The Tournament Organizers Attacker/Defender choice

As a tournament organizer (TO), the choice of how to find the attacker/defender is a choice, that can have a significant impact on the lists you will see.

I started playing Flames Of War (FOW) about the time when version 3 came out. I have always been an organizer. One of those pesky types, that loves to see people gather and have fun, pushing their small homemade dolls, sorry soldiers around. Before FOW, I was active in another well known doll-pushing community. Always making events, small and big.

It is with this background I have chosen to write this small article. I have noticed, in Version 4, that there are major differences in the way to find attacker/defender. I have also noticed, it seems the lists, be of significantly different controversy in areas other than in our small corner of the world. Initially, I found it very hard to figure out why. But I now have a theory. I made a small post in our forum, asking about how the attacker/defender was found and I found some really interesting responses.

It seems in Australia, there has been a discussion about the use of Battle Plans. Here, they have found it to be a less-than-perfect way to determine attacker/defender. In my community, there have been talks in similar ways. Also, they use a variant where they choose attacker/defender and then if both choose the same, they roll off with modifiers depending on the formation types you have in your list.

In Denmark, we use the campaign events to determine attacker/defender or we use Battle Plans.

In the USA the Adepticon tournament was one of the reasons we, in Denmark, had a huge discussion about choices of Attacker/Defender. Some of the US-based tournaments like Adepticon’s determined who attacked, by the formation types (and quantity) in your list. In other tournaments in the US, Battle Plans were used instead, without modifiers.

As a tournament organizer you have to make choices in this, and you should be aware of the consequences your choices have. As I see it, and I know I can be mistaken, these are the first thoughts I have on the different systems found throughout the world:

• Battle Plans: Here all types of lists can be attacking and defending. This would also make an aggressive infantry list or defensive tank list an option. There will be a player choice in deciding if he/she wants to be attacker every time or maneuver. If there are no changes to the way Battle Plans are used in the tournament, it means some people will make a list and always choose the same option, such as Attacker, because it limits the mission choices available. Using this method would be very difficult to determine if you would always be attacking, so you would have to make your list balanced. You cannot focus solely on attack or defend in your lists, as this would be problematic if you plan on attacking and end up defending.
• Battle Plans with modifiers for primary formation: Depending on player preferences there are good chances that the lists will be more “one or the other”, as in version 3 Always Attack and Always Defend. However, as it is a relatively fair chance that a tank list can defend against mech list, the lists the players field, would be fairly balanced.
• Points for Formation types: As I understand this one, every time you had a Tank formation, you gain x points. So if you had the Honey list, you would, in effect, be Always Attack. If you were playing LW, you could have a fortified company, and you could be almost 100% certain, you would defend, every time.
• Campaign determined: The lists here tend to be relatively balanced. The players do not know, if they will attack or defend. This can change if you, like in the Danish campaigns, have a General, that requests aggressive lists from maybe 1/3 of the players or similar.

So when you decide to make a tournament, make sure you also consider the way to determine Attacker/Defender. I can guarantee you, it will have a significant impact on the way a list is made. I am sure there are many more thoughts on this, and I know that my analysis could be mistaken. I could be missing some important information about the tournaments. I recommend that as a TO, you try other options out. We have to experiment with theory, to see how it works in real life. There are many more ways to determine attacker/defender, I am sure, and I invite you all to go to our forum and share your preference.