ARC XXVII 40K: Feedback thread, Please post your thoughts & suggestions here Options

[Welsh Rarebit]

Awesome Aaron.

[Griddon]

OK, having had a few days to think about it, I figured I'd summarise my take on Arc. Hopefully putting the emphasis where it matters for me. Appreciate everyone else's version may vary. For the record, and once again, this event was the best tourney/event i've been to of the 4 tournies I have done since picking up 40k in Feb 08. Simple. What i've fed back, whilst more than likely seen as 'cynical' or simply 'petty' gripes is really intended to indentify where I thought things could be improved. Improvement's on awesome that is.

Firstly the real 'petty' bits;

Toilets. Mark. approx 150 guys crapping in the same 3 toilets. Not an optimal diet in sight. Its going to smell. It was more a comical sideline than a gripe. It stunk, but meh. Made the courtyard fresh air all the sweeter.

Start and finish time. Its a case of how to please everyone. I liked the down time but didn't like the finish time. The two aren't mutually exclusive. And with 153 people - not much option to improve outside pre payment and more strict battle finish times. Given the time table I figured I'd be clear of the joint earlier. I'll not make any promises next year concerning arrival times at someone Hawaiian themed party... (Bone shirt - hardly used $10, any interest?)

Power creep - It doesn't bother me. I just want to be clear before I enter a tourney what the comp conditions are. And I was... Helped by the community with my list choice and gauging opinion always helps... (I think) If everyone plans for 2010 with the current system in mind, then I reckon we will see a few stronger lists. But then, if you reworded unbalanced to 'tough' and placed more emphasis on it during the opening address, it may work better. It's semantics, but i could have a laugh with an opponent and still tick a 'tough' box without feeling like i'm sticking the knife in. Peer comp I'm used to. Although more sniping chances here. Panel sounds pretty good.

Secondly the bits I feel are true concerns rather than minor. And some suggestions;

Theme. I've said my bit. Simply didn't think my theme could be assessed by visually looking at the models alone.

So, suggestions? Could we have a word limited paragraph to submit with our army lists to describe the theme. This could be a primer for the judges and they can read the 100 characters or less in the first 30 seconds of their visit to your table. My Eldar theme was entirely based around the Farseer and his sacrifice to save the Aringhe Craftworld. He met with his fate against Cam Auty's Juggernaughts in the first game of the day, while he charged in alone to meet certain doom... hehe. Had to break out the defibrillator to get him up and running for the next 5 games. Also, the craftworld is a DIY in terms of fluff as GW never supplied any. So, it's been open to my interpretation. It's not something a judge could have any appreciation of unless they read the fluff primer.

Painting. I know what boxes need ticking now. I will try harder next year. My specific concern is that I don't beleive all 'details' are equal and I'd hope that gems or free hand tank stripes / camo / craftworld symbols could be equated to freehand Ravenguard decals. My Ravenguard scored 25. My Eldar 24. This was the source of my discussion with the judges. I probably wouldn't have questioned it had I scored 20 with my eldar and 19 with the RG. I didn't expect any prizes but was surprised to hear my RG scoring better than the Eldar. That is all.

So, suggestion? Tough call. My case was personal and not related to other people's concerns. Perhaps add a peer painting score to the sports card, allowing the overall appearance of cohesiveness of the army to be judged 6 times and feature as part of the score. Then the judges can focus on the 'technical' aspects or spend more time on the theme. I beleive in this way you might get a mark that reflects how nice your force looks on the table top vs whether you know how to score well at Arc.

So, that's it. I do hope I haven't got WATT's back up. My intention was only to provide honest feedback.

@Rick - Hehe. Keith is the reason my Fire Dragons and my AP2 falcon are a permanent feature of the Eldar force... High strength and ap2 or better and he's really needing to be careful with the bugs. Keith's a cheesy bastard and he'd admit it. But, peer comp should kick those lists out of the top ten if everyone finds them equally disturbing. Your tourney, your rules and and I totally appreciate the flavour you're striving for just before Xmas. So, good on ya. Plenty of hard lists showed to ][con though, so would have been unfair to single this one out in 2008 I feel. Meh.

This post has been edited by Griddon: Jan 29 2009, 05:46 PM

[Mark of Nurgle]

Constructive feedback is best of all; but sarcastic feedback (and there's been some) can be a bit dispiriting. Please don't slap anyone down for giving us a compliment. We don't mind, really.

M.

This post has been edited by Mark of Nurgle: Jan 29 2009, 07:10 PM

[choppy,choppy]

Straylight I agree with you completely regarding the unbalanced box. The same applies to the sports system.
We need a rating to reflect that an army was a particularly powerful build that while not over the top was always going to do very well. The problem is opinion and codex knowledge, where we cannot rely on the general tourney player to make a balanced evaluation.
Again, where is the line between effective and OOT?
Maybe we need options like sports, soft, balanced, powerful, over the top?
Thoughts?

[Badfang]

Scrap the unbalanced mark.

Bring back a quick tick maths comp system, then ppl dont have to tip toe around the fact they got smacked by an all troop ork army......and can get a move on building that bridge.

It seems that my list controlled by....me......is getting flamed here and outside the wau forums, but a near identical list fielded by another near unknown competitor has not been touched.

Get over yourselves, harden up and learn how to play tactical war dollies.



Mark, no matter watt (hehe) you guys choose for arc next year, be sure ill be there with a smile and my game face on........

[Fuggorf]

Agreed on changing the Unbalanced mark. However, simple mathematic composition marking is inherently flawed. It in no way takes into account the differences between codices.

Giving X points for Y% in troops, whilst simple and easy to understand, doesn't allow for Troops choices from one codex being more effective/useful than similar choices from other codices (Ork Boyz being a prime offender in the effectiveness stakes).

It also limits the ability to theme a list effectively. My depleted Crimson Fists army now can't focus on Veteran Squads and Dreadnoughts because I have to use Z points on Tactical Squads.

Ultimately, math comp I feel is too rigid and not accomodating for all codices, and more importantly all themes.

[ArchonCryx]

I agree, I love that you guys are awesome enough to run a TO comp system. Math comp can be broken and peer comp is inconsistent. You guys have a brilliant system even if I do have a whinge about some very minor issues... I tend to do that regardless!

Keep the WATT marked comp please!

[downunderork]

Actually, I have some feedback for you all:

If there is anything that you're not satisfied with during the weekend, please come and let me know during the event.

Hearing this stuff now is disappointing to know that something was bothering you could have been nailed so easily, there and then.

M.

Mark, in regard to the toilets, I thought of letting you know at the time, but you know what, I figured you WATTS guys had enough on their plate running the event without adding to the load...... my bad sorry.

For next year perhaps the cleaner could have some riding instructions re regular cleaning of the toilets. And yes, I did appreciate the hand cleaner.... another Arc first.

These matters are raising a wider issue of health and safety generally at the event. Given the numbers now involved at Arc it might be time to have a more concerted focus on this issue. I'm happy to help out in this area if you want.


Cheers

Rick

[Mark of Nurgle]

Thanks Rick.

It's already on my 2010 list to ask the caretaker to double his cleaning roster in there. Again, apologies to all.

I'm never too busy to hear about things that make people more comfortable. (But, I am sometimes too busy to hear the details about how in game 1 yesterday you should have got one more point for being in their deployment zone; or how about your last game was so exciting because you rolled a 1 and then he rolled a 6 and so then you rolled an argh shut up busy go away etc. etc. etc. yada yada yada)

M.

[Fuggorf]

how about your last game was so exciting because you rolled a 1 and then he rolled a 6

I wasn't even talking to you!

Wait... I know what's coming: Inside Voice...

[Tyra_Nid]

Wait... I know what's coming: Inside Voice...

*Crowd yells in unison*

INSIDE VOICE, BEN!

[Solitaire]

Just a couple of things to think about !!!

Firstly.
Is the Sportsmanship score purely for sportsmanship or a combination of sportsmanship and army composition ????

If it is only Sportsmanship then I think that it is weighed too heavily ? (120pts out of 300)

I feel that at this level 90-95% of the players are good sports !! And that 90-95% of the games played are average or above. Even with the odd game in which dice just don't roll your way !! ( Sometimes these are the best games anyway. )

A better system may be to lessen the weighting of sportsmanship but increase the points for an Exceptional Game or Opponent and Increase the penalty for a bad sport.

Secondly.
What are the penalties for ????

I feel that they need to be a little harsher, (depending on the infringement) !!!!!!

Well that's my One cents worth !!!

Hope that I'm not too far out of line !!!

[green-is-good]

Hi All,
I haven't read all 5 pages s o I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this...

Looking at the final points tally, it seams that for 95% or players the competition score heavily outweighed the battle scores. I'm not suggesting that comp/peer scoring is bad but I think the weighting is too high.
There should be opportunity to ping someone that was a bad sport, etc. but it seems to me that this part of the scoring was too random/objective.
eg. I just got smashed by some MC weilding chaos guy, I don't think it was sporting of you to beat me, so I'll mark you low...
What it could perhaps be is two things.
1. was the game played in good spirit
2. Was the army fair and balanced or was it OTT.

I'm all for having a good fun, hard game but perhaps we need to emphasize the game itself a bit more...

It IS war after all - and as long as war is conducted in a good spirited manner, it should be OK to smash the intestines out of your enemy....and they should enjoy it!

Rob

[Draza]

Only 2 unbalanced armies out of 153, thats pretty good. I do think the unbalance system has to be changed. There was one Chaos Daemon army that consisted of 5 monstrous creatures and just Plaguebearers as troops which I don't think got marked as inbalanced.
While his reasons for using the list were noble (and he did some great custom work on those models), the list is basically the definition of unbalanced and I'm surprised it was even allowed.

[Tyra_Nid]

but it seems to me that this part of the scoring was too random/objective.

In a sense. Because of the clustering up the top, its pretty much the only scoring that you dont have some control of. You can play the same way for 6 players and they can all mark you differently depending on their personality, whereas all the other aspects you either have full control over (painting/theme/penalties) or strong control over (battle points).

It does add a bit of 'randomness' to the mix... And one person being generous/harsh can potentially swing your results a lot!

I dont mind it so much though, it does encourage people to 'play [extra] nice'

[D'arvan]

Actually, Arcanacon's the only tournament I go to every year, largely because the Sports scoring is such a large component of the final score. I've been to other tournaments as a spectator, and none of them seemed like fun--they all seemed like watching a bunch of spoiled kids bitching about firing ranges and posturing in between games.

Arc just doesn't have that vibe, and I for one am quite glad.

[straylight]

Only 2 unbalanced armies out of 153, thats pretty good. I do think the unbalance system has to be changed. There was one Chaos Daemon army that consisted of 5 monstrous creatures and just Plaguebearers as troops which I don't think got marked as inbalanced.

because in the game I played it, it wasn't unbalanced. In fact it gave a very balanced game that could have gone either way. On paper an army might look to be power incarnate, but come battle time, vs a particular opponent, in a particular mission, it might be a run of the mill list with definite disadvantages. As was the case when I played it. Awesome game.

no prizes for spotting the hobby horse that I rode in on.

feedback wise though, I'm now totally over sports marking. Not that I had bad sports, but I just haven't got a freakin' clue as to what people expect over the table anymore. Sports is in the hands of your opponent, rather than how you behave or play the game. Get 6 great opponents, sports will reflect that, get people who aren't sure of the sports thing, or who have some unreasonable expectation of how the game should be played, sports will dip. It is inconsistent, open to abuse and needs an overhaul. rant over.

stu

[Draza]

Good to hear some feedback about the army. As long as you have a good game against it I guess thats all that matters.

However I got to say, the unbalanced mark was about the army list. It shouldn't take into account player skill or the mission involved. If that was the case, we'd see plenty of average lists getting imbalanced deductions due to excellent player skill and favourable missions
[Note: Never would happen, since the Fez's get the final say]

Likewise a list with Eldrad/Avatar/3 Wraithlords is definetly an imbalanced list, no matter the opponent, terrain or mission

[Mark of Nurgle]

To my knowledge, no army was ranked unbalanced this year. The most we got was 2 votes, no army got 3 votes so we never stepped in. Unbalanced was entirely in your hands to exercise, and you collectively chose not to, We will refine the system next year, and I look fwds to discussing it with all of you at the pub night.

Arc has always gone for 40% sports, and will remain so. It is our check and balance against poor behaviour at the table; and in that, I include bringing an army that your opponent will not enjoy. The sports description never talks about army composition, but if you bring an army designed to decimate me with no saving throws and no models left by the end of Turn 2, then you have not been sporting in my opinion. I took great pride in the fact that a few of our champions back in the day won the event but only won three games; that was a wake-up call to the win-at-all-costs contigent, and I think (modestly) that we changed Melbourne 40K for the better.

I like the three-band sports system because everyone gets it. If we go back to a 5-point spread, then one player's 3 is another player's 4, and we get much less consistency. Sorry to ignore your rant, Stu.

But, this year I did not take the time to give everyone a sports education; with so many n00bs in the house, that was remiss of me, so you can be sure to get the full lecture in future years.

The only exact yardstick is battle points; everything else is subjective. I would say at Arc that the only true results are the top 20 and the bottom 20; in the middle we could honestly roll off to decide places. Don't obsess about it folks, no system will return an exact result. What I can guarantee is, look at the top 20 players, and I think you'll find that they are great players with cool armies that you'd like to game against.

We've been arguing about the perfect system for years and years now. At Arc, we've hit upon a formula that seems to work more or less, and gives us a good result. I leave it to other enquiring and passionate minds to take it to the next level. We've got our hands full just getting the rounds started on time and keeping everyone happy.

Cheers,

Mark

[Draza]

To my knowledge, no army was ranked unbalanced this year. The most we got was 2 votes, no army got 3 votes so we never stepped in

Mmmm thats interesting. Saw two armies with 10 penalty points, assumed that was an imbalance mark. No idea what its for.

We've been arguing about the perfect system for years and years now. At Arc, we've hit upon a formula that seems to work more or less, and gives us a good result. I leave it to other enquiring and passionate minds to take it to the next level. We've got our hands full just getting the rounds started on time and keeping everyone happy.

In a way I think you have. I got six great games so the system does work