The turn out was light for the DBA events at Advance the Colors, and it seemed for the Con as a whole, with a very somber seeming mood. (Some smiles and laughs, but it seemed when anyone had a moment of quiet their thoughts went inward. Not surprising, after Tuesday.)

Only four signed up to play in the Wide Board, and try as I might, I couldn't find a fifth so I could go ahead and play. The four played each other once each, with the winner getting points for win, difference in score and camps taken/generals killed. All the participants enjoyed playing and having the chance to test the wide board idea (3'x2' area, instead of the normal 2'x2').

Scores for ATC 2001 "Wide Board" DBA Tournament:

Paul Westermeyer 15 pts
Alan Winterrowd 7 pts
Jim Williams 7 pts
Jacob Zumbrennen 3 pts

The reason for holding this was to test the use of the wide board in a tournament setting. I have found out many now use it in their club and campaign settings. The only changes to the rules were board side was picked by the invader as in Big Battle DBA -- not rolled for. There was a no set up zone of nine inches from either side of the board, which made the deployment area the same as on a 2'x2' board. As a feature of the tournament, it had only one major complaint. It was felt that the defender could much more easily control the terrain, as there were only two sides to pick from. I see no easily used way to fix this problem and wonder if there is one that rules lawyers will not love. I also don't see this as a real problem over all, just a nuisance.

Most players liked the wide format and the way it affected play. The following are some comments/observations:

1) That command radius became more important. Many times after a turn the more maneuverable armies found part of their armies out of command radius, giving the slower armies a momentary advantage, if the pips were rolled.

2) It allowed for greater tactical flexibility, slower armies had to worry about flanks and terrain use, while faster ones how to exploit their abilities.

3) Heavier use of terrain by the defenders to channel the attacker where he wanted him, or to hinder the attacker. (I think the "close enough" attitude of many players would change if the wide format became the normal one for contests. With the size of the board needing to be narrowed for some armies to feel safe caused the tendency for slow armies to load up on terrain pieces and to use the largest possible. Mobile armies will be checking to see that it is legal sized to keep the board as open as possible. I actually heard a player tell another to remember the base width rule as the other set his terrain.) One suggestion from the players was no terrain within three inches of the board sides.

4) My observation was that you saw more traditional army setups, with infantry in the center and cavalry on the flanks. A good point for the wide format in my opinion, as I am as bad as anyone about trying to match units vs. units -- not fight my army.

The wide format did what I was hoping, which was give horse armies room to do what they do best -- move! Did that mean they won every battle? No. Jim's Mongols managed to lose seven units in one turn to Paul's Early Byzantines. And Jacob's Gauls managed to beat Paul's army. Paul also managed to beat Alan's Magyars to win the tournament. So, without a greater number of participants, the results aren't definitive, but were close to what I had hoped for: A little more balance in the game and greater challenge to win.