And now for the 2008 GT season, we can all work together to make them better Options

[ArchonCryx]

[EDIT] I should have started with:

Thanks muchly for the huge effort GW put into the GTs this year. I greatly appreciate it and benefitted from having 5 excellent games that were a blast at the Sydney GT. I just loved that we had 6 GTs running in Oz/NZ this year!

WHile I might go on to sound like a grumpy old warhorse yammering on about "The good ole days" or something here, I really did have fun at the GT I went to and I always enjoy the GT season, I mean it caused plenty of conversations and controvery! What more could we wish for??
[ENDEDIT]

Let me start/continue by saying:
Having 7 GTs across Aus/NZ is a brilliant concept - I only wish I was finacially able to attend 2 or 3 just like some of the Sydney Siders, Kiwis, or Nashrak have done. There's always next year! In my experience, One thing GW Oz do do quite well is take feedback.

They generally request feedback for every GT, and Im sure they get swamped.

Note my perspective comes from that of a die hard 40K player. I believe other systems get played at GTs but you couldn't prove it by me

For those who believe otherwise, the 2007 player's pack did, in fact, get a peer review during the leadup by many gamers, not just some who work at GW, and not all from Victoria. Unfortuantly, they will never be able to canvasse absolutely everyone!

Nor could they take all suggestions on board.

My guess would be along the lines that, if anything, GW probably has too much feedback to deal with, and coalescing it all into one GT system takes talent and obviously you can never satisfy every individual's concerns. And this thread only adds to it!

Mistakes have been made, and some of the early concerns didn't get addressed, but that's gunna happen. At least they gave us a GT in pretty much every State and both Islands of NZ. In that respect my hat goes off to them and I fully support a repeat performance next year.

As for the system used, one hopes that we can start fresh. IMHO- any new GT system should hopefully make strong reference to KISS principles in order to aide consistency across events. Locally I aim to support the next Sydney GT in anyway that I can with hopes to get the standards back up to the heady levels we enjoyed back in 2003 or so. I'm sorry to say this seems sorely needed in our case.

What I would like to see:

More encouragement for Hobbyist gamers in non KF states. I think using a system that fits in with most ppls expectations can help, as well as bumping up the component %s for things like painting and army composition.

If we retain the "top 10% bonus, bottom 10% penalty" then I feel it MUST Apply ALL bonuses and Penalties, getting rid of the "judges discretion" since that only puts unecessary pressure on a TO and in my view is basically saying "don't apply the negatives". Consider Angmar's case. WHile he copped a penalty that was legitimate, it was surely hard to take on board casually, especially in light of a much worse infraction being ignored (despite REPEATED acknowledgement of the illegality) at a previous GT.

I agree with the view that even for average level painters (for eg) it's very satisfying to see a measuarable improvement over last year's efforts, if I go from a 40% Paint score to a 60% paint score I'd be overjoyed, yet at this GT I wouldnt have a clue.

Better to score everyone, even if only the top 3 get an bonus added to the overall score if you want to avoid average painters getting "unfair" bonuses, the others can still get marked for comparison. Same goes for composition.

Ranking:

I never like ranking opponents cause there's no way to differentiate if I had 6 great opponents or if I had 6 lousy. Prefer giving an indication by a base score out of 5 (or whatever). If I have 6 x 5/5 games I want to reward and if I have 6 x 1/5 I want to punish (and perhaps also kill myself...) Same for SPorts and Composition.

Peer painting is always rubbish! Sorry, but it is. The GW staff have loads of experience looking at painted models, surely they can differentiate our painting with a lot less chance of bias?

Follow the Pack:
If it's in the pack - enforce it! If you really mean to dissallow unpainted models from being used in games, then do so! This is another downside of not giving everyone a painting score since the only penalty for having unpainted figures is a risk (apparantly small) of not being able to use them. At least if you decide to be nice and let the unpainted models play everyone can see on his paint score that he's suffering a negative impact compared to an average 3 colour army.

Return to basic principles:
Most people who play in tournies expect a structure of peer sport and comp, TO paint scores, and BPs from their games counting towards a maximum of 60% of they're overall score. The pattern is so ingrained that many TOs seemed to expect this kind of format leading to sutuations where what was played was a bit different to what the Pack said.

I reckon instead of running counter to the expectations, exploit them and use to your advantage by having a system that fits in with those expectations. I like the KISS method myself, and the further you get away from that, the more potential for issues to arise. Particularly when you have multiple TOs separated by huge distance, it would seem to me the simpler the system the more likely it gets followed in all widely separated events.

ANyway, there's a start. what would you like to see happen for the 2008 GT season?

This post has been edited by ArchonCryx: Sep 26 2007, 03:14 PM

[Proximity]

Wellington and Auckland are both in the North Island of NZ, but we all like to pretend the South Island isn't real anyway .

FWIW - we were told in Auckland that there isn't going to be another one in Wellington, and there MIGHT be one in Auckland, but it would not be a 'GT', and instead would be a 'Fields of Blood'.

New Zealand isn't like Australia where you can seemingly go to a different tourney practically every other weekend. Whilst from what I understand, the decision had nothing to do with interweb whining, it's a bit gutting for us to have our over all scene suffer a bit, when that may not have been the case had appreciation for the effort been shown.
Running a tourney is usually a fairly thankless job, and that's not restricted to wargaming. I know people who have run online gaming tourneys, and sports tournies, and both have said it's not really worth the effort when all you get is whinging in return; it's not exactly a way to make sure people keep doing things for you.

So yeah, don't know about the rest of Australia, but that's it for GT's in NZ.

[waxsir]

Personally I liked the player pack. I did find that playing in two GT’s I did get a bit confused with the mission’s under different victory conditions but that is more my fault for being hung over. I think the balance of sport comp and BP were good and worked well. I think there should be a different deterrent for OTT army’s since the -10 judged by staff is a bit personal and requires to much discretion. I also think that just slapping on a -10 to low 10% is not a fair model either.

My resolution would be to keep the rank favourite player and army as a ranked score. Then only use the ranked sheets for bonus Points. Keep the spots and comp cards as they were. Then if a player scores 3 bad army scores apply a -5 and then a negative -5 for each bad army mark after to a max of -15. This will not effect you if one or two players think your army is OTT but will really hurt if there is a consensus. I would also like to see a skulls system added to sports with the same system, if you receive 2 cop a -15 point penalty. I have never wanted to give a skull at a tournament before but at this Melbourne GT I would have liked to give out two.

Since I love the hobby side of the tournament it would be great if there could be an organised time possibly in a lunch break to see all the army’s for non scoring show.

My last comment would be that I would like to see some passion put back into the GT with some great prize support. The GT had a bit of a feeling like it was a chore for GW and not the celebration of their fantastic products that I think it should be. I understand there are corporate reasons for not, but if it can’t be a celebration maybe it should not be done at all. I would love to see them getting 100 players rather than 40.

I play two GT’s and had a lot of fun with great mates and I really thank the GW staff in SA and Melbourne for putting on a really Fun event in fantastic locations. Love you all x x x

Conor

This post has been edited by waxsir: Sep 27 2007, 07:26 AM

[neil]

I liked the players pack, aside from ranking opponents at the end - mostly becuase it meant we had to endure a long wait for results.

I also didn't like the way best painted was judged, go judges choice or players choice, not a mishmash of both.

Adelaide actually played strictly by the pack, aside from letting a few unpainted models and proxies slip past, and had correct results at the end of the day. (end of the long day, but still, better than having to request someone bring their trophy back because they didn't really win! )

So, I'd jsut request three things for next year:

1. Drop peer ranking players at the end so I can go home earlier!
2. Enforce painting requirements more strictly.
3. Fix up best painted judging to judges choice or players choice, not a horible mishmash.

[Drummer]

I liked the players pack, aside from ranking opponents at the end - mostly becuase it meant we had to endure a long wait for results.

I also didn't like the way best painted was judged, go judges choice or players choice, not a mishmash of both.

Adelaide actually played strictly by the pack, aside from letting a few unpainted models and proxies slip past, and had correct results at the end of the day. (end of the long day, but still, better than having to request someone bring their trophy back because they didn't really win! )

So, I'd jsut request three things for next year:

1. Drop peer ranking players at the end so I can go home earlier!
2. Enforce painting requirements more strictly.
3. Fix up best painted judging to judges choice or players choice, not a horible mishmash.

Aye, also a popular conscensus to drop the Special Characters from Warhammer fantasy...
many didnt attend due to this fact also.
"If it werent broke,...."

[Buddha]

Along the same lines as neil, my 2c,

- Devise a quicker more time efficient way to just your opponents (leaving it to the end sucks)
- Remove this subjective 'TOs discretion' comp hit... this is just not cool, I think a standard 'bottom 5% of comp gets a deduction of 5 points, etc...' would be alot better, then there is no controversy/room for subjectiveness
- Allow all armies to be dsiplayed for army judging, instead of the judges picks

Was very well run by the SAGT boys, sad I didnt make it to any of the others!

Tom

[Bloodbrotherdave]

let me preface this by saying i didnt get to any of the GT's this year.

Now i think it seemed like a good tourny pack. some bugs but they seemed a little lost in translation to be the major hurldle. Maybe a quick debrief/explanation of how things are suposed to be run to the TO's from the packs designers to iron out any inconsistancy.

I think if you only give out the point in comp/sports/painted to the top 10%, and there are provisions for the bottom 10% to be penalised, then make it mandatory for the penalty to be applied as well. It does make it a little rough but it will make people consider it when they enter. Take the WAAC army and get the penalty. Also keeps the painters interested. bare minimum of painting will get you slaped with a penalty. encourages above minimum effort.

Sports is always subjective, but its nature. The system rewards the exception and fun to play against. Now im generally a quiet player. I tend to talk only when something is exceptional (wether good or bad) so i would consider myself to be in the middle ground of most players. 3-5 mark i would expect.
Maybe adjust it so the last placed player on your sports sheet gets a 0. thus 1st=3, 2nd=2, 3rd-5th=1, 6th=0.
thus if a number of your peers class you as the least enjoyable game they had (ie 6th) then you will place at the bottom of the sports ladder and get the penalty that goes along with it.

well thats just a few comments from an external observer.
Thank you GW for running GT's this year and hope you continue to do so in the future (even in NZ )

[Khysanth]

I just wish KF wasn't on at the same time as JD2, and that the Melb GT was on the same w/end as my brother in law's birthday or I would of attended my first GT this year.

I realise personal appointments cannot be catered for when booking an event date, but I hope in '08 the TO's can work together to have events on at different times. Especially the events which are close in location like Syd GT/Melb KF, and local events. I hope that way I will be able to attend more events, including interstate ones too.

Lastly, as to comp, Buddha makes a good point that there should simply be a set effect to comp scoring rather than TO's can make a judgement call. I like the idea that the top 5% get a 10pt bonus, the top 6-10% comp scorers get 5pt bonus's, whereas the bottom comp scorers get the reverse (ie. -5pt or -10pt for the bottom 10%). That will encourage people to at least try to bring a nicely balanced army, or better yet, tailor their list to strive for the bonus points.

[Lonestar]

Bring Back Prizes!

Great trophies!

Consistancy!

How many people attended the Syd GT? 100? $50 x 100 = $5000!!!!!

The hireing of the hall sertainly isnt THAT expencive! GW is now in the busness of making even more money from us! The person who thought of that lovely little profit should be put against the wall and shot!

The GT's run at a profit, and they are the only tournament I have been to that does, every other one is run to a/ run a tournament and b/ reward thse who do well. And even those who dont.

GW, Dave D, spend money and get those cool trophies we only ever see on the net from FW out here! We are not peons who should be rewarded with crums.

And now all the GT's for the year have run, and MOST couldnt get the so called "GT pack" to work! Let alone consistantly. And now one of the NZ GT's has been "corrected".......

"Grand" should no longer be associated with the tournaments GW run! There is nothing "Grand" about them at all. 3 years ago, Dave D ran his first Syd GT, and I was so disspointed I didnt return for last years one. Reports were that it was a major improvment over the previous one, so I attended this years Syd GT. And it rated back down with the previous years one. Crappy missions, Alpha... COME ON!

Games WorkShop, put someone in charge of your tournaments who accually "knows" what they are doing. Prizes are a good thing to have too. I am sure that the GT's are running on a high "profit" margin. So put those profits "Back" into those who are attending. WE are the people who give you employment, and when I say "WE" I mean we the gaming pubic. Without us, you dont exist.

The "main event" is nothing of the sort. Go back to the basics of "why" people accually play the game, what "they" enjoy, and "why" they enjoy tournament play. Then compleatly re-write that crap GT pack, run some test tournaments using the new rules set, stick to the rules you write. And train your GW boys in its use and get some one with descent rules knoledge to run the bloody thing.

This post has been edited by Lonestar: Sep 27 2007, 08:36 PM

[Grendel]

Alex, a good idea for a thread, pity it got hijacked by the usual so quickly. all the previous posts excepting one have had some quite good ideas and feedback without resorting to just whining and bagging GW. pity it could not last.

who cares about prizes, get a better job! and the opinion of the trophies is subjective, and as someone who actually has one (was two up until recently ) i quite like them. i can;t see how what the trophies look like makes the GT better or worse, especially if you did not get any trophies and most people won't. anyone who makes a decision on an event based on what the trophies looks like, needs to get their ego beaten back down to size. i also don;t care what i pay if i get value, and i don;t see value being the 4-5 people who qualify walking away with a ton of stock when everyone else gets zip (despite the fact i would have been up for loot a lot this year at all the comps i have been to). my trophy looks quite nice on my shelf as a counter to a lot of the others i have.

i don;t care what they call the event, i can hardly fault an event becuase its name might not be a 100% description of the event. otoh i don;t recall any photos of a winnebago at scotts tournament, so maybe glass house occupiers should be careful.

it seems so far the consensus is to minimise or drop the rankings, and enforce the comp hit in all cases, not subjectively. and i agree with those points.

and to be honest, other than maybe as suggested a briefing pack for the individual TOs to tell them what to expect, what missions to run, what to watch for etc, i think the GTs were pretty good. if they had a synopsis for the TOs (and they read it) it should eliminate many of the silly errors that were made.

its not a surprise that the best run event was melbourne as it was run by the guy who wrote the pack. hell i could have run them as well, as i had a lot of input into the packs, and knew them backwards.

the debate over how tooled the armies could get etc i don;t think is relevant, other than letting GW know if you prefer a hobby event (KF styled) or a gameplay event (like this years). as long as the pack makes it clear what kind of event you are going to (and i beleive this years did), then you are forewarned, and can make decisions to go based on your preferences.

my preference personally is a KF style hobby event, but i see the need to have alternate events, so am happy for the GTs to stay a gameplay event, as it gives me some variety.

my understanding is that the GTs went gameplay focused based on feedback from the wider community (not just the people who whine about cheese fests on WAU), and so hopefully those people went and enjoyed themselves. certainly NZ had its biggest GT in years and had two within two weeks, so a double win imho.

personally all i want is clarity of rules pack (like this year) for players, clarity for the TOs as to what to do (missing this year imho), and the packs to be out far enough in advance for feedback to be given in case somethiing is missed (did happen this year), and for one GT pack across the region as it takes the randomness across statesd etc out if followed.

i am not a fan of the ranking, and want the comp penalty enforced if the current system stays, but if those don;t happen it won;t keep me away. i don;t care about prizes, and i liked the trophies.

other than that, i am content.

and to the others posting, i know for a fact that the considerate mellow posts of feedback all bar one person has made will be listened to, if not always taken on board (becuase as many people might have the exact opposite opinion), so keep it up, GW do listen if people treat them with some respect. this is not exactly news, people respond best when you are not insulting them oddly enough

i also know that scotts post will be completeley ignored by Andrew and Co for the noise it is, if he is not already ignored as a user by most of GW

AL

[Lonestar]

Then, FanBoy, it will be their loss.

But ofcuase why should I repeat what had been said before? Something original maybe?

All Praise GW, for they can do nothing wrong. Get over yourself Grendel.

[Lonestar]

i don;t care what they call the event, i can hardly fault an event becuase its name might not be a 100% description of the event. otoh i don;t recall any photos of a winnebago at scotts tournament, so maybe glass house occupiers should be careful.


i also know that scotts post will be completeley ignored by Andrew and Co for the noise it is, if he is not already ignored as a user by most of GW

AL

Didnt you know that the tournie was called "Lonestar's Winnebago" becuase "lonestarr" from Space Balls the movie (maybe you have seen this) flew a Winnebago? Also, being dyslexic (spelt wrong) I spelt my handle wrong many years ago......

It was just a name for a very small tournament. Atleast "I" posted pics of my tournament.


And as for Andrew and Co, who really cares what they think, look they listern to you, and look at the amazing pack they put together with "your" help. pah. As I have said else were many months ago about this "pack", I had spoken to DD about it when he showed it to me, he must of been expecting me to be full of priase for "his" amazingly new system, and like you, "he" couldnt take "any" critazizum.

So AL...... *flush*

[straylight]

<mod>



enough thanks Al and scott.....you've both had a vent, now step away from the keyboard and think carefully about the next posts you want to make.



stu

[Grendel]

i don;t know what background other people have, but having been an employee, employer, adviser and club committee memberm i can't think of anyone who likes to get criticised by being yelled at and abused either in person or on the internet.

i also don;t know anyone who would ever take anyone seriously who gave feedback like that. the great thing about the internet is that even if you are moderately polite in person, if you have a history of abusing that person directly or indirectly on the net then they will ignore you.

the feedback given by Alex, Neil, Grokl, Kysanth, bloodbrotherdave and buddha is the kind of feedback that should be given in any situation, be it corporate, family or gaming.

it states an opinion with a reason why, and at no point abuses the person or tells them they should be shot etc. that kind of feedback gets ignored as does the person in the future.

another thing is that you have to realise that you won;t always get your way. i have given a lot of feedback to GW over competitions, codexes and the 4th edition rules and not a lot of what i said directly got used, but it may have been used as part of a case for looking at somehting, or the person requesting feedback may disagree entirely and either tell you why or not.

i certainly have no expectations that any of my feedback gets used, even the stuff i feel strongly about. there are things i wanted in this years pack i think would have made some bits clearer but they were not used. does this make GW dickheads? no! justbeucase i think something should be one way does not make it always so.

theres a fine line between being able to take criticism and being expected to take abuse. my suspicion is that scott you gave your in person 'criticism' the same way you do on the net. how could anyone be expected to sit there and listen to that? i wouldn't in my job, and i doubt anyone else would either.

GW can and do do things wrong, i just don;t see the benefit in bagging them over it, becuase i know that the people involved did not do it on purpose.

i have an opinion over the handling of the results in auckland, and rather than rant about it on the net where it will get ignored, i will send some feedback directly to andrew in the same manner i would expect andrew to contact me.

i habe made my suggestions for the things i would like changed, assuming that next years GT is the same style. there is no point having your feedback beign to scrap the lot, if you know thats the direction they are going in, best to work within what they want to do and give feedback that way.

i told andrew when he first sent me the pack to read over that it was not my cup of tea for my ideal event, but he outlined his objectives and i gave feedback based on that. why fight him over the fact that i prefer a hobby event if they were not going to run that? all that will happen is i won;t be asked for feedback again.

Scott most of your anger to me seems to be about the fact that this pack makes it harder for you to place. personal gain should never be part of your reasoning for feedback. i gave plenty of feedback that made it harder for me to place this year, beucase it made the packs better.

keep it up guys, constructive, thought out feedback without vitriol or ego is the best way to go in my experience.

AL

[Kojihama]

Because you even said it yourself, if Andrew and Co are only going to ask you your opinion and will only listen if they like it, then why even bother with the facade of "asking the community"? He may as well just do what he likes and to hell with what people think. Furthermore, the "community" which was asked to respond was in fact was only a select few with a sample size so small it hardly mattered overall.

If people don't voice their concerns or opinions (in a matter they deem fit) then GW will not respond in an appropriate fashion. It's not YOUR job to tell people how to respond. You don't have to like the responses that are being given, but he's not addressing those opinions / criticisms to you. If GW don't listen then that's their perogative. It's not up to you to tell Scott what to do or what not to do. If GW don't listen to his responses directly then he'll figure it out next year (if the GT's run again) and the players pack are exactly the same.

Back on track:
1. Player placings suck, too hard to do and makes result presentations longer.
2. If you make these rules, stick to them, impose penalties for wrong models, no paint, bad comp etc
3. Players choice painting needs to be from a small field (maybe 5) of selected armies which are selected by TO's of all games (40k, Fantasy, LOTR) and a random player from each field as well. It's not hard to do, only takes 5-10 minutes. This way it reduces any perceived bias to reduce complaints.
4. More prizes, for an event that charges $50 per player, there were less prizes than events that charge $30 per player. While it may seem greedy to want prizes, on the flip side isn't it greedy to only give so little prizes?
5. Let's reduce the complexities in final results, having to wait 1.5 hours is crap.

Those comments are only if the same pack is used next year. Overall I personally feel that it needs to go back to the old method of NTS. While some may argue GT's should be about battle, the hobby should be about overall players. All aspects of the hobby is what makes a player a winner, not just smashing people on the table.

This post has been edited by Kojihama: Sep 28 2007, 09:52 PM

[Proximity]

I would rather no prizes at all, and that money be invested back into the trophys instead. Don't take that as a dig at the trophies, which I actually thought were exceptionally cool this year, but if the moneys either going to go on prizes OR trophies, I'd rather the latter.
A prerequisite to do this hobby properly is a decent disposable income, in that respect I would think trophies would be rather more meaningful than prizes.

Also, slightly better TO preparation is a must for future years. It would take just an hour per store the week before to have a conversation with anyone over the phone to make sure they fully understand how it works, whilst doing it they could do a 'dry run' with fake results. It saves a whole lot of headache - It would cost no more than $50 dollars worth of time, and would only have to mean in future years you had 1 person return by not getting fed up to balance that out.. more than one person and you're actually profiting. The TO's in Auckland, and by the looks of things with Perth as well, literally had not read the pack. They had NO idea why it was wrong for scores to be 190+, and then tried to argue that it was right when it was pointed out that the theoretical maximum was 77 by some gamers.

Finally, I think you need to keep in mind that a lot of gamers aren't known for their brilliant minds. Whilst this pack wasn't in my opinion complicated at all, you had a lot of concepts that are just too hard for some people to understand. Sure, you only had to read it once or twice to understand it, but you have people in the thread allready pointing out they can't really read properly, and are quite willing to hold someone other than themselves accountable for it (that's not a dig at you Scott, it's a really common trait amongst people sadly).

Sorry to end the season with somewhat of a negative tone, but I feel there is a real obligation to get the basics right, and it really wasn't met in New Zealand this year. If it hadn't been for Andrew running KF so amazingly well, I would have probably been put off the tournament scene enough to just stick to modelling and painting.

- Charlie

[Kojihama]

A prerequisite to do this hobby properly is a decent disposable income, in that respect I would think trophies would be rather more meaningful than prizes.
- Charlie

As a rebuttle to that, what if it was your parents who bought all your stuff? More models to add to the battlechest would be totally awesome for someone that didn't have as much money as someone else.

Try not to make sweeping generalisations. While this hobby is expensive, it doesn't mean everyone is rich.

[Lonestar]

Scott most of your anger to me seems to be about the fact that this pack makes it harder for you to place. personal gain should never be part of your reasoning for feedback. i gave plenty of feedback that made it harder for me to place this year, beucase it made the packs better.

Dude, goto the OZ rankings and look for a player named "Scott Gray" and see what his stats are like in the various catagories, then revisit the above comment.

Sure, you only had to read it once or twice to understand it, but you have people in the thread allready pointing out they can't really read properly, and are quite willing to hold someone other than themselves accountable for it (that's not a dig at you Scott, it's a really common trait amongst people sadly).

I had to re-read it twice, mainly out of disbeleaf. It forces me to read slowly, and becuase of this, I retain alot of information. I also am abrupt in what I type. So please read between the lines in what I am typing. My deceased brother could barely read at all, and several cousins have it as well. People who dont know my attitude to my problems with words/reading will take snipes at me about it, I really dont care, its my problem and you all have to deal with it I am just glad there are smilies

I would rather no prizes at all, and that money be invested back into the trophys instead. Don't take that as a dig at the trophies, which I actually thought were exceptionally cool this year, but if the moneys either going to go on prizes OR trophies, I'd rather the latter.
A prerequisite to do this hobby properly is a decent disposable income, in that respect I would think trophies would be rather more meaningful than prizes.

Trophies would rock! GW knows they get about 40+ players each for both 40k and fantasy, why not use this as a basis for costs etc, would it be cool to get the great ones from FW we only hear about here, bolters anyone?

And Prizes, they cost GW next to nothing, so rewarding players would be a good thing? No? Just about everyone I know in the tournament scene has more then 3 armies each....... so it helps them with thier next project.

Oh and before you say anything AL, I have at last count 5 started but unfinished 40k armies just awaiting some attention.

[Drummer]

Just on a personal note...

I'll gladly swap my trophies/awards for an army deal box set anyday.
The trophy is a dust collector - nice, but of no real consequence to someone like myself after a short time whereas a decent army box will add and/or start an army that you may want (by choice of course..)

Having been in other comps where the prizes (for putting a lot of effort in) were rewarded with GW stock and/or vouchers sure made it seem much more worthwhile. A certificate easily framed and an army box set sure meant more than a piece of perspex. I still play with those miniatures today. Unfortunately the trophies are hidden in amongst others from different pursuits that are faded over time.

I'd really like to see prizes of miniatures or vouchers.
Like I said - that's just a personal thought that some may also share.

[NASHRAK]

Why can't we have trophies and prizes? I love the GT trophies this year, they are cool! I also liked the Melb GT's trophy from last year - forgeworld plagques were awesome! But many tournies manage to get you a trophy and a prize (at conquest I got their standard generic mascot on a plinth and a rather large gift voucher from Mil-Sims). Apoco-lisp is giving away a baneblade and a trophy or so I believe as well.

Really, the prizes don't have to be massive, its more the thought that counts. I really can't see the problem with a Italian Marble trophy inlaid with gold spelling out the winners name along with a Forgeworld Warlord Titan as being too much to ask for in a contemporary tourney setting.