I would like to announce our plans for the (UK) Cambridge Event this year, to be held on Saturday 28th September in Trumpington Village Hall.

We have decided to try a doubles tournament.


I have uploaded the rules for the event - unfortunately they are longer than I'd like, but only the first 8-10 pages are really important.

I'd like to put two questions to people:
1) Are you interested in a doubles event, whether you are a regular Cambridge Skirmish attendee or otherwise?
2) If anyone reading the event rules has any comments, thoughts, or "that's stupid" remarks?


To run the event we need an absolute minimum of 10 people, with 12 being the preferred minimum.

I will happily discuss the format/rules/etc with people.

If we fail to achieve the minimum interest during registration (which will open mid-summer), we will propose reverting to a 2000pt event exactly as last year, but I'm hoping there is interest to try something new.


Simon

intresting. Epic-Uk lists too.

I wonder if I could 'bribe' a skilled general to take me on as an adjunt.
I further wonder if I could bribe the wife to spend the day wandering around cambridge?

_________________
My shifting projects

Well I'll try and make it this year whether its doubles or not

General expression of interest here.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yo, could be a go-er for me :-)

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Sounds interesting. Could be much teeth gnashing as lots of people have very different play styles, with the random pairings

I'm in

You've clearly given it a lot of thought! If you're worried about the length, you maybe could split out a lot of the justification text out into separate "design notes" boxes which will make it quick to look up the rules themselves? For an example, the intermingling bit can probably be summarised as: "formations from different players may never be treated as intermingled or part of the same combined assault, but countercharges may bring more players into the combat".

Anyway it sounds good to me, I like that you've stuck to a principle (control your own units) and just applied it through the rules.

The activation sequence takes a few reads but I do understand why you did it this way. I wonder if there's a simpler way of expressing it, e.g. In terms of phases, or of sacrificing some flexibility in favour of simplicity.

Some specific questions:

When does the team who lost the SR roll need to declare who will have their first action? Immediately after the winning team declares, or when it's time to activate?

When A1 runs out of activations, team B will get two phases in a row even though A1 has activations remaining.
A1 B1 A2 B2 ... A1 B1 A2 B2 skip B1 A2 ...
Intentional?

Definitely interested in a doubles affair, especially so given random pairings

_________________
Web Designer / Developer type | erinfreeman.co.uk
Harass me on twitter!

I think it should be great fun and i'll definitely be there

That's for all the comments of support, please do keep making suggestions/comments. we definitely have enough interest for this to go ahead.

I've uploaded a slightly revised version (v6) of the rules.


To respond to a few points:

Good summary, I've added that in.

Thanks. That is the guiding principle - control your own units.

On the day there will be sheets to record the phase order on each turn with a marker to move around so everyone is clear what is going on.
Also, each team will have three counters to indicate who activated the last three formation on their team - this will be the only book-keeping aspect required... but hopefully it'll work ok.

Phase order is determined before any activation rolls are made.


Good spot - that slipped by me. Play always passes between teams (as long as they have activations remaining) - so no, you would not get two phases in a row.
I've updated the rules with "pass to other team" at the end of a player's phase.