So after seeing around 50 players yesturday at the GT and no posts yet....

Who won in the end.....did Delroque get over the line or did he get pinged too badly on composition.....spill the beans some one.

The originally announced result was Delrogue 1st, Mango 2nd, Troy Clifford 3rd...until a certain someone pointed out the rules pack said ties should be resolved differently. So, after some discussion, Mango was 1st, Delrogue 2nd.

LMAO - That is very extremely funny. Good work on those that placed. What were the mission that were played?

Game 1: Alpha cleanse with omega victory conditions
Game 2: Gamma Recon
Game 3: Patrol (BGB page 191)
Game 4: Omega take and hold (centre of table)
Game 5: Alpha secure and control with 5 tokens
Game 6: Seek / Destroy gamma

I didn't mention it earlier (was kinda waiting for a results post first ), but I had a ball on the weekend.

Going by my placing, this was my worst tournament effort in a few years. However, looking at my actual battle results...this is the best I've played in a while, and with an army that I believe is one of the weakest codexes currently available. Plus, all of my opponents were polite and fun to play against. So, I really enjoyed myself.

Organisation was a little lacklustre on occasion, but pretty good overall. The main concern was that some players had not even seen the player's pack - the GW stores should have had printed copies on hand to give to people who registered. The second main concern from my point of view was that there were still several unpainted armies, and there were also several non-GW models in use. I found this a little irksome, because I specifically went to a lot of effort to meet these tourney restrictions, and then they weren't enforced.

Lastly, although the results originally announced were not technically determined the way the player's pack said they should have been...the player's pack also said that the judge's decision was final. I'll leave my comments at that.

I had a great time over the weekend ,got to play against people i hadn't played before ,won 3 drew 3 so not bad only big win of the weekend was against a young man (whose is going be to very very good in a couple of years if he keeps it up) ,Got a draw against the ""Brisbane Champion"" mmmm, but over all very good weekend.

Did notice a few not painted armies out there -what tha!!! in the rules it did state that wasn't allowed!!!
And NON-GW minis as well, I wasn't allowed to take my Daemon Prince because it wasn't 50%GW but other people had 100% non gw minis there , another WHAT THA!!!!

Scoring well lets not go there ------- touchy subject i think!!!

Bonus points mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm another don't go there!!!!

As per any GW store scenery was on the 25% mark or under?

Enough said Well done to Matt for running it !!!!!

Cheers Rob

As per the results above...

It was Mango (Deathwing/Dark Angels) 1st Overall, me (Eldar) 2nd Overall, and Troy Clifford (Nurgle Chaos) 3rd Overall. I can't remember who won Best Sports or Comp, but Troy also won Best Painted.

Mango and I drew on 52pts, and I was initially announced 1st overall based on the higher battle score. Matt then realised that the tourney pack said countback should be based on who go the most bonus points, so this pushed Mango into first (Grats!) - as soon as we found out, we switched prizes/trophies. Mango and I have been playing in the tourney scene for years, and it is good to see Mango back after such a long foray into FB.

It was a great tourney, and well run. The only (small) complaints I had was that it was very dark and dingy in the hotel (almost as bad as the old City Hall venue) and it was very crowded (not much room between tables) - Although this might be due to the higher than expected turnout for Lord of the Rings. It was a good turn out for 40k as well - apparently 70 registered entrants (with a few drop outs over the weekend).

Re: Rules Pack - I suppose we should all wait to see the final results, but to be honest - I think the system was made difficult by the end of weekend ranking of your last six opponents (most people couldn't even remember who they had played) - and the bonus system. I think the normal NTS system would have produced approximately the same result, but been easier to manage and work with.

Congrats All, couldn't make it in for a look but sounds like I didn't miss too much

David, what list did you take, the Avatar plus lots of avengers list?

I took a list to match the pack GW decided to use (almost 100% battle). Avatar, Farseer (Doom/Fortune), 5x10 Dire Avengers (2 with Diresword/Bladestorm, 3 with dual catapults exarchs), squad of two Vypers with Scatter Lasers, squad of one Vyper with Shuriken Cannons, 2xW-Lords with B-Lance/EML.

I ended up playing; 1st Nids (10pt win), 2nd Blood Angels (10pt win), 3rd Dark Eldar (4pt draw), 4th Tau (9pt win), 5th Nids (9pt win), 6th Orks (10pt win).

My problem is always going to be anti-tank - but thankfully, the only armies I came up against with tanks was the Blood Angels (two Baal Preds) and the Tau (one hammerhead) - and I wasn't able to bring any of them down during the games.

The Avatar was useful in only three games (Blood Angels, 2nd Nids and Orks) - in the other games, he never even saw combat (or got to use his inspiring presence) - mainly due to escalation/reserves. Although he is the only really effective counter-assault in the game - I will probably drop him for any future tourney I take the army to, as he seems to attract a lot of negative feedback. This will allow me to drop the Fortune/Stones from the Farseer as well - free up around 200pts for an infiltrating Scorp unit.

Unlike BIG March, where the farseer died every single game to Perils of the Warp - I only lost him once (in the last game v Orks) - dropping Runes of Witnessing is a REALLY good idea. I only failed psychic tests 2-3 times - none of which had a huge impact on the games. (Although the army really does struggle without Doom).

I know this is a little off-topic, but...I worked out that your chances of perilling with the Witnessing are about 16%...compared to 6% normally...almost 3 times as likely. So, I guess you just bucked the average, Del

I have played in many tournaments over the last 10 or so years, ranging from Townsville,Mackay,Rocky,Toowoomba,Brisbane and others and I have also ran a few tournaments both large and small, so I know what I am talking about and so say that because I am going to make a bold statement.

GT07 was the best tournament I have ever played in

I hear you say ‘that’s bull Mango, your just saying that cos you did well’ well read on and I will explain myself.

Reasons GT07 was the best I have played in

1 : Age

The average age for this tourney was a lot older than every other 40k tourney I have played in, I didn’t have to play against 12YO who don’t know the rules or just plain cheat. Maybe all of the kids went and played in LoTR because I am sure I saw a daycare setup over there, if that is the case, then suddenly I like LoTR a lot more than I used to

2 : (reasonably)Well Run

Irrespective of complaints about the tourney guidelines, the tourney was well run, Matt was available for any questions and was happy to answer them, the pairings and table numbers were clear for all to see. There is scope for improvement (I will touch on this a little later) but I think they did a good job

3 : MOST IMPORTANT : PEOPLE

I came to this tourney knowing about 10 people, not well, but we are social and have a laugh together, I usually go to tourneys with very good friends but they weren’t available to come to this event so I went ‘alone’ per se.

I sat there on the Sunday morning before the pairings were posted thinking ‘why am I here, I have had 1 great game out of 3 and im not sure I can be bothered continuing’ I realized then that even though I enjoyed playing tough games against good opponents, that the social element just wasn’t there for me and I just felt like going home.

Luckily I didn’t, and the 3 games on the Sunday were awesome, great opponents, great games and a lot of good fun. Getting to the point, I have NEVER played 6 games in a tournament and thought that I would look forward to playing 4 of them if we met in another tournament…….NEVER!

4 of my opponents were awesome, great fun, great interesting games, I swapped some phone numbers with 2 of them and I would gladly play any of those 4 again in any tourney.

That might sounds strange but in most tourneys I seem to get paired up with pedantic painful people who have no social skills/don’t know their army/are 12/are mentally12/cheat or are just wankers.

And that is why I thought that GT07 was the best tourney I have ever played in, it wasn’t the prizes, the missions, the rules pack, it was the people, the players, the TO and assistants. They were the ones that made the event


Congrats

I would like to congratulate GW for putting on the event, Matt and the other TO’s for taking the time to run the events and also the players who took the time to come out and play some games, I can only hope you guys enjoyed it as much as I did…..thanks

Congrats also to the other place getters, I was certainly surprised when they called my name for a place, I was hoping for top 10 but I never thought I would come close to top 3, I certainly had a stupid grin on my face for many hours after.

Thanks also to the guys who commented that they had seen my army diary and were looking forward to some battle reps, It was good to get some feedback and know that people read the semi-coherant stuff that I write



Lastly, I just want to touch on some minor improvements that I thought could make an event more enjoyable

1 – Player pack – It was mentioned that many hadn’t read it, when I bought my ticket the guys from Chermside ensured I knew where to find it and that I do need to read it, maybe a printout could be provided upon ticket purchase, Im not too sure what is the best solution (see 3)

2 – ‘unpainted armies will be kicked out’ – Lets face it, Its never going to happen, maybe just a point deduction for each game would be better, that way it can be followed up on and most people don’t like to come last, so maybe that’s a better threat/incentive

3 – Missions – I think putting the exact missions in the player pack would be a good incentive for someone to read the pack, also it means that everyone should have a copy of the missions instead of playing a mission that is only in the big rulebook (that noone brings) and not in the BoM book (which most people use these days)

4 – Reserves/Escalation – I have hated reserves for 8 (?) years now and continue to hate it because it gives huge advantages to certain armies over others. In saying that though the 4th game was reserves with take and hold and It was the only reserves game I have EVER enjoyed…..why? well, it was because there was an objective (take and hold) as well as reserves so you only had to get to the center of the table to contest the game, whereas the 3rd game was reserves with just ‘kill the enemy’


Final note

Some have criticized the way the comp/sports points were allocated, but I think it is hard for anyone to comment on it until the final standings/placings/points have been posted to see how the final positions were influenced by them. I thought they were clear and an interesting way of doing it, I think sports/comp is the hardest part to integrate into any tourney but it is a part that does need to be there IMHO.


A long post I know, but I wanted to put my opinion out there, thanks for reading…if you did

Congrtas to all place getters, if it takes place next year they may have to look at a larger place?...
Good to see so many new faces playing, seen drop pods and a few other non GW items along with LOTS of unpainted stuff.
Hopefully the tournament scene in the local area picks up a few more participants after the good showing

It's actually quite impressive to see the situation taken so positivley, I can imagine it would be just as easy for people to spit tacks over it, create a flame thread etc about it, but instead theres compliments and friendlyness; nice.

Well the result was obvious (once someone actually read the GT pack - as Mango pointed out, that wasn't many, me included). I'm more than happy with 2nd, and it was good to see Mango do so well with the bonus points.

After all, not all Qld GT players try to hold on to an award they don't deserve...

As I mentioned mate, I was astounded when they called my name for 2nd place, I was just yakking with some of the guys, I certainly didnt expect to place anywhere. In the end someone pointed out that there was an error and it was sorted. Delrogue and I go back a few years and I think we would both agree that the place and prize are a secondary concern to some good hard fought enjoyable games, so there was no grief there and congratz to him for (I assume) being the best general and overall 2nd out of 60 people

Yes, it was a mark of the maturity of the TO and players involved that it was sorted out so amicably.

Overall had a great time, 3 wins and 3 losses and alot more experience with Eldar. Thanks again to my opponents and to Matt for stepping up again and running the event.

Terrific to have such a great turnout and depth to the field, was plesently surprised and was stoked to play 3 guys i had never faced before who were quite good in sports and tactics.

Credit to all the winners and well done Delrouge for tailoring your force to event, a clever move but i daresay you still would have done very well with your standard list.

And on a personal note, as I said to Tooold, any tourney where you get wins against Queensland's finest is a great tourney - very happy to go from 50th out of 51 in GT 2005 to mixing it with the big boys in GT 2007 (all the more because they are great sports!)

Minor hicups in seeding results painting and scoring systems aside, great tourney and I will be back next year, assuming i havent discovered girls or extreme sports.

I don't tend to post much, but this time a couple of huge thank you's need to be said

Firstly, thanks you to all the guys I played this weekend. I'm limited to only a couple of tourneys lately, so it was great that I got to have 6 brilliant matches against challenging and allround nice people. This may be the first tourney where I have had NO problems against ANY opponent. I agree with Mango.. this may well be the best tourney to date on that alone.

Secondly, thank you to all who voted for my army in players choice. I've done tourneys for 10 years (I won my first one in '97 against MATT BONA!!) but didn't have a best painted trophy!! It's been a thorn in my side (and a source of mockery!) So thank you all - reason 2 for the best tourney vote.

Thirdly, the end result. A huge props to David for his sportsmanship at the end. I don't think it mattered as much to him and Mango as it did to others, but you can't ask for a more graceful settlement than we saw yesterday. Summed up the general gamesmanship of the whole event I thought.
And of course my third place (which I freely admit was helped enormously by my painting score, so thank you all again)

I know the system left a lot to be desired, but knowing Matt as i do, let me assure you he was as frustrated with it as you all were. A final thank you to him for putting up with a lot to keep this thing running smoothly.

Now you know why I don't post a lot.
I ramble.

I think that this years GT was one of the biggest surprises I have had in some time.

After attending the 2005 event and being somewhat disappointed at the focus and level of prize support I gave it a pass last year. Upon hearing that the 2006 event was better and run by Matt I decided to give it a go this year.

So very glad I did. One of the most enjoyable events I have been to and I will be making time to go next year.

As to the new system for scoring, I think it needs some fine tuning and streamlining, but it seemed to work as far as I can tell.

That was my first tourny in about 3 years and my first GW event. It was a little disapointing after spending all night finishing off some Vostroyans to see unpainted models appearing, however there were some really nicely painted armies present and it has given me a few more new ideas (ways to spend more money )

Work willing I will be able to spend a little more time gaming on the future and will bump into some of you around the traps. I must say that my last game against Franks Orks was the BEST game I have had in years. Thanks again

I had a reasonable tourney... 4/6 good games.

I was only disappointed by one opponent who forfeited after I had pointed out 3-4 rules he didn't know/ use ( assaulting requires difficult terrain rolls/ nerfing PF initative with casualty removal/ and spreading out my army to nullify his droppodding- I allowed him to rellocate a droppod after he put it right in the corner of my deployment=he thought it couldn't scatter off the table).

Congrats to the placegetters, all hard fought games (Delrougue beat my nids, for revenge round5).

I think the system will work fine with a few refinements to the points values.....
My observations:
1. following the rulebook for results(loss/solid/crushing/victorious) really only encourages players to smash opponents (this will only discourage newer players in the long term). Making people focus on objectives may make for more competitive tactical games, which will also encourage different armies, rather than the I will just bring a list to kill my opponents....
2. the point system for the sports/composition pools seems to be about right (enough to encourage a player to try to ultilize this method of increasing their chance of winning.... ( I think the point break should be increased:
-top 50% of pool gets+2 (enough to maybe change a place or two)
-top 20% of pool gets +4 (enough to pull a draw to a win)
- top 10% of pool gets+7 (enough to pull a loss to a good win)

The painting pool was severely underrated (with only 3 players getting +3 pts) this is not enough to encourage painters to enter......(if they know they are not a top 20% general?) Having a best painted award to seperate it out (players choice) goes someway to doing this, but the format needs to be reviewed.. The TO changed the format to a more democratic 3,2,1, player vote system (better than the format in the package- (TO selection- then player vote- open to subjective opinion/criticism).....The only quibble I have with the vote system is once the tourney reaches 70 players it becomes unwieldly in a short time..... I an an experienced tourney goer and I quickly walked the room noted the 5-6 armies that took my eye and then went back for a closer look to defin final rankings.... I can imagine the chaos of a new player trying to examine 70 armies, jostling with 69 others and give a educated guess at painting- alittle disconcerting for the great detail painter who gets overlooked when their army is in a dingy unlit corner, and a flashy army gets more votes becauese it has better light or better position or has massive centerpieces..... (not me by the way, I convert and have never been a good painter and had a windo table so had great lighting ).

I think the painting could be self-vetted in this situation with the players getting a 3.2.1. vote and instead of every one putting out there army only the people who want to try for best painted are put out. That way maybe only half the players put out their army for marking, making "getting around" a bit quicker. and the really nice armies can be appreciated a bit more/ scrutinised. Then the people who know they are ill prepared/unfinished can leave there stuff in the case (for round4?) to leave the time for the well painted to be examined more..... (this could also be perhaps vetted by the TO team if an army was partially unpainted/ non GW etc)


I think the system is not as bad as it was rumoured to be.....(the cheese was there, but I think it wasn't much worse than previous)..... and the final results were a vindication of the system, in that, the bonus points did make a difference......

Nope, flashing lights didn't help me garner any votes at all


I think this was more a result of the players involved than the system. Given the number of players I encountered who had not even seen the player pack, I suspect the cheese level might have been higher if more people had known.

Sounds like a great idea. Personally I like the round to round scoring of painting under the old NTS system. If you have a nice army or even an average one it should be reflected in your overall score even if it is only a small percentage. Recognition is good.

As for the beauty pagent, I think that a offer of self-vetting or some TO vetting should happen in tournaments with large (20+) player numbers. Would save time and make me less dizzy than looking at 40+ armies in 15 minutes.

The organisers are supposed to pick the finalists for best painted, so the top 5 or 10 or whatever, based on how many armies they think are a potential for players choice.

then when you vote you only vote for one of them.

its a new system so some stuff is not going to be done 100% correct, but the new way of pre screening for best painted will speed it up as people have suggested would be a good thing.

new GT players are supposed to come from conflict, where they are all about smashing each other, so i don;t think you will have any delicate wallflowers stay away becuase they might lose, everyone i see at conflct is there to win.

also, all games bar seek and destroy are objective based, you need to get objectives to win, some of them just also have VPs, which will help win. i don;t see this as a bad thing, its part of the core of the game.

also still don;t get some ozzies hatred of escalation/reserves, i;ve noticed since i started going over for events in 2002.

congrats to the winners.

AL

I dissagree with that comment, as a painter - its never been about how it will help you in the rankings. If you're attending for those reasons, you're not a painter imo - you're someone looking for easy points whos primary concern isnt painting at all, but is placing high. Its like a musician whos only in it for the money, but can play reasonably well.

To be honest theres usually only 3 or 4 armies at most that are a cut above the rest anway, I dont think only the top 3 is too few, infact more than that and you start to take away from the reward you offer those people that have reached that level.

As much as I would love for it to have an equal points boost and sports and comp, I think its probably about right. I'd rather play a nice guy with an ugly army than someone I want to stab with his beautifully painted figures, and comp sort of kicks in as a handycap and goes hand in hand with actually playing the game.
Also, you dont need to have been playing for very long to draw up a friendly list and be a nice guy, but you generally need to have been around a while to be one of the top painters, I like a system that is a bit easier on the newer guys in that respect, fresh meat is what keeps the hobby churning after all .

its a new system so some stuff is not going to be done 100% correct, but the new way of pre screening for best painted will speed it up as people have suggested would be a good thing.

The problem with pre screening is it then relies on someones preferences (for: detailing/converting/use of colour/ banners etc) this is an esp slippery slope if only 5 end up being voted on....

Fine if you have 3 really good painters..... but if there is more depth and you really need 10-15 armies that should be voted on, and only 5 are chosen? who ends up the vent for all grumbling.....


elite level painting is an eye opener in itself, but favouritism/status/history (good and bad) may lead to a very big headache for TO's who have a hard enough time as it is...... finding a happy medium and getting as much off the TO plate is always a good thing... speaking from experience....

Anyone know if/when/where the results will be posted. There's nothing up yet for 2007 on the GW GT results site.

Matt Bona was the main TO - he promised to have the results up on WAU asap. I will be speaking with him Friday, so can mention it then if nothing eventuates beforehand.

Well through my great connections ive just learned i got 35/68 (35 points all battle no bonus). Ah well, at least ive enrolled in the Potts academy for appropriately tailoring lists for respective tourneys.

Since you got no bonus points, I'd be looking at that as 35/60, myself

I wasn't really expecting any bonus points, and managed 33 battle points. One of my better battle performances for a while, yay!

Either by coincidence or poor memory i think i finished 35th out of 68 and also received 35 battle points. Yeah, no bonus points is a killer.

What i'd really like to know is who got bonus points before I comment on the system.

Fair call. They have the results i cant imagine it will be much longer.

I got 40pts from battle plus 5pts from being in the upper 20% range for sports.