This year's Lords was clearly the best yet.

While Mark certainly hasn't even had a chance to look over the resukts of our feedback forms, I thought there might be some comments you guys would like to put up for discussion.

Overall I thought we did well. The organisation ran pretty smoothly, with plenty of notice to get such awesome advertising support in White Dwarf (iirc it was 4 months with our full colour page) along with timely advance publishing of our player's pack allowed you guys to know how we'd run it, what missions were involved, etc.

So far I haven't heard a single complaint about the missions themselves at all. I've heard quite a few positive comments over the choose your own adventure mission so far.

Of course, there was some discussion o0n the scorting system for battle as we implemented a more simplified "Win all/lose all" system instead of a three tier "Minor Victory-Major Victory- Annihilation" type structure.

Of course, we also used to run a three-tiered mission objective system as well - with Primary objectives worth just over half your BP total, a secondary worth close to half of that, and the traditional bonuses such as "kill enemy general" for the remainder.

SO in an attempt to simplify, we removed *both* 3 tiered structures. Have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater - should we retain a 3 tier Victory system?

Composition - overall I was very ghappy with the panel scoring. I thoight they did a good job and it didn't feel too harsh to my reading. We did review the comp scorees and adjusted a couple, but I think our Panel did an excellent j0ob as I asked them to be generous and that seems to have helped bring the average up.

SPorts - While it is true a "tick and flick" system can lead to a lot of high sports scores, the "Best Sports" vote element made differentiation simplicity itself.

Timing - while we finished a little overtime, I thought overall we did well with our timing.

Paint scoring. FOr the first yeasr ever I am quite satisfied that I have done a consistent job across the field. A few of you were kind enough to compliment me on taking the time to go throuigh the checklist with every player. I am nsure I spent at least 5 minutes with each of you (except those few who were marked when at lunch or during player's choice). With 87 players, 5 minutes each, I needed over 7 hours, it is no great surprise that I nee4ded to start marking right away in the first round, as I did, and still had a dozen or so left to mark in the final round. Of course there were TO calls interru[ting the process, not to mention the other details one needs to handle when running an ecvent (thank Ghod for Mark and Narda! Props to them once again!!) No wonder I didn't seem to get to watch many games or spend much time catching uip with people. No wonder I felt pretty exhausted when sorting out the prize-giving.

I think it would be fair to say I was being quite harsh in my paint scoring, husbanding my discretionary points like they were gold coins. However, I also feel I managed to apply this consistently - you were all marked in a similar way.

Venue - unfortunately we're losing this very convenient venue, so any complaints will become irrelevant (light was always a concern - if I have a choice, I will seek a venue with better light). I thought we were on a good wicket there, the bistro/bar and affordable pricing as well as being less than 10 minutes from home made this a perfect spot for me to run a tourny. Being so close meant I was able to actually get to the venue without invoking Miller time....

Being a member also meant I could get a park underground close to the podium as well...

Sad to be leaving them, obviously.

I am keen to look for an inner city location if possible as I understand that's fairly popular especially for travellers who want to get a taste of Sydney nightlife whilst they are here.

Obviously somewhere reasonably adjacent to decent accomodation would be preferable as well.

Prizes - yes we goofed slightly on the default system this year, but that's mostly addressed now (as far as I can manage now). We'll endeavour to do better next year.

What did you guys think of the trophies? I thought they were excellent and anticipate sourcing next year's trophies from Stewart's again. Every major prize category carried a trophy along wioth the top 3 in both fields. Is that too much?

Entry fee: I think some would liked to have seen a few more prizes given out, this would have been easier to manage if I had been running a higher entry fee. Did the $10 saving make a difference to most of you? Or did you not care if it was $50 anyway?

It would definitely have made my life a whole lot easier if charging $50 this year.

And if we have to pay a lot more for the venue next year, how supportive would players be of an even higher entry fee? For example, if in a position where I could offer more prize support, giving stuff to half of you, as well as covering the cost of a more expensive venue, if I charged say $60?

Or is $50 an important limit?

LMK wat you think and what we might change for next year. And what was good that we should keep?

I don't think that "Pick Your Own Adventure" should be used in a tournament.

The comp scores seemed odd.

With regards to next years entry fee, I'd happily pay $50. $60 might be stretching for those who have to book air fares as well as accomodation.

Whilst I enjoyed the pick your own, I would be interested to look at how many draws resulted - whilst draws happen a mission that has a higher likelihood of that happening is not necessarily a good thing in the 2nd to last round.

Mission scoring seemed fine. Comp scores seemed ok but with a few anomalies but still a few queries regarding an apparent 'codex ranking' and like lists being quite different marks (i.e and just an example that stuck out to several I talked to - David Ts Guard vs Alistair K's Guard)
No doubt both were hard lists but perhaps some of the subtlety and force mutiplying effects of David's were overlooked.

$50 would be fine I think.

I'm still not sure how I feel about the 'Secret Orders' mission, but my gut tells me that it shouldn't be used in a Tournament setting, and that everybody should play the same mission with the same objectives.

Also, I'd happily pay $50 and would *probably* be okay with $60 but a lot of people who live interstate/don't work full time as I do may struggle with that cost.

i loved the choose your own adventure, and while i chose the wrong primary, i would love to play it at lords next year (if i make it)

The only real problem was all the craters and area terrain that didn't block line of sight. Now abit of that was my fault for running a jetbike heavy list, but several games i felt like i couldn't move, in fact in one game both myself and my opponent killed the same amount of jetbikes, while lots of terrain is great, abit of room to move around is good to

Just on that note about terrain, I thought some tables had far too much, whilst some tables were severely lacking terrain. Hills are fine and all, but a few more forests and craters on some tables wouldn't go astray.

Alex, has to rely apon US, the gaming public and local clubs, for terrain, and so was restricted by terrain placement by who brought what tables, I mean, you don't want all of (say, my terrain) spread over 40 tables! You would want them in a small area so it would be simple to packup (imagine searching that room for a hill you own).

Another way to answer your question, why didn't you bring any terrain


Also, Alex, as a side note, when making an anouncement point your head towards the audiance and not to the back of the stage, eazily half of the people getting prizes, we had no-idea what they were for.

Also, why hadn't you worked out the prizes before the end of gaming? It was almost an hour and a half await after the last game whilst you were sorting that all out.

I liked the secret missions thing, keep it up.

I dont think people who were invited to High Lords should have been allowed to complete in the Open. I think you should have stuck to your guns about not giving Hilly the trophy if he won. Other than that, it was pretty good on the whole.

Agreed


Loved the choose your own objective was awesome, i think many went for Kill points in 1 way or another tho. (i personally did).
the comp scores were generous i think, the absolute cheese getting there deserved score, and the Hard lists getting a bit more points than normal as it's hard, not unbeatable.

The level of painting skill was amazing. although you did mark hard, but fair to the criteria, but on that note, maybe to many bonus points for being a Uber painter and being not so Uber, it draws a large line in the sand of whether you can win the torni or not just via how fantastic of a painter you are (which i think then makes it a small detractor, like saying, paint well or just slap 3 colors on), rather than, painted your army well. (& played of coarse) it felt like, what you lack in paint skill you must make up with a soft list...

That's just my opinion. and of coarse it can be bias, but you asked for feed back

All that Aside, it was a great day, and thankyou all TO's for putting such a great event together! and to all my opponents for giving me some great lolz.

Would be fine with 50$ for new location i think going over that is a bit much, if that means less prize then so be it.

I like the mission scoring, it was nice and simple. As for secret mission i am not a big fan of it. Me and my opponent chose 90% and kill points, the surest way to ensure that if you obtain your objective your opponent would probably not obtain his.



I agree with this but trying to score comp from just looking at a list will always be hard. My list was more like a weapon rack than a hammer, and you wont really know what combination of weapons i will pull until you face it so it was hard for comp panel to rate it correctly. I dont really think the panel got it that wrong anyway, i essentially got 2/5. The only person i think who really got badly rated in comp was Simon Rainbow, he got rated lower than me and his army much softer than mine. But hey no system of comp is perfect.

Alex, you might find some interesting reading re: Lords feedback here.

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/

Very happy with my first trip to High Lords Alex - it was a very well run tourny.

Real shame about the venue, but there must be similar clubs (rsl, golf and other sporting) that have similar options. As an interstate traveller, I'm ok with it being in the burbs a bit more (since I did all my "night life" stuff at the venue, as long as there are accomodation options nearby.

Pricing - once air travel, accomm, taxis, airport long term parking and food were added in the extra $10 to $20 doesn't really worry me.

Missions - I don't mind the secret missions but I can make it more of a challenge for your TO skills. Have a random mix of the two missions and give them out to each player just before beginning (after deployment). Extra bit of randomness instead of tailoring a mission to suit yourself then. Have you considered any of the ones from the Battle Missions book (with modifications obviously)?

Terrain - this does need improving. I'd be happy to help but I can't being interstate. The reason Quarter Master has grown so rapidly (and sold out so quickly) is in no small part to Rob's terrain that he uses. It is plentiful and varied. Guess the NSW 40k guys need to start pulling their finger out and get cracking (this'll also help out Krefey for Cancon as well).

And apart from moving the bar closer (right next to my table if possible), I had a great time!

Wow; that blog is like a poor imitation of Steleks 'Yes the truth hurts' Nerd rage in its puriest form lol!

I like the fact he gloats about beating Julian who was both deathly sick; hungover and a hour late for his game...

I actually was a bit dissapointed with the choose your own mission; I figured if I could kill 90% of my opponents models for example, I could probably hold the objectives. And that if I could hold more than my opponents objectives, I could probably hold a single one.

I ended up picking kill points and my home objective, as did my opponent, as did everyone else that I spoke to

The mission concept sounds great, but I would change what the secret orders were.

I know this isn't directed at me, but i brought up the terrain issue, and i realise that keeping a groups terrain together is the only way to keep thing from going missing, and to help make the packing up go more smoothly, and it might have just been me with the problem, but there was several dark eldar armies, and one other saim-hann, so the terrain would have been a problem for them.

But yes, if it's possible to bring terrain, we should all pitch in and bring it, i'll be working out how to bring some with me next year

My believe is that every feed back should be taken seriously, because we want to make it a better event next year. Once you read pass the e-rage, there are important points in there to consider for next year.

Now going through my list of improvements.

Win/Draw/Loss system - a new thing, but I believe it is a good thing. The points are spread properly (in my view) because a minior win -14pts, is equal to a draw with all secondary objectives and bonuses (8+3+3=14).
To be honest, if you think about it, it is the same as Minor/Major/Total (14, 14+3, 14+3+3), nothing substantial has changed from the 3 tier system, just the way it works. Minor = primary, Major = Prim+Sec, Total = Prim+Sec+all bonuses.

Composistion - close but still/never be perfect. I am not a fan of comp, but I play what is given. There are some blips in the score where paper does not match real world. I ran a basic stats of battle/comp comparison and the relationship is near 0 (for High Lords).

Sport - good, but can be improve. The bonus should be 0.5 points to find out the best sport while giving others 17.5/20 if they fulfill the sports critera. Eg. Luke is great, got max sports but no bonus. Does that deserve a 4-5 point gap?
With 0.5 bonus per vote, you have your best sport without penalising the good sports in overall.

Timing - you did great with the resources you have. nothing to complain.

Painting - I know why you did it, but marking mid game is a distraction. Only increase time and/or resource can solve this problem, but your marking critera was published and articulated well. My opinion is reduce your TO discression from 6pt to about 3-4. Nearly 1/5 of the marks is subjective for the best painted might be too much. 10% will allow you to award the best painted army without turning the event into a beauty contest, while still making painting count.

Table - We are in need to some 5th ed table. Table with lots of difficult terrain but minimal-non LOS blocking is pure pain. We need to have an alliance of clubs to share terrains for continual success of 40k tourney as a whole.

Cost - The current level is around $10/game so $50 for LoTs is not unrealistic. $50 for early bird, $55 for on the day? It should work.

Mission - Own mission is not the best for tourney. KISS is important, it does not have to be book mission, but it needs to be clear and simple. For me, the Secret Mission means I just need to wipe out the opponent to ensure I win.

Thats all, at the moment.

I wouldn't drop the choose your own mission. It is always fun to play as your constantly trying to guess what your opponent has chosen. Also that it allows players to bluff and suprise their opponents, something which is very hard to do in a normal game of 40k. Not knowing exactley what your opponent has to do to win changes the game quite a bit.

In short it is far more tactically challenging than a normal mission and that's what I like in a game.

Finished going through the first page of the feedback forms.

43% found out about the event from WargamerAU, 20% from Clubs/Friends and only 9% from White Dwarf.

54% of players like 1750 pts games, but 26% would prefer 2000 pts. Averaging the preferred game size resulted in 1778 points so it looks like 1750 pts is still the most suitable.

4/6 players liked 2hrs 30 mins for the games but 1/6 would have liked 3 hours. Of course the trouble with 3 hours is actually fitting in 3 games in one day.

I was interested to see the results for the Win/Loss/Draws scoring system as this was one of the things that was different from past practices:

24 votes for "Good. A win is a win"
32 votes for "Bad. It doesn't reflect the margin of victory"
15 votes for "Who cares? I'm here to roll dice and have fun".


Hopefully I will have the 2nd half of the form summarised by tomorrow. I'm looking forward to how people felt about the different missions.

Regards

Mark C

A couple of comments on the blog.


Bye games = different points.

I think the poster does not have all the information here. There were no byes in round one, however two players from the open played against High Lords players because two or three players were running late. One player was "promoted" for the round so that a High Lord player from Qld would not have to wait for an hour for their opponent to turn up. A second Open player got a game against the late running High Lords player.

The Open player that got maximum battle points did so because they won their game against the High Lords player who turned up about 1 hour late.

In rounds 2 - 5 exactly one player (from the Open) had a bye in each round. They did not get a game. They got the same battle and sports score as each other. They also each got consolidation in the form of their choice of a resin base pack, to make up for not having a game.

We did have a gumby organised for Sat, but it fell through. We also had two or three "no shows", including one where the players army was lost or stolen on the flight to Sydney.


Painting Scoring.

The blog implies that we deliberately took down the Players Pack or Painting Scoring as part of a cover up. The only changes to the site since before the event were to add the results and to take down some of the pictures from 2008. The Players Pack is still up there.

Traditionally we update the Players Pack after the event to remove the bank account details, but leave the revised pack there until its time to publish the Players Pack for the following year.


Regards

Mark C

That's awful news!

Thats a kick in the teeth... who was it?

Hope it was all sorted at the least.

The battle points worked very well.

I was not a fan of the subjective scores for painting maybe you should reduce the subjective component to a smaller percentage of the overall score. Considering over half of the painting score was if you like the painting or not is alot. Reducing it to 20 - 25% might work alot better and make marking the armies quicker. Also keeping the same score between marking an army and posting the score might be nice, I was supprised when I lost about 5 point between marking and recording.

The missions were good, not to sure about the select your own mission one.

Overall the weekend went very well in my opinion.

I think that we have all the paperwork still from the event. I will see if I can find the piece of paper with the scores that Alex wrote down and make sure that your score was entered correctly.

EDIT - There was an error in the data entry for Brian's paint score. I have sent him a PM and will fix this on the Lords web site at lunchtime. The net result is that he moves up from 8th to 7th Overall. I have checked that all the other Paint/Hobby scores in the Open were entered correctly.

On the subject of data entry, it appears that there were just two mistakes over the entire weekend that were entry errors (Brian's paint score and Matthew Trivitt's round 1 battle scores swapped with his opponent which we fixed after round 2 when it was pointed out). While there were other mistakes, upon checking they all turned out to be that we correctly entered score sheets that the players incorrectly filled out (eg transposing names and scores or failing to add up correctly).
/EDIT

Regards

Mark C

Alex, I think your painting criteria and judging were superb


Michael

I actually did that, as there were a couple of pieces spread as far as the high lords.

As for terrain, if possible in the future could you please give the clubs at least 2 weeks of warning. I know it is stressful/time consuming but it would really assist in repairing terrain, and organising pick up plans (which were changed 2 or 3 times lol).

In the future (were possible) could you please and try and use all of the terrain supplied. While Area 37 supplied up to 15 tables worth, in reality only enough was pulled out to cover 8-10 tables. In addition one of the large tubs containing pieces that blocked line of sight (i.e. trees, buildings) was left untouched and could have been used to fill in some blanks.

Lastly please keep all the terrain, belonging to clubs/people within an area. It is hard enough searching for terrain that belongs to you. So far Loriness has lost a river, and i have yet to check the club stuff.


Now the Good News.
For next years Lords of Terra, i will begin to make some more Line of Sight blocking terrain. With this i will plan to make about 8-10 tables worth of terrain that will Block LOS, provide cover and annoy any opponent. If need be, and i am driving i will personally deliever these tables to the venue (providing it is within Sydney, or driving distants).

Edit: Would people like to see the Foam Rock pieces back next year???

I will get off by backside and paint up my ruins/buildings/trees, so at least I can have sufficient terrain for my table. instead of just hills and craters painted.

Re terrain issues - I need a system to coordinate what we have. One that gives the clubs time to prepare, and for us all to plan how we'll put it all together.

We are fortunate this year in being able to utilise the venue for a week for storage. Next year may require more time constrained coordination. SO we need to integrate better. What really needs to happen is that we have all the terrain available for Friday evening set up. That *almost* happened this year, so I think we can do so next time.

I propose we have a brainstorming session about 5 weeks before next year's High Lords - Area 37, WSGS, Western Warriors, and any other Sydney clubs who might come on board. And for smaller groups or individuals like Lonestar, or the Orange Boys, we can cater to allow for their best tables to be shown off.

Also As Richard will be involved as part of next year's TO team, and he felt I had made some errors, particularly with pack-up, I think his input will lead to a more robust method for next year.

Battle Points:
For starters, I liked the original tiered system with a minor win/loss tier added in. The only problem I had in LOT 2009 was that the secondary was worth far too many points and could result in the losing player actually earning more BP than the winner.

ie. if player one achieved a a minor win and player two had the minor loss but got the secondary mission, player 2 would end up scoring the equivalent to a major win and would usually earn more battle points overall than player 1 who actually won the primary mission (before factoring in any of the extra bonus points).

The current idea for 8 points for the draw, 2 points for a major loss to 14 points for a major win is good, but I'd also have 5 points for minor loss and 11 points for minor win. Keep the secondary at 3 points, and leave the bonus points as they are and I think it would work very well.

Painting:
Whilst Alex made a champion effort job marking all those armies, I think it was better last year when Mark and Alex both marked paint scores seperately and then averaged their scores. Everyone will see an army differently, so having two people marking painting removed some of the personal bias towards some armies and resulted in more reasonable paint scores across the board.



Terrain:
This was by far my biggest issue at Lords. Whilst there was plenty of cover to go around, out of all 5 games, I only had a single LOS blocking piece of terrain that I could hide a whole squad behind.
Despite the fact I was playing Tau and had great fields of fire, there were plenty of times I found myself wanting something to hide my Kroot, Vespid, and carbine Firewarrior squad behind whilst they moved up the board.

From the stuff I bought along, I had 6 decent sized pieces of good LOS blocking terrain that were left in the crate unused which was a shame, cause they could have been put to good use.

I intend to bring along a lot more terrain next year - there is already plenty of city terrain around, so I will be focusing more on a good mix of jungle, desert and ice terrain, as well as some themed non human terrain. I hope to have both my necron and Tau themed sets completed, possibly the Eldar and Tyranid terrain too.


Missions:
Overall, they were pretty good.

The idea of the secret missions was interesting, but as it is, I don't think it's good for tournament play as the current choices are not varied enough.

I would consider something like the following lineup to add variety between the missions and make it far more interesting (and harder to guess what your opponent has chosen):
Recon - get more units into your opponents deployment zone than they get into yours
Take and Hold - capture the objective in the center of the table and ensure no enemy units are within 6" of the objective at the end of the game
Seize ground - capture more table quarters than your opponent.
War of Attrition - break the enemy (cause at least 75% casualties), but ensure you lose less than 50% of your own forces.
VIP's - Pick any 2 units in your army - you must keep both these units alive until the end of the game.

With the above, there is plenty of variety between each mission and there is something to cater for all armies. It also keeps you guessing at what missions your opponent may have taken. Less prone to draw hammer as well.

I just love the armchair criticisms... beautiful stuff indeed.

The fguy is piss#d about his paint score yet admites only 80% of his termagants were finished.

His reading of the paint scoring = fail.

So I can't help him. I wish his mate had given the prize back for encouragement if it pissed him off so much. Perhaps he could donate it to wagga like a real gamer?

Kudos to Mark and Alex; Mark will be sorely missed as he was a great admin fiend

Also thanks to everyone who brought terrain; especially Jason Miller supplying 5 tables from his own stash and helping cart the Area 57 Terrain to and from the event - for someone who couldn't make the tournament due to family; the fact he came and helped solve the terrain issue - big props from me!

Agree, a big thanks to Jason Miller is needed for his help.

My other bit I forgot to add in my sheet.

My second day saw 2 fantastic games. To pick between those two was incredibly hard, I would have scored both 5/5 in a normal score sheet.

I mentioned it to Mark as he walked past and he said it was not compulsory, though I went to ask him if I could put both down and he had dissappeared.


The other thing was paint scoring during games. Alex judged armies during 3 of my games. With Damien, Scott A and Scott G. My games with the first two of those both finished on turn 5 due to running out of time (game against Scott A it would have made a difference in BP's). Game with Scott G finished on turn 4 due to wipe out, but it still finished close to time.

I'm not sure how to reconcile that though. Possibly asking some people to stay back if possible or during lunch.


Once again, smallish stuff but food for thought.

I dunno how to do paint scoring differently. This way players knew exactly where there score was coming from. While it takes some time out of your game, it is the same for almost everybody. Certainly in the High Lords everyone's games were interrupted by paint scoring.

As I said earlier, I need about 5 minutes per gamer. I am unsure how even ten minutes out of your game time is the sole factor in your game finishing on time.

As for Mark doubling up on painting last year, while it was definitely helpful, it was also abundantly clear that I was picking up more detail. In the end we pretty much had me making the final decision on paint scores last year anyway. Essentially it meant we both needed to view every single army, losing much of the potential time gained by using 2 judges.

Of course, next year we'll be back to 2 paint judges - Richard is a pretty good painter himself - far better than me - and I expect to utilise his skills extensively.

Again I point out that anyone looking to volunteer some time to assist us next year is more than welcome. Many nof the issues that crop up are simply down to the small size of the TO team.

As to gumbies - I like the idea touted sonmewhere that we can offer a free meal as well as the chance of games for a gamer willing to serve as possible gumby. If it needs to be said, there was never any onus on a gumby to field a fully painted army. Assembled and essentially wysiwyg is all we ask.

My problem is having no one else to ask, I did put it out there amongst several people, no one responded. So ask around, next year, nominate your mate for gumby...

The new scoring method means you have to focus on the primary objective and that is the key. If Player A destroy 90% of Player B army but Player B hold the objectives, he should win because he played to the mission.
Even with a loss, you can gain secondary and the bonuses resulting in 14-8 which is similar to minor win in the old system.
The new system means, if you win, you will always have more points than your opponent, which I believe is important. Because win is a win, specially against a tough opponent. It also gives less chance to submarine

I really liked the Primary and secondary mission idea, but What would have been cooler in my opinion would have been to have both the primary and secondary mission Weigh the same e.g. 8/4/2 for both of them, making it more worthwhile to try play both missions rather than denying one to your opponent and getting the other.

I dunno, I just found in one of the missions where you had to capture table quarters by having more units in that quarter than your enemy did, and the one where only scoring could hold a quarter if you had no enemy unites in that quarter, it was easy to deny those points.

On the other hand it could cause problems in leading to a lot of draws.

Well a lot of rage on this site because of some thoughts on a tournament. Not complaints, thoughts. Ya I’m upset about my paint score but *shrug*, so Alex didn’t like my paint job and I don’t think he followed his on guidelines? I’ve seen some comments about that here. Ya I should have been docked points for some of my extra gants only having 3 colors and black bases but the vast majority of my army was based and painted to a decent standard (and looking at the guidelines on the document we‘ll notice it says “majority of your models painted to at least 3 colors & is the army fully painted (3 colors and WYSIWG)”. I haven’t found anyone at the tournament, on the blog or here who has disagreed with that and that I should of gotten a higher score. Neither here nor there however as that was my only “rage” so to speak and I was happy with the compliments I received on my models, conversions and bases. .

To the issues of byes. I know you had shoo-in player(s) and I know one didn’t turn up having contact with this person. That’s fine, it happens. I said that. The player who played Julian (which wasn’t me Aeon, good reading btw) and got 19 battle points and the other player who was referenced by Mark got an advantage over the other players who get Byes if they are given less points. It sucks that people got Byes but as I said, I understand that happens and it’s the inconsistency I would like to have seen changed.

This is why I avoid wargamerAU. I post thoughts on a tournament and some individuals here understood what it was about, feedback just like in this thread here (and you’ll find most of what I’ve said on the blog said here by separate people), not raging. And I get flamed for it. Did I mention names or say it was #### or anything? No. Ya my feelings for the tournament were soured over some things (not to say this) but as I said multiple times I had a great time, some great games and met some great people.

This is something I want to highlight - and something I agree with entirely.

Stuff 'Oh poo poo this, poo poo that.'

That right there, is what this tournament was about. Good games, good people, good times.

Prizes were an added bonus, and scores were there to give more intense and fun games against players who by their similar scores would give you a good challenge.

I still remember fondly my game with Mr Satmaka, by far one of the most crazy and intense games that I've ever played as through each of our turns who I thought had the upper hand kept changing over and over again. Great bloody game, that said, all the games I had on the weekend were amazing.

You might want to re-think the tone you use to post then because when I read your blog it came across as very negative (even abusive in places). I don't know you, but I formed an opinion of you based on your blog very quickly. Most of what you put down were'nt "thoughts" but outright TO bashing in my opinion. If I was the TO and copped that, I'd put you to the top of not playing next year list very quickly.

Really - I am not seeing it - the rage I was reading was on your blog



I did not see your army (or if I did do not know which it was) but I am confused how you believe an army that by your own admission had a number of unfinished gaunts can be considered 'fully painted' . Even if those Gaunts were tervigon spawners they are still part of the army and should be judged as such. Thats your call when you decide to take a Tervigon. Luke Jenson did and managed to have his masses of generaters all done to exactly the same standard as the rest of his army. As a TO I don't know about the rest of the marks (not having seen it) but I would not have given the 3 marks for fully painted either. Would have also had trouble with basing marks if some of basing was unfinished or just black bases.

Biggest problem I had with your 'thoughts' is you admit you knew the hobby component before the event, still choose to enter and then rage about the hobby component. Its a bit like choosing to go watch a movie when you have read the book and then complain about the storyline.

Cheers buddy, I enjoyed our game as well, it was close but I was relying too much on one big mob of 30 boys spread out over 2 objectives which you seer council wiped off quite promptly. I had a blast playing your gorgeous army and I will work out that bit of Satmaka Kryptonite known as Eldars!

As far as the tournament goes, I throughoughly enjoyed myself all weekend. I thought all the missions were cool (Love the "Choose your own Adventure" though I agree some new missions will be cool to breathe some life into it) I thought the sports system was really cool as it was really easy to get full marks but you had to have an awesome game to get those extras. I was happy with my paint score, I was a bit miffed that out of all the models he picked up, he chose one of my not-so-great boyz, though I think that was deliberate and looking at Jensen's army, even his spare gaunts were goregeous.

I agree with Adam J from Area 37, the clubs should co-ordinate and organise terrain, a few weeks before the event so we can transport it to the venue and set up themed tables. This tournament is getting bigger and bigger it seems, and we're getting more interstaters coming (even in the open) so I think us NSWers should step up our terrain. I am endeavouring to actually paint up mine for next year, and get some crazy LOS blocking trees and buildings happening. Clubs and individuals should start thinking about setting up specific tables set to specific themes and perhaps could be given a prize for best table. I guess my only complaint is that I didn't get to play on that orky themed table just cause it was doused in awesome sauce!

Lookin forward to next year.

hey alex, on the subject of gumby's if you need one for next year im willing to put my hand up, i mainly go to tournie's to play new people and saterday night shenanigans, so yeah, i'de be keen to help out in that way if you need one

Are you talking about this one?


If so, my brother was the one who made that set and he'll appreciate the positive feedback. We mainly use it for Gorkamorka games. We'll definitely be bringing it along again next year, along with much more cool stuff like it.

Knowing about it does not mean you have to like it or does not want to change it in the future. Death and Taxes comes to mind.
He has his opinion and his believe, he just want change to happen.

As for painting, I think what we understand as 3 colour + basing, is a little different from what he though. He will have time to improve the models as time goes. Kirby, PM Alex and see where you loose points and improve on it next time.

Just because someone has a different opinion that is out of your norm, does not mean we should ignore or poo poo it. Listen and see what could be improved.

I must admit to being surprised when Alex said he couldn't tell what Kirby's commander was. It was the only Hive Tyrant on the table..

Took over half an hour between me and Damien to do both of us.

Also on the note of terrain while i'm at it.

One of the biggest advantages my army could have in a game is LoS blocking terrain.

I had two games where this was an issue. one game I didn't get the chance to launch my Deathstrikes anyway (Krey killed them in his turn 2 before mine) and the other deployment favored me anyway.

I think terrain was fairly evenly spread. the draw just had it that some people never got the mix.


Tho my sister had conscripted herself to making terrain for us Orange boys, with some fun LoS blocking cyber fences which we hadn't bothered to paint, a massive stone henge, forest sections, buildings and all manner of fun stuff, as well as fix up some of our existing terrain.

I guess some will take more than others, specially if your work is extreemly good.
Marking some armies during the presentation time (at the start of the second day) would be an option to minimise interference. Otherwise, after game 3 (end of the first day) could also be utilise, as people finished at different time.

Further information from the feedback forms, in particular with respect to the missions ...

Breakthrough

90% of the players rated this mission okay or better. There was a clear result in 93% of the games.


Kill Points

Kill Points had 93% approval this year, compared to only 80% approval in 2009 when the first mission was Kill Points seeded by starting kill points. Does this mean that players like the meta-game balanced by a kill points mission without seeding?

100% of the games in High Lords and 79% of the games in the Open event had a clear winner in this mission.


Capture and Control

Capture and Control at 84% was less popular than the 2009 mission “Capture the flag” which had a 97% approval rating. “Capture the flag” was a Capture and Control mission where your opponent’s objective was worth more than your own.

Checking the results in Overlord, 84% of the games in High Lords and 71% of the games in the Open had a result iin this mission.


Secret Orders

Secret Orders was rated okay or better by 75% of the players. 10% of the players didn't like it, and 15% thought that it shouldn't be used at a tournament.

Checking the results in Overlord, 63% of the games in High Lords and 79% of the games in the Open had a result in the Secret Orders mission (ie primary mission was a win/loss rather than a draw).

"Protect the Precious" (keep enemy out of 6" zone around your home objective) was the primary objective for 45% of the players, and the secondary objective for another 17%.

The most common mix was Protect the Precious primary and Annihilate secondary mission.

The least common objective was Blood, with only 3% of the players choosing this as their primary mission and 10% choosing this as their secondary mission.

With 75% approval, the Secret Orders mission has potential but it definitely needs tweaking. Obviously, Protect the Precious was still considered the easiest mission despite us making it 6" radius contesting zone.


Sieze Ground

Was the most popular mission with 97% approval. 88% of the games had a clear result in this mission.


Regards

Mark C