Round 4

Match 1

Javelinthrower (Gallic)  6 banners won
scipio1zama (Roman)  2 banners won

Gauls were lucky with cards and Romans were unlucky with dice. Gauls immediately launched a left-flank attack with 2 warriors (without a leader) and through a few miraculous encounters brought 4 of 6 banners. Howerever, Romans had enough cards to make a fist of center units and push back. A too-daring Double time by Gauls could have cost them the game, but again by luck alone the units that finished the game retained 1 or 2 block at most, but brought the necessary banners home. A fast-paced game which should have been more costly to Player 1.

Match 2

scipio1zama (Gallic)  6 banners won
Javelinthrower (Roman)  4 banners won

This game saw much more special orders and so a more intense action. This time Gauls actually had orders for their cavalry - two Mounted Charges back to back. While Romans slowly lumbered on and had to play extra cards to get into a reasonable position, Gauls timely launched into a weak flank, immediately bringing 2 banners. However, Romans were very luck with dice again, and with battle back and Clash of Shields pushed back inflicting losses. Still, at the end of this enconter the score is already 3:1. Right after that Gauls went with double time into another weak Roman flank. Having barely survived again by dice alone, with the help of special orders Romans counter-attacked as best they could, bringing the score to 5:4. Then came the third Mounted Charge from the Gauls, this time attacking straight from behind, the fate was sealed.

EZPickins wrote:

Anyone have an email address for Polonus100? I have been trying to to get in touch/.
Thanks
 

Click on his profile and you will see an envelope icon on the right corner.
www.commandsandcolors.net/ancients/forum...iew=user&userid=1142

Round 4 - JD49 ARRETIUM 

Game 1
Milla (Gallic) 5 banners
BrentS (Roman) 6 banners 

The Gauls’ first play was to rearrange their lines which gave the Romans the tiny breathing space to get a light up and pull Metellus into the forward line. The Gauls responded in the centre with a Double Time. This was fortunate for Rome who had only Centre and Leadership orders and were able to respond effectively while Britomarus was still in the Gallic rear, going up 2 banners. The feared Gallic flank attack did eventually arrive on the Roman left, which was eliminated. There was some wild rolling on both sides of the battle. Evasion proved pretty disappointing in this game, with a lot of multiple colour hits for kills, and also some 4 hit full unit wipeouts. In the denouement the Gallic Warriors from their left flank hit the Roman centre. At 5 banners apiece a Gallic warrior unit debated advancing for bonus close combat, decided against it, and a relieved Rome subsequently killed it for the final banner in a close finish with razor thin margins. 

Game 2
BrentS (Gallic) 6 Banners
Milla (Roman) 1 banner 

A hard game for Rome. The Gauls Double Timed on there left and Mounted Charged on the the right to eliminate 4 banners but it wasn’t quite an overrun from there as they didn’t quite have the cards to follow through. The Romans advanced in the centre but I think the Gauls were helped by the Romans running out of cards and failing a Spartacus (disappointing but always a risk with Command 4). The Gauls finished it by taking the last two banners with a humble Coordinated Attack, shamefully getting a 2 blue ranged attack kill on a depleted Roman Medium Infantry and the Barbarian Chariot killing a Medium Cav trapped on its baseline. 

An enjoyable couple of matches, thanks Andrew.

Brent.

Just a word on this scenario. Fan designed scenarios don’t (realistically can’t) go through the playtesting process that the official scenarios do. Sometimes they’re balanced, sometimes not. The thing about almost all official scenarios is that, even if they’re wildly asymmetrical, RB and co have always put something in there to give the disadvantaged side some in, some aspect of the OOB that they can exploit with clever play to pull off an upset. They might look like random placement of units on a map to approximate the historical battles but after time you get to appreciate how much effort has gone into play balance. 

This isn’t necessarily the case with fan made scenarios and that’s okay because sometimes it’s just about the exercise of engaging with the history and there’s always the idea that they’re so quick that you can just set up and go again. That’s fine for casual play but that replay opportunity isn’t there for tournament games…..and I don’t think this is an ideal scenario for this format, where player skill should have some bearing. 

I’ve dabbled in scenario design myself and it’s fun but I’ve come to realise how hard it is to get right. One really important challenge is how to deal with a side with Command 4, if you’re going to use that to simulate command differential. Looking at RB’s scenarios, there are a few important principles he uses…..if you’re going to give a side 4 cards, give them Move First so that they have at least a chance to rearrange their forces; or put the higher Command enemy out of range for an immediate attack or set it up so that that immediate attack dangerously extends them so that they can’t do it without major risk; or give Command 4 a leader advantage with those leaders starting well positioned. You only have to look at masterpieces of scenario design like Bagradas and Thermopylae to see how RB implements this. 

Arretium ignores all of those design principles. The Command 5 Gauls have the same leader count, Move First and have high impact mobile units that can immediately massacre weak, pinned Roman units which are near their own baseline. With the right first card play (Double Time, Mounted Charge, Order Mediums, Outflanked) the Gallic player can score up to 4 banners straight up in a 6 banner game before the Roman even gets to play a card, with minimal risk as the Roman flanks are weak and their sole leader Metellus is positioned centrally. This is the extreme case but not impossible and 2 or 3 first turn banners would not be a surprise. I’m sure many Roman players are going to suffer this in this tournament. 

This is a fun scenario for a battle not otherwise portrayed in the official catalogue, I really appreciate player designers exploring the full range of ancient warfare and I enjoy the design challenge myself. I also recognise that these issues may not be immediately obvious until you actually play the scenario…..but I just don’t think it’s the right scenario for competitive play.

Brent.

JD49 Arretium (284 BC)

Game 1
Player 1 (Gallic) RiverWanderer (Mark B.) - 6 banners
Player 2 (Roman) Mark McG  - 4 banners
No dramatic opening cards for the Gauls in this game. Hence though still aggressive, they had to be circumspect in their attacks. This gave the Romans much needed time to respond. In the end, the Gauls won through, only just, by a desperate last foray of a single block Medium Cavalry and the luck of the dice.


Game 2
Player 1 (Gallic) Mark McG - 6 banners
Player 2 (Roman) RiverWanderer (Mark B.) - 4 banners
In this game, the Gaul were able to perform a text-book opening. No sooner had Roman Medium Cavalry been sacrificed to draw off the Gaul's opening Double Time assault, then the other Roman flank was crushed by a Mounted Charge, putting the Gauls on 4 banners before the Romans could wake up. Nonetheless, the now fragmented Gaulish left flank provided some hope for the Romans and the route to their eventual four banners. In outward appearance a very different game, but even so, the pressure was now being felt by the Gauls as remaining Roman forces appeared about to consolidate. Perhaps this provoked the Gauls into their final mounted attack that, though rock-solid compared with game 1, was still not without risk. A couple of combat dice slips might yet have delivered a win to the Romans. The gods disdained to intervene however, notching up another scenario win for the Gauls.

Game 1:

Game 2: 
 

Only envelope I see is for messaging Allesandro

EZPickins wrote:

Only envelope I see is for messaging Allesandro

I just sent you an email.

BrentS wrote:

…..but I just don’t think it’s the right scenario for competitive play.

Brent.

won't argue about scenario design, but my experience as aTD is that unbalanced scenarios actually work pretty well to thin the herd at the top. If you can win against the odds for 3 points, then the creme rises

Finding an asymmetric scenario where a player can exercise skill and strategy is absolutely a really good choice to allow players to demonstrate their tactical chops. Agree 100% it’s the ideal way to separate the field. 

But it can’t just be asymmetric, the weaker side has to have something purposely designed into the setup to leverage. Otherwise any success with the disadvantaged side is not about skill, it’s about luck, notwithstanding the small card to card decisions, and that’s not the goal of a tournament scenario. 

I was fortunate to win with Rome but I can’t lay any claim to cleverness, it was pure luck. I haven’t counted but by the end of the round I wouldn’t be surprised if we could count the Roman wins on one hand and would be interested to know how the Roman players in those games viewed their wins….whether they thought they had real agency or just got lucky.

I should say that the choice of scenarios for the tournaments is usually excellent. I just think that it’s a gamble with some player designed ones.