BIG TSUGUA Results - 40K Options

[Monty Zuma]

Rank - Player Name - Battle - Sports - Comp - Painting

1 Troy Forester 125 70 21 18 16
2 Dave Jeffs 124 67 22 23 12
3 Rob Harvatt 121 68 24 17 12
4 Troy Clifford 119 67 24 17 11
5 Matthew Bona 110 53 25 19 13
6 Richard Parvell 110 53 24 23 10
7 Adam Vearing 109 60 24 18 7
8 Nobby Garnett 106 51 24 20 11
9 David Schirmer 101 64 18 14 5
10 Matthew Baxter 99 47 22 21 9
11 Nik Linnell 96 53 22 15 6
12 Nick Ashby 96 43 24 20 9
13 Aaron Ball 95 43 22 21 9
14 Michael Clarke 91 40 24 16 11
15 Brad Clancy 89 44 24 15 6
16 Steve Young 89 36 23 21 9
17 Jim Street 86 39 23 16 8
18 William Clark 84 37 17 15 15
19 Nick Chase 84 36 22 15 11
20 Bill Packwood 77 29 18 15 15

Results are based on result slips as provided not based on subsequent player queried results.

Battle / 85
Sports / 25
Comp / 25
Painting / 20 (15 points judged by BIG representative and up to 5 points based on player votes)

As was advertised, players who did not submit their lists 1 week prior to the event start were docked up to 5 points by not having their lists included in comp evaluation for the first round.

[DMG]

I'd really like to know how painting was scored as 8 out of 15 seems a bit harsh to me.

[DMG]

Worked out the shortness of my comp points...Dave Schirmer & I were never given a comp sheet in the first round...

[Llews]

Matthew Baxter scored 17 - 3 in his favour in round two- this was brought to the attention of the organisers after the tourney and adjusted but in these results has not appeared. My battle points should be 61 not 47, elevating me to 5th with 113 points overall. I would appreciate it if this was addressed and if these results have been sent to GT that a new amended set be sent off. Thanks.

[Khysanth]

Results are based on result slips as provided not based on subsequent player queried results.

I think this line is going to create some conflict. From what's been posted since the comp finished, a few people messed up their cards...

[Llews]

Ahh, I hadnt read that line. Well it would be one thing if they were queries, but another entirely if the TO had agreed to make the changes after the event, then decided not to on the published results. I believe also that the rules pack stated that players would be able to sign off on their judged painting scores and discuss it with the judge, which did not happen (to address what DMG has said).

[cazaril]

sigh... i won 17 - 3 in the second round... meaning i was 14 points higher.. putting me into 4th place...(well it would be fourth place because troy clifford also had 14 points short)

thought these would have been fixed - at least these ones were easily fixed

[Khysanth]

I think the TO should go by the Rules, as published, and should not change them mid tournament, otherwise whats the point of rules?

[YogoZuno]

Guys, the TO can't really be held responsible for player errors in scoring...although publishing scores between rounds might have picked up the error, at the end of the day, the error was caused by players.

[Llews]

Of course not, however when the TO changes results after several players explained the situation, you would expect them to remain changed.

[slabrotgrimmbreff]

Doesn't look like they've been changed to me. Results look like they have stayed as announced.

Painting - didn't even read most of the pack however surprised if this was in there. Since when have you ever played in a tourney where the painting points were up for discussion anyway.

[GT]

Good fantasy tournaments do it Carwin

[raven0470]

does this mean i can get an extra prize

[slabrotgrimmbreff]

[quote]Good fantasy tournaments do it Carwin[/quote]

Cheeky bugger......

Actually Skilto mentioned they do it at Dogcon today..... May be an idea for the future.

[Llews]

Mmm, good old Fantasy *sigh*. Results were changed (I saw it happen) then un-changed. As for painting Dave's concerns point to the validity of some explaination. Ah well, cudos to the BIG chaps who have said they will endevour to fix these issues with print-outs of results through the Tourney. Hope they do put in place the brief explainations of their judged painting, I thought that was a good idea.

[aaron4065]

I have to say I was a bit miffed at my painting scores as well, given the blurb in the tournie pack. Apparently I got points for having bases, three colours and not much else. Other tournies may not discuss the scores per se, but usually at least give the player a chance to point out anything they think the judge may be interested in.

[Scumcleaner]

Ok..
so now the results are not even as posted at the end of the tourney...
I can only presume that (as rob has leap frogged me in BPs) that the result that Rob and I had that was fixed MID TOURNEY has been discounted again.
Interestingly, score mix ups happened last year (although not to this extent) and changed my 3rd place to a 4th. I was contacted days later by e-mail and asked to hand back the prize - which i did - and the results were ammended. Why is it so different this year? Monty, your promise to explain in the results the true scores was obviously not binding... despite all people involved in the situation giving you the correct information.
I can understand why the organisers have not chosen to contact the disputed parties post tourney - I mean why bother, right? But why also discount a result that was fixed as we went along?

Apologies if this sloped towards a rant. It is a little frustrating to get 100% battle points and get 4th...
BIG TSUGUA next year? I think not.

[raven0470]

strange that same thing happened to me at orkfest last year , only person to win all 5 games and get 100 out of 105 victory points and still come in forth or fifth or was it sixth mmmmmmmmm don't know? oh well you and i will some day get over it , hey look on the bright side you got some nice prizes for third and we played some great games too, well i had fun .So thank you to the big boys great comp , great terrian , and great players , I'll be back again ,Rob

[gunny]

*No need to quote it - GT*


I think it might be time to stop guests posting

[Scumcleaner]

[quote name='raven0470' date='Sep 7 2006, 12:47 AM' post='308710']
strange that same thing happened to me at orkfest last year , only person to win all 5 games and get 100 out of 105 victory points and still come in forth or fifth

Small difference, I believe you got all your battlepoints allocated and were soft scored out of the top places. I've certainly had that happen before, yes, and that's not a problem. Human error, though - Something did need to be said or the same problems will occur next time.
All done and dusted, I hope the orgs take note of what went wrong and we'll all learn something.