martinvantol wrote:5. Over-reaction? No. It’s a point I’ve been making for some time … just that I haven’t posted it on the forum.
I am not saying it is an over-reaction to recent tournaments. I am saying that the idea that mounted armies are in danger of predominating is possibly an over-reaction to Alasdair's success. (As is other players trying to copy him).
However, the most successful counter to mostly mounted armies is (in my view) to bring an almost entirely infantry army. Which is also not historical, but it would be suicide to bring large numbers of not very good cavalry to fight armies that have lots of very good cavalry.
Therefore, I have nothing against trying to force players to use more historical army compositions, at least in some tournaments as part of the defined theme.
As has been said before, the army lists are lenient, so as to try not to exclude any historical force compositions. In other words, they don't force players to bring typical
So some tournament organisers might want only Typical armies to be fielded. If we could come to a consensus on what restrictions would be desirable to enforce more typical army compositions, then they would not be official, but they could be given an appropriate name and then tournament organisers who want to use them could specify that "Typical Army Composition Restrictions 2014" (or whatever) apply, without having to reinvent the wheel. They could then be tweaked each year if issues became apparent.