Britcon 2019 - What would you like to do?

[petedalby]

As the dust settles on another successful Britcon weekend thoughts turn to what to do next year.

For the last few years we have alternated between an early and a late period and large or small tables. Having just done the late period it occurs to me that we could break the existing cycle and have a 3 year cycle featuring either Book 1, Book 2 or Book 3 lists?

Or we could do something entirely different. It would be good to explore preferences on points and table sizes.

All opinions are valid. What would you prefer to do? Let's kick this around for a few months and then we'll have a poll to decide.

[philqw78]

Add in an open period as well, the knights that were kings of the battlefield do not appear to be any more

[ChrisTofalos]

I'd like to see just two games on the Saturday rather than three, with more time for each (4 hours?). We've got a set of rules which is now quicker, encouraging larger armies, so more time to play could be much more satisfying.

[grahambriggs]

I would suggest we use 800 points and have shorter games - perhaps 3 hours? Also, I think it is time to review why we have 6 games as the weekend is very crowded. The original rationale in the DBM days was to ensure that we'd have a "proper champion" i.e. to avoid someone getting the very lucky draw that is possible with 80 players if you have less rounds. That no longer applies. I would prefer two games on the Saturday.

[notrum]

A lot of points to consider .
Firstly I would agree on a 3 year cycle of books starting with Book 1 for 2019.

Points should be 800 for singles games. There is no point increasing the cost of troops if we just make it easier to use an IC and more Superiors.

I do not think we need an open period, that is the domain of the Challenge.

We do not need 4hr games, if you want that, play the games at your club on a weekend.

Two games on a Saturday at Britcon needs to be considered. A large number of use are getting older and the last game is starting to be a chore. Late finish, rush to get something to eat and then you are to tired to enjoying the rest of the evening.

A Five and a half hour game on a Friday, 2-3.5 hrs games on Saturday and two on Sunday is a different competition than any other on the circuit.

[ChrisTofalos]

We do not need 4hr games, if you want that, play the games at your club on a weekend.

So why are we playing a five and a half hour game on the Friday?

[petedalby]

So why are we playing a five and a half hour game on the Friday?

Because players arrive at different times on the Friday night not everyone gets a 5.5 hour game. The original intention was to try to get everyone off to a decisive start. But the army match-ups don't always allow this as you and I discovered.

[madaxeman]

Two games on a Saturday at Britcon needs to be considered. A large number of use are getting older and the last game is starting to be a chore. Late finish, rush to get something to eat and then you are to tired to enjoying the rest of the evening.

There's no reason why 5 games wouldn't be possible - this year Saga started on Saturday morning, as did Armati, although both did take the late game on Saturday.

FWIW we did experiment with allowing players to opt out of the Saturday night game a few years ago, with only best 5 results counting over the weekend so no-one was missing out on a chance of winning. I think we ran with offering this option for 2-3 years, but we only ever had at most 1-2 people taking it up, so it was dropped as it was a right PITA to administer.

Moving to 3 hour games could make the schedule 815-1115, 1200-1500, and 1515-1815, which is a much more civilized finish time than nigh on 8pm

[Intothevalley]

I still like the idea of six games in a weekend - I don't get many games outside of competitions so the more I can pack in within a single weekend the better, however I could make do with five. Theme wise I'm not too fussed as I'm fortunate enough to have a large range of armies that will cover most things. However, do we need to be mindful of those with a more limited range of figures (especially those just starting out), who might be excluded if there's too narrow a theme?

800 points sounds like an ok idea to maybe make games quicker, although under v3 I've not had many inconclusive games (played mostly at 850 or 900 pts).

[petedalby]

Moving to 3 hour games could make the schedule 815-1115, 1200-1500, and 1515-1815, which is a much more civilized finish time than nigh on 8pm

A 15 minute interval may be a tad optimistic but moving to 3 hour games certainly gives more shopping / eating opportunities. I think my game vs Mr R was over in circa 2 hours so we certainly have scope.

[azrael86]

Points inflation aside, it sees clear that the ic is a problem, simply because if 80% have ics then they arent exceptional. The question then is how to reduce the number of ics?
Specifying who can be is probably a non starter, desire possibly being the most realistic.
That leaves
making them more expensive
Making them less effective
Making them less reliable (sub clause of above).

Cost wise, what would stop you picking an ic? 100, 120, 150?
How about having a limit to the number of tests per round, or making you choose between plus on initiative or plus on first move?
Some ics historically behaved utterly unlike our sage like ic - many took risks that our ics dont , others had off days(achilles, napoleon,etc) - so maybe an ic could have to test or be treated as an fc or tc once the game starts?
Thoughts?

[philqw78]

Just reduce points back to 800, don't need to make rules up then.

[prb4]

For me an IC is a given because of the opportunity for deploy second move first.
And more importantly if I don't take an IC my opponent probably will so I'm likely to deploy first and move second which is a huge disadvantage.

Even at 800 points an IC is still a given for me.

If the points increased for an IC then the choice to take one would depend on the army and the number of points in the competition.

[madaxeman]

I suspect this is veering off topic... I would suggest that maybe the preference for game lengths and scheduling should/could drive any subsequent discussion (or preferrably definitive executive decision by a secret cabal) about format and points etc.

FWIW at the moment we have 2 periods that don't play Friday night (Armati and Saga), a range of finish times on Saturday from maybe 6ish onwards and what is now effectively a staggered finish on Sunday with various competitions ending anytime from around 330-4pm, so all options are possible.

There doesn't seem to be any great groundswell (as of today) in the other "late running" Saturday periods (ADLG, DBMM, MeG, Epic) for a shift down to fewer games, so me and Kev will end up in the venue until 8pm anyway, so whatever ends up being the FoG groups decision doesn't really have any impact on the running of the overall event.

[davidandlynda]

I'm with Steve on the getting old bit and would prefer to drop the 3rd game Saturday,Lynda would definately agree on that,she's usually falling asleep by the end of it.
period wise going by books is fine ,points 800 ,games should finish in 2-3 hours, mine do anyway
David
We'll plan our holiday better next year

[grahambriggs]

Looks like 800 points has some traction. With that number we should be able to finish games in 3 hours on the whole. Would that work?

[philqw78]

We can still do 6 games at 800 I reckon

[madaxeman]

I'm losing the thread here. As I understand it :

1. The FoG community has just gone though an extensive process to revise FoG from V2 to V3 with the no1 objective in that process being to make games more decisive and therefore shorter. Even on this thread people have said that V3 makes standard-sized 800 point FoG games finish within 2-3 hours, significantly more quickly than the current 3.5 hour default duration
2. Some people want to finish earlier on Saturday night
3. Other people want to get 6 games in over the weekend

If you were to go to, say, 3 hour, ,or even 2 hour 45 min standard games, FoGA would finish 1.5-2 hours earlier on Saturday night, at east an hour earlier on Sunday (or half an hour earlier finishing, and start half an hour later) and you'd still get 6 games. Everyone is then happy.

The other option is to increase points totals so each game takes just as long as it did before but you do get to put more toys on table. Then you have to take a call as a group about the Saturday night game, either keep it (against the wishes of some of the players who want an earlier finish) or drop it (against the wishes of some of the players how want to play 6 games).

Maybe I'm over simplifying this, but isn't the option of keeping points totals at a standard 800-850, whilst reducing game time (given that this is basically the entire point of V3) kinda the no-brainer choice here?

[petedalby]

Maybe I'm over simplifying this, but isn't the option of keeping points totals at a standard 800-850, whilst reducing game time (given that this is basically the entire point of V3) kinda the no-brainer choice here?

That may well be the outcome Tim but of a typical field of 24 players for Britcon so far only 6 have expressed an opinion. Once we have some more views I'll run a poll to determine the preferred choice. Check us out - democracy in action or what?!

[notrum]

If we go with 800pts and 3hr games, I would be OK for 3 games on the Saturday.