Late war 1780 tourney Feb 16th

[Jeff M]

Hey guys the Feb tourney will be similar to my previous tourneys, they seem to be working well so will continue them that way.
Date: Feb 16th 9:00 am start time so be there a bit ahead of time.
Points: 1780 Late war
Entry: $10
Last tourney we had a bit of trouble with the time of a round and that was my fault so here is the layout for the day!

9:00-11:30- Game 1- Randomized defensive battle mission
12:00-2:30- Game 2 - randomized mobile battle mission
2:45- 5:15- Game 3 - randomized fair fight mission

Prizes to:
first
second
best axis
best allied

Lists must be chosen before you arrive and presented upon arrival.

1) Jeff
2) Rob D
3) Shawn
4) Torrey
5) Josh
6) Brian
7) Dana
8 Alex
9) Ryan

Registration for this event ends Feb 9th so we can know how many expect and set up for

any further questions please let me know!

[Shaun]

Are you using Phils suggests for the TD's?

Here is what phil is suggesting


Reconnaissance

While the tank destroyer arm uses a lot of the reconnaissance techniques developed by the cavalry, they use them to get into position, rather than to gather information.

Teams from platoons that use the Tank Destroyer special rules can use the Cautious Movement and Disengage rules as if they were Recce teams, and retain the 3+ save for unarmoured jeep teams if appropriate, but are not Recce teams and cannot use the other Recce team special rules. This applies to both the Security and Tank Destroyer Sections.

Forcing Tank Destroyers to Reorganise when Placed

The security section are well trained at avoiding contact with superior forces as they guide the tank destroyers into position. Sometimes though, things go wrong, forcing the tank destroyers to reveal themselves before they are ready..

If, when the Tank Destroyer Section is placed, any teams in the Security Section Moved At the Double in their previous turn or are Reorganising, all teams from Tank Destroyer Section are Reorganising when they are placed, unless they are within within Command Distance of a Security Section team that is not Reorganising, did not Move At the Double, and is from the same platoon.

If the Security Section has no Command team when the Tank Destroyer Section is placed, the entire Tank Destroyer Section must Reorganise when they are placed.

Transferring Command

The tank destroyer arm is trained to operate fluidly and independently. Their excellent communications network allows them to stay informed of the situation and respond to casualties amongst the security section by either redirecting their advance or by bringing the tank destroyers into the line.

When the Platoon Command team of the Security Section is Destroyed, immediately select another team of the Security Section that is within Command Distance of it as the new Platoon Command team. If there are no other teams within Command Distance, the Command team is Destroyed and not replaced.



Some Notes on the Tank Destroyer Rules

The last thing I’d like to cover isn’t a change at all. Rather, it’s a couple of parts of the existing rules that seem to get overlooked at times.

Tank Destroyer Section

Here’s the first part of the Tank Destroyer Sections rule on page 238 of the rulebook.

Place the Tank Destroyer Section on the table at the start of any of your turns when Ambushes are revealed so that every team in the Tank Destroyer Section is:
* within Command Distance of a team from the Security Section, and
* In Command when the Security Section is removed.

What the first bullet means is that every team in the Tank Destroyer Section must be placed within Command Distance of a team from the Security Section. This means that you cannot string them out with just one team near the Security Section.

The second bullet requires the whole Tank Destroyer Section to be In Command after the Security Section is removed. This means that you cannot put half of the Tank Destroyer Section at one end of the Security Section and half at the other. The Tank Destroyer Section must be placed as a single platoon entirely In Command.

Tank Destroyers and Prepared Positions

There has been some confusion over the interaction between the Prepared Positions mission special rule and tank destroyers. Since the Tank Destroyer Section moved to follow the Security Section’s perambulations (unless the tank destroyers were deployed right at the start of the game), they are not Dug In when they are placed using the Tank Destroyer Section rule.

Cheers

[Brian M]

Having read the other thread I am up for a fresh start and to take it from there. Sign me up.

[Theterrainguy]

I am happy to hear people are being adult about all this - its what is needed to grow the game.

[Shaun]

I am happy to hear people are being adult about all this - its what is needed to grow the game.

you know that isnt a grown up thing to say

[Timbo]

This is true. Shawn, statements like this imply things and are really better left unsaid. Don't risk destroying what goodwill you've managed to build up.

[Theterrainguy]

The statement was meant to state I was pleased with what I have heard through Jeff, and Darren, and posts on the forums. If you want to find negativity in all my posts I cannot do anything about that. Trouble with the internet is you cannot determine intent. Just think about this. Why would I go to the trouble of fixing things to turn around and start things back up? Honestly, lets keep it positive. Shaun if you want to post things questioning the intent - perhaps you should PM me in the future to clarify exactly what I was saying.

[Timbo]

As Shaun was quite correctly pointing out, if you single out people as "adult" when conforming to behavior you desire, you are implying that others are being children or immature. Adults make their own decisions, and they don't need a pat on the head from you to confirm them. Maybe you are used to doing this as a teacher. But it could be construed as another passive-aggressive parting shot. I hope you meant nothing by it, but you have to understand that you are being viewed through a certain lens. I would say that less is more in your case. Let people make their own decisions, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Jeff M]

Are you using Phils suggests for the TD's?

Here is what phil is suggesting


Reconnaissance

While the tank destroyer arm uses a lot of the reconnaissance techniques developed by the cavalry, they use them to get into position, rather than to gather information.

Teams from platoons that use the Tank Destroyer special rules can use the Cautious Movement and Disengage rules as if they were Recce teams, and retain the 3+ save for unarmoured jeep teams if appropriate, but are not Recce teams and cannot use the other Recce team special rules. This applies to both the Security and Tank Destroyer Sections.

Forcing Tank Destroyers to Reorganise when Placed

The security section are well trained at avoiding contact with superior forces as they guide the tank destroyers into position. Sometimes though, things go wrong, forcing the tank destroyers to reveal themselves before they are ready..

If, when the Tank Destroyer Section is placed, any teams in the Security Section Moved At the Double in their previous turn or are Reorganising, all teams from Tank Destroyer Section are Reorganising when they are placed, unless they are within within Command Distance of a Security Section team that is not Reorganising, did not Move At the Double, and is from the same platoon.

If the Security Section has no Command team when the Tank Destroyer Section is placed, the entire Tank Destroyer Section must Reorganise when they are placed.

Transferring Command

The tank destroyer arm is trained to operate fluidly and independently. Their excellent communications network allows them to stay informed of the situation and respond to casualties amongst the security section by either redirecting their advance or by bringing the tank destroyers into the line.

When the Platoon Command team of the Security Section is Destroyed, immediately select another team of the Security Section that is within Command Distance of it as the new Platoon Command team. If there are no other teams within Command Distance, the Command team is Destroyed and not replaced.



Some Notes on the Tank Destroyer Rules

The last thing I’d like to cover isn’t a change at all. Rather, it’s a couple of parts of the existing rules that seem to get overlooked at times.

Tank Destroyer Section

Here’s the first part of the Tank Destroyer Sections rule on page 238 of the rulebook.

Place the Tank Destroyer Section on the table at the start of any of your turns when Ambushes are revealed so that every team in the Tank Destroyer Section is:
* within Command Distance of a team from the Security Section, and
* In Command when the Security Section is removed.

What the first bullet means is that every team in the Tank Destroyer Section must be placed within Command Distance of a team from the Security Section. This means that you cannot string them out with just one team near the Security Section.

The second bullet requires the whole Tank Destroyer Section to be In Command after the Security Section is removed. This means that you cannot put half of the Tank Destroyer Section at one end of the Security Section and half at the other. The Tank Destroyer Section must be placed as a single platoon entirely In Command.

Tank Destroyers and Prepared Positions

There has been some confusion over the interaction between the Prepared Positions mission special rule and tank destroyers. Since the Tank Destroyer Section moved to follow the Security Section’s perambulations (unless the tank destroyers were deployed right at the start of the game), they are not Dug In when they are placed using the Tank Destroyer Section rule.

Cheers

yes I was just reading them over again before you posted this and if thats how they were intended to be used when they wrote the rules I would say we should use them that way, I dont really think it will make much difference in the long run tho

[Jeff M]

Having read the other thread I am up for a fresh start and to take it from there. Sign me up.

Awesome, I totally agree. time to start growing our hobby and our group.

[Shaun]

[/quote]

yes I was just reading them over again before you posted this and if thats how they were intended to be used when they wrote the rules I would say we should use them that way, I dont really think it will make much difference in the long run tho[/quote]

I believe people are using these rules for the TD's in there tourneys. It doesnt solve all the problems since patton brings a lot of the problems back with the TD list.

Are you doing first round allies vs axis and then second round top vs top?

[Jeff M]

yep

[Jeff M]

The statement was meant to state I was pleased with what I have heard through Jeff, and Darren, and posts on the forums. If you want to find negativity in all my posts I cannot do anything about that. Trouble with the internet is you cannot determine intent. Just think about this. Why would I go to the trouble of fixing things to turn around and start things back up? Honestly, lets keep it positive. Shaun if you want to post things questioning the intent - perhaps you should PM me in the future to clarify exactly what I was saying.

I have to agree with Shawn, his statement did not single anyone out, or seem offensive. He was stating he was happy with how people were dealing with this situation. And to grow this hobby we do need to get over this rut, and being hostile and finding something wrong with every post he makes isnt going to help. a fresh start is just that, start from the begining forget the past. so putting him under a "lens" isnt a fresh start. and really both partys took offense so why should only one side be trying to mend things while the other critisizes everything he does to do so. I dont have anything against anyone here, I just want to grow FOW in stoon, the more players the better, differnt armies to face, different strategies to counter, new techniques to learn (painting or gaming), more people means more chances of finding a game. As I said I have nothing against anyone and I mean no offense by this post, if you want to take offense thats your choice, I am just interested in expanding our hobby and getting past this whole mess.

[Shaun]

I am happy to hear people are being adult about all this - its what is needed to grow the game.

I will analysis it for you jeff.

it means those who didnt take my apology are babies who cant over the many insults i have thrown there way and are against growing the game.


I dont find someone who does a half ass apology with there next comment saying reals probelms dont exist on the internet to be sincere.

I dont know how you can call us for not growing the game when we are the ones there thursday, saturday playing the game and exposing it to others. SO throw the garage of growing the game out of the window since everyone wants to grow the game. The problem is with the conduct of persons on the interent with what they say.

[Timbo]

I have to agree with Shawn, his statement did not single anyone out, or seem offensive. He was stating he was happy with how people were dealing with this situation.

If that's the case he was doing it extremely poorly. Ugh. What a mess. Shawn, if you're happy with how things are going that's great. Then maybe just say that. Or nothing at all. Seriously dude, less is more. Less is more. I'm all for second chances and holding hands and singing Cumbaya but good grief. Maybe read what you've typed before posting it next time.

[Jeff M]

why so much hostility shaun? I made no attack at you. what I meant with growing the game is looking at it from a point of view of a new person joining the hobby, he is faced with this whole big political mess of group against group. People having to tip toe around and walk on eggshells to get along and play. If I was a new person starting up fow here in stoon that would be a big red flag and I would most likely pick another game to play all together. The other thing I meant by growing the hobby was to organize a demo day, have a few basic armies and have people come in and control a platoon or two in a simple mission. or have a bring a buddy tourney have a new player come in and play a platoon or two of your army in a tourney. stuff like that. yes playing the game does expose it but its not really promoting it directly to new players and playing the same few people everytime isnt growing it. ( yes I am just as guilty) I am not saying I am growing the game very well currently myself I am saying we need to work as a community to do it.

[Timbo]

Shaun has pretty good cause to be upset. There's no need to dredge up the original text that kicked this whole ridiculous affair off, but trust me it was a doozy. Anyhow, it's never really been group against group at all. It's been two guys against a few (not all) Saskatoon guys. It's really just a personality clash. They behaved poorly (incredibly poorly!), then refused to acknowledge or admit it. Curtis' "apology" was one of the funniest things I've ever read. I guess they thought that the whole thing would just go away on its own? Fortunately I have a good memory and no problem holding a legitimate grudge, and I believe Shaun has similar attributes. Both sides were not going to give in, so there were some hard feelings. So there is no group against group dynamic, unless you count 2 guys as a group.

[ScottRadom]

I don't think it's unrealistic to say their are a couple factions of people who were able to witness the whole thing on the forums. Comments made were pretty polarizing! It's probably fair that some would not care enough about the comments to think less of the people posting them and those who did think the comments made reflected poorly enough on the people posting to avoid them altogether.

I appreciate Shawn's sentiment in trying to extend an olive branch. I do. The execution of the thing though was... wow. Just... wow. At the VERY FIRST opportunity to show Shawn was in fact sincere when he met with some scepticism the response was "Nothing I can do about that". Just... wow.

What I do NOT understand in the least is still this belief that the internet is some grand flawed tool where communication is not possible. If anybody wants to post anything of merit I strongly consider you read it before you hit the grand ole send button. Then maybe re-read it. I'm not just talking about spelling and stuff like that I truly mean that if you feel that when you make a post and people don't truly understand what you're trying to convey it is a rare, rare day that it is the fault of the reader.

I am looking forward to getting out and playing some FoW myself this year. Had a good time blowing the dust off my Americans the other night vs. Ryan. I had a great time and from the changes I saw I think 3rd ed. is pretty slick.

As an adult I am unapologetically going to pick and choose who I spend my free time with. I can't bring myself to get excited about playing games with people who's behaviour has been absolutely intolerable online or otherwise.

[Jeff M]

Edited the original post with registration date. no late registrations please

[Brody, Lance, & Levi]

Good luck everyone - have a blast!

[Sponsored content]