshark wrote:I just sent in my list to Nik, and a day early, too. Woohoo!

Marc
Maybe Marc will double his win total for the year in the first game ;)
Ruddock thought he was a wit, but he was only half right.

:lol:

Marc
I've just seen the lists. I retract my comment about marc doubling his win's for the year in this tournament :)

Hopefully comments should be available to all shortly - I've really tried not to make any comments that will give away anything that couldn't be gathered from the list choice. I.e. if somebody has taken Pagan Burmese I don't think it's too bad to mention there may be smellyphants about :)

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:12 pm
by babyshark
dave_r wrote: I've just seen the lists. I retract my comment about marc doubling his win's for the year in this tournament :)
I don't know, Dave. Nik told me that my list was good. (He also said that I would play like a muppet, but that's a different thing.)

Marc

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:11 pm
by dave_r
babyshark wrote:
dave_r wrote: I've just seen the lists. I retract my comment about marc doubling his win's for the year in this tournament :)
I don't know, Dave. Nik told me that my list was good. (He also said that I would play like a muppet, but that's a different thing.)

Marc
And Nik last played FoG when exactly?

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:21 am
by nikgaukroger
The Runners & Riders


Ethan Zorick Early Achaemenid Persian, 479BC
Matt Iverson Warring States Chinese (Zhongshan), 300BC
Dave Lauerman Early Successor (Makedon), 275BC
Chris Johnston Early Successor (Makedon), 270BC
John Baumann Classical Indian, 175BC
Michael Boehm Later Seleukid, 150BC
Dean Pearson Later Seleukid, 140BC
Dale Shanek Late Republican Roman, 100BC
Marco Ulloa Late Republican Roman, 86BC
Richard Gagliasso Principate Roman, 284AD
Corey Somavia Early Medieval German, 893AD
Dan Hazelwood Dailami Dynasties (Buwayhid), 982AD
Francis Small Fanatic Berber (Almoravids), 1125AD
Marc Crotteau Koryo Korean, 1376AD
Stephen Ladanyi Later Serbian, 1390AD
Dannie Martz Jnr Free Company, 1415AD
Robert Parish Later Hungarian, 1430AD
Danny Weitz Medieval Indonesian or Malay (Malaccan Malay), 1435AD
Dannie Martz Snr Later Medieval German, 1450AD
Graham Unger Albanian, 1475AD
Bill McCampbell Ordonnance French, 1485AD
Damian Arvizu Later Medieval Danish, 1488AD

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:45 pm
by nikgaukroger
OK folk here it is, another instalment of the Ruddock & Gaukroger shoot their mouths off show. Hopefully we've got everyone's names right this time :/




Well, are we to get a bunch of lists that are tailored for v2.0 or are these the same tired old v1 lists that have been meddled with? Well let's find out shall we :-)


Ethan Zorick Early Achaemenid Persian, 479BC

[DR] It's certainly a v2 army. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen. Graham "Clown Trousers" Briggs used it fairly well at The Challenge earlier - can Ethan follow suit? It's certainly an army that depends on getting the right matchup.

[NG] The rather inevitable 479BC version of the army, but then again why not as it is a goodie. To be honest not too much to say about it as it tends to pick itself, however, it does smack of being an 800AP list that has had an extra 100AP added to it. Good v2 credentials so should do well.

Matt Iverson Warring States Chinese (Zhongshan), 300BC

[DR] I've used this army a lot, but have stopped. It's very small, very average and very difficult to win with. Largely a static army awaiting your opponent to take the initiative - it's very difficult to beat if played conservatively. That said with the other armies about this may do well and Matt should be able to use it effectively.

[NG] As ever Matt appears to have gone for an army that needs a lot of skill to use successfully; of course he has demonstrated he has that numerous times. I suspect this was a better army in v1 than it will be under v2, especially given the armies favoured in the US. All that said Matt will do well with it.

Dave Lauerman Early Successor (Makedon), 275BC

[DR] I've got my eye on this army - it's improved dramatically under v2.0. Still requires skill to use well though. I'm going to go for lower half of the table with this one.

[NG] Like this list. A well thought out and designed Successor list. In my mind v2 has boosted these types of armies so this is a good choice and I like the options taken. Certainly a top half finisher, should be top third unless Dave blows it.

Chris Johnston Early Successor (Makedon), 270BC

[DR] Another Early Successor. I like this one much better than Dave's version though. Clearly a lot of thought gone into this one and should do well if Chris can be as good as the list.

[NG] Disagree with Mr Ruddock on this in that I much prefer Dave’s version, however, this is still a capable army with a couple of clever choices, but equally a couple I’m not so keen on. Will finish behind Dave’s version.

John Baumann Classical Indian, 175BC

[DR] I don't like this version of the list. I think it is moving away from the strong points of the Indian army. That said, I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying there are large, smelly grey things involved and they can be brilliant and rubbish in the same game...

[NG] I concur with Ruddock on this, the army has drifted from where it should be focused – not vastly but probably enough to weaken it. I also have a distinct feeling that this army doesn’t get better as the AP values go up and 900 may just be stretching it a bit. Time will tell.

Michael Boehm Later Seleukid, 150BC

[DR] I like this army at 900 points. Unfortunately, I've never been able to make it work in an open competition. It's simply not got enough of anything to win - jack of all trades master of none. It's also difficult to win with and can end with a lot of draws. Mid-Table.

[NG] 900AP and v2 suits these Successor armies IMO, however, I fear this one doesn’t quite come up to scratch. Notoriously a rag bag of various bits I fear Michael hasn’t got focus in this list and will suffer for it.

Dean Pearson Later Seleukid, 140BC

[DR] A rather inspired list selection - I like this one more than the other Seleukid. Still don't think it will do well though. Worth keeping this list for themed tournaments I think.

[NG] Much prefer this to Michael’s version and it has some clever choices. Should win the battle of the Seleukids by finishing higher.

Dale Shanek Late Republican Roman, 100BC

[DR] See comments below regarding Marco's list :-)

[NG] Certainly a proper Roman list, however, I fear it has been fatally flawed – can’t help but wonder if 900AP has led Dale astray. I expect this to do badly, sorry.


Marco Ulloa Late Republican Roman, 86BC

[DR] Marco cannot be accused of bringing a knife to a gun fight. I fear this army will never get to grips with its opponents.

[NG] Another proper fighting man’s army, and unlike Mr Ruddock I think it will get to grips, especially given the other armies in the competition. A better use of the extra choices 900AP give than Dale’s IMO.


Richard Gagliasso Principate Roman, 284AD

[DR] Now the Dominate Roman list has been nobbled, the list that was described as a "Hamstrung Dominate Roman" now appears to be better. Not exactly what you'd call a varied list and dependent upon the match-up. An army much prone to drawing I suspect.

[NG] Another fighting man’s army in the finest Roman tradition. Possibly missed a couple of tricks for v2, however, and may well suffer for it. Mid-table I feel.

Corey Somavia Early Medieval German, 893AD

[DR] Yet another person with a fetish for large Europeans drinking beer in funny trousers. I've looked at the army several times and I still can't see the good stuff. Is there a bit of this army missing that I can't see?

[NG] Yes Dave there is. That said it is an army with a Plan A, but I’m less certain about a Plan B and at some stage it will need a Plan B. Unlikely to die wondering.

Dan Hazelwood Dailami Dynasties (Buwayhid), 982AD

[DR] Although it pains me to say it I think this is the best of the lists and for me starts favourite. Some good troop choices and should be able to deal with anything it faces.

[NG] I must reluctantly concur with what Dave says, this is a very good list and I’ll certainly be keeping a copy. Could well be top of the heap come close of play.

Francis Small Fanatic Berber (Almoravids), 1125AD

[DR] Not seen these since DBM 3.1! Can't see it being a pleasant experience this weekend.

[NG] I think this army is better than Dave thinks it is (having actually used it and similar on occasion), however, I don’t like some of the basic choices made. Probably not a good open competition army though at the best of times.

Marc Crotteau Koryo Korean, 1376AD

[DR] This is a list that is much improved with v2.0. Predictably, Marc's list writing hasn't. I may be proved wrong, but I believe this army is worse than the sum of its parts.

[NG] Good v2 army that should do well unless the driver is a Muppet – oh …

Stephen Ladanyi Later Serbian, 1390AD

[DR] An interesting and effective choice. Obviously much depends on terrain, but should do well with a good army. Does have one flaw I don't like, but shouldn't detract from the purpose of the army.

[NG] One flaw and one odd choice in my opinion, but otherwise a nice army that should do well.

Dannie Martz Jnr Free Company, 1415AD

[DR] Well. Subtlety is something that happens to armies other than this one. I've seen armies like this in the past and I don't think it's going to well for Junior.

[NG] Good army choice for 900AP and very focused – possibly over so. Missed the same v2 trick that Richard Gagliasso has for my money. Mid-table with draws I fear.

Robert Parish Later Hungarian, 1430AD

[DR] This army may do well, I suspect it won't. Rather a tired list that may well come unstuck. Version 1 list pure and simple.

[NG] Middle Hungarian is my preferred Hungarian choice so I always think the Later list is a second best choice. No howlers in construction, but would tend to agree it is a v1 list.

Danny Weitz Medieval Indonesian or Malay (Malaccan Malay), 1435AD

[DR] Wow. It's certainly not an army that's going to die wondering. Danny and his opponent will be first to the bar. Like the cut of your jib sir and I hope this does well.

[NG] Clear winner of the coveted Balls of Steel award for this competition. Will be a blast to use and guarantees plenty of drinking time. Hope it does well.

Dannie Martz Snr Later Medieval German, 1450AD

[DR] It still never ceases to amaze me that people use this list when there are other, better lists readily available. This army could do well - if the right parts are in the right place at the right time. Dannie could be described as a seasoned pro and I think this army will require patience to work.

[NG] These various medieval German lists do seem to have a fascination for our colonial cousins. Certainly a better list under v2 and at 900AP, co-ordinate the parts as Dave says and it could actually do well.

Graham Unger Albanian, 1475AD

[DR] Paul Johnson used Albanian at The Challenge and didn't do well. I suspect this won't either for the same reasons. Graham is a good player so may raise the army above mediocrity though, but I suspect top 1/3 will be about the limit.

[NG] An unusual choice, however, feels rather v1 to me. Will be interested to see how it goes.

Bill McCampbell Ordonnance French, 1485AD

[DR] We've moved to a new version Bill! I've tried this list and I've not been able to make it work. Other people can, but I don't know how they do it. I still think it's rubbish. Bill is one of the people who seems to know how to use it though. Top 1/3.

[NG] An army that doesn’t get better with added AP IMO, it should stick to 800 and this one smacks of 800 bulked out rather than properly designed for 900. Bill, however, will drive it to top quarter finish.

Damian Arvizu Later Medieval Danish , 1488AD

[DR] Don't know Damian - this is a bold list and will get results. Mainly bad ones I suspect, could be used to effect though. In a five game comp, three defeats two victories. Should be fun to play with and against though!

[NG] A list that in v1 promised much but never really delivered. Suspect v2 and 900AP helps it quite a bit.




Dave’s top three:

1. Stephen Ladanyi
2. Dan Hazelwood
3. Matt Iverson

Nik’s top three:

1. Dan Hazelwood
2. Ethan Zorick
3. Matt Iverson


Dave’s creditable mentions:

Chris Johnston
Dean Pearson

Nik’s creditable mentions:

Stephen Ladanyi
Dave Lauerman

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:22 pm
by grahambriggs
nikgaukroger wrote:Ethan Zorick Early Achaemenid Persian, 479BC

[DR] It's certainly a v2 army. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen. Graham "Clown Trousers" Briggs used it fairly well at The Challenge earlier - can Ethan follow suit? It's certainly an army that depends on getting the right matchup.

[NG] The rather inevitable 479BC version of the army, but then again why not as it is a goodie. To be honest not too much to say about it as it tends to pick itself, however, it does smack of being an 800AP list that has had an extra 100AP added to it. Good v2 credentials so should do well.

Stephen Ladanyi Later Serbian, 1390AD

[DR] An interesting and effective choice. Obviously much depends on terrain, but should do well with a good army. Does have one flaw I don't like, but shouldn't detract from the purpose of the army.

[NG] One flaw and one odd choice in my opinion, but otherwise a nice army that should do well.
The 800p EAP list has a few compromises in it. At 900 you can iron those out and get extra useful stuff - it works pretty well.

Is the flaw in the Serbian "not designed so as to get knights charged in the rear by elephants on three occasions and fluke your way out of the mess every time"?

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:04 pm
by dave_r
grahambriggs wrote:Is the flaw in the Serbian "not designed so as to get knights charged in the rear by elephants on three occasions and fluke your way out of the mess every time"?
I'm not standing for that - that's ourtrageous exageration.

One of them was a flank charge and not a rear charge....

Re: 2013 US Open, May 3-5

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:47 pm
by hazelbark
nikgaukroger wrote:another instalment of the Ruddock & Gaukroger shoot their mouths off show.
Clearly they were drunk out of their mind. And I use singular realizing they might not have one entire mind combined.