In regards to the precious, 6" was fine, just needed to at least be 8-12" from the table edge/corner.

Just to easy to form a solid wall in the corner etc.

As he seemed to have more kill points than me i elected that as no1
and ended up being 1" away from the 6", but i still achieved kill points... = draw

but was well played none the less and great fun as my weird boy decided to teleport a whole squad of boyz to the other side of the table....

Bit hard to be 12" off board edge when you have to place it in your DZ in a pitch battle.
Maybe just needs to be 12" off board edge and not in DZ. But this will push the mission towards capture 5 objectives.
Victorians had played similar mission, see what their feedback was like?

Nzarra said this part well:

.." 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."
---


Kirby, The way it reads you make it sound like I gave out about 6 prizes, some of them wrong, and don't know how to mark painting scores when I marked it with you.

The time to tell me you disagree with my paint score is *when I am marking it*

I saw your blog estimate - if your army was finished to the standard of your good stuff then that would be at least correct in overall, however you miss the detail..

The reason there is 2 points for categories like details is to reward ppl for picking out details like eyes, any toxin sacs, or gun decorations or grenades etc with 1 pt. The extra point is when they make an extra effort on those details, the eyes being an excellent example. Most of us pick out eyes, so long as they are neat, you get the point. But if it's "omigod, he's lensed the eyes as well as picking them out" it's extra effort, and so gets the second point. Believe me, there were armies that passed this test and got the extra point.

So each of those sections where you assume 2points, you probably only get 1 point.

SOund too harsh to you? At least the whole room was being marked the same way. *Everyone* has the opportunity to query my scoring. I specifically asked in the players pack (which despite your snide remarks is available on our website) for people to be prepared top *sell * their army painting to me. I even suggested writing down a point by point argument based on the guidelines - the same ones I used when scoring your painting - and showing it to me when scoring painting.

As for this other nonsense about my paint scoring interrupting your game - since unch was next you were welcome tyo pointy out to me that I had held you up and could you have some extra time? I'd have freely granted your request especially if opponent is open to the suggestion.

So at least twice you had the chance to correct these "problems" yourself. Instead of having some gumption to ask me properly - hey Alex, I wasn't expecting that, I was thinking more like a 24 or whatever you said in the blog. You could have tried to catch me at lunch if timing was an issue, simply said - can I speak to you after the game.

Other people actually requested I don't mark their painting due to time issues, you might have asked similarly, no one mentioned to me you were only on turn 4.

And even after I "held you up" you had a chance to say "hey - we need more time"

you did not get 12 pts from the 1st two questions. Sure you got 6pts for question 1,but on question 2 I gave you 3/6 because the army wasn't "fully painted".

I can't reward the great basework on your bases on the centrepieces if the bases on your gant bases aren't all even textured. so no extra for basing

pretty sure I did give the full 4 pts for conversions.

I won't generally won't give discretionary points to unfinished armies. If finished there'd be at least 3pts there too, bc I did like the overall army.

Yes i know that is true, like you said or somthing similar, good idea, just needs some tweak

Honestly, good stuff Alex, clear and reasonable decisions behind the army painting. Good to see a judge backing his decisions with solid thought.

the problem with judge marked painting is that at some stage you will have to hold up games. it is impossible to go through and mark that many armies in such a short period of time like players choice especially when there are other things to organise at the start of the day. as for staying back after all the games have finished and marking it then, do people think that the TO has not given up enough of their time in organising a tourny already? it is a very difficult thing to try and squeeze in as well as running around answering rules questions, and until someone has actually tried to do all this then perhaps they should not criticize the people who have.

for what it's worth Alex i thought both yourself and Mark done a fantastic job over the weekend, and would also like to take this opportunity to thank Marks wife for giving up her weekend to help as well.

From, the persective of someone who might not know one monster from another, there was little to identify the HT from the other monsters is what was meant by that comment. A Tervigon can be HQ.

Just on the objectives for Secret Orders, I think saying 'Anywhere in your deployment zone' is something that needs to be looked at because really it was too easy to just throw it into the back corner. I didn't because I didn't feel it sportsmanlike, but some people would think differently. 12" is a bit too far forward, so maybe 'Place your objective in your deployment zone, at least 6" away from any edge' is a suitable restriction? It still gives you a decent area to put it in and it also lets you put some decent forces around it.

I fully agree, even though being able to put my objective in the corner was the only thing that saved my (and your 1" consolidate roll ) from your rampaging orks!
Make the objective a tad more reachable would make it less an auto pick.

Not complaining, loved the variety of missions

RoV

Yeah I like the idea of the Precious needing to be >6" from a board edge.

Of course this year I was rather conservative with the choices and the attle Missions only came out 2 weeks before we made the decisions on what missions Lord would use - we were aiming for simpler missions that gave an overall balanmce to the event so it was not the time to experiment by choosing a battle mission. However by next year I will have had a chance not only to play a few more battle missions but also see others using them in tournaments, and will no doubt test them at Cryx cup to see if it can work before committing Lords to using some battle missions. But assuming we choose wisely, and pre test our assumptions with a live tournament run, expect there to be more diversity in next years misssions, including some battle missions.

I like the choose your own adventure concept, so am keen to retain that, but open to including more options. I deliberately made "Blood" excessive so it wasn't easy to simply pick KPs and annihilation, if you were going to do that you really needed to do so well!

So we'll be looking to retain that kind of internal balance, so there aren't any easy paths, and that includes pushing the precious more into the playing area!

It wasn't but I wish I did anyway love how the rocks were used on it and the buildings are properly orky. Kudos to your bro for making a goody orky piece of terrain, looking forward to seeing the additions on it....

Talking about the Modular battle board? the ork terrains put on that was ork huts owned by Wayne Lauter, & 1 massive Ork corner wall fortifikation that was mine (da redz one)

The fort was really nice. Curious as to what it was made from (or bought)?

Well, if anything, I'd really like to see some form of 'Take and hold' make a reappearance again next year. Was kinda disappointed that it didn't make the lineup this year. Think the issue in 2009 was due to having victory points causing some unbalance (like a single terminator squad being able to contest 3 guardsmen units).
Having something like your recon mission, where scoring units are worth 3 points and non scoring are worth 1 would even it out again.



If you make sure it can't be placed within X" of a table edge, keep in mind that this will also push the home objectives closer to the sieze ground objectives, so you might want to place a distance limit on that too, or better yet, specifically set where the home objectives are placed.

I'm think setting each home objective along the center line of the table, 9" from each long board edge would work quite well for your mission. They'll still be within each players deployment zone and slightly more easy to reach, whilst at the same time, far enough away from the central objective to make it difficult for large units to chain objectives.


I've actually been working and playtesting this idea for quite a while now trying to reach a balanced mission. I liked LOT's idea on a secondary mission chosen from the list - mine have just been a list of primary objectives, so if it's okay, I'll add that idea to my own missions for further playtesting to see how it goes.

Also, spearhead setup has worked rather well for some of my games - one of the more solid scenarios I found had take and hold, table quarters, kill points and recon as potential objectives (though again, I wasn't running secondary missions).

Not really. That's only 15" from the centre of the table. Add in the 3" (plus a smidge to be "within") to control/contest the objective, and the area your squad has to cover is down to about 9". You can quite comfortably stretch that with 6 or 7 models, it would be effortless to do with a big squad.

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?...&hl=village

Is this the set you are talking about?

Not the set i was thinking of ( i was refering to the one piece on the Realm of Legion board). I really liked that set (even had a game on it) and with your permission may even reproduce something similar in the future...

Was bought, from Grims Forge, Kustom made, 2 pieces commissioned the corner piece was a ebay sale, which sparked the commission.

Wish i could take Kredit, but i can't
But was made to spark enthusiasm from me to finish a whole ork table.

Really wqell articulated, so I'd like to go through point by point



Mm, I actually doubt it, well maybe I can bring myself to read it again sometime when it's less emotionally draining... But my initial impression was that most of Kirby's complaints were down to his own misconceptions and predjudice. His lack of willingness to argue his case leaves me feelng less pity, especially now I understand he's no tournament newbie at all. As addressed in my recent post above.



Glad you liked it and this was the aim of the new system - to still allow differentiation but without the risk of the primary being overshadowed by a host of extras. I have no doubt that more tinkering will ensue but I have no wish to return to a system where success on the primary mission can be overshadowed by secondary and tertiary bonuses...



Really? Terracon found a strong correlation between comp and battle, so this is curious. Could it be the calibre of the general is a more important factor in HLoT to the point where it over rides the comp element?



A reasonable suggestion.



Thanks! We do try...



Really cannot see another way to do this. I need to take the time to speak to each of you and give the reasoning behind my scoring. 5 minutes is a very short time to judge an army, yet I have to do it in this time if I have any hope of getting to see every army. with 90 players, assuming just 5 minutes per player, that's 7 and a half hours marking painting.

I cannot understand the players who genuinely felt their game was unfairly held up by paint scoring never once articulated this to me at a time when I could have done something about it.

However I take a dim view of my interference causing such major disrupption. You know in advance there's a time limit. You should be able to managfe a 5-10 minute interruption for paint scoring and should be expecting as much. This is how every tournament Ive been to marks painting. They may not spend quite the time I do, but I believe that led to the best set of painting results Ive ever managed. I'm very open sort of guy, so if I approach your table to mark paint scores but there's only 15 minutes left and you're still in the middle of the game - simply requesting I come after the battle, that you really can't manage the interruption just now, is bound to work.

The point is there is not time for me to mark painting outside of playing time. It is a necessary burden that all players experienced, some worse than others (Valkyrie copped me 3 times as I caught up with several of his opponents at different times). I expect players to make allowances. As a regular tournament player I figure having 1 or 2 games end due to time is pretty much par for the course. SO long as we get at least 5 turns, I figure it's pretty reasonable, and shorter games will happen at tournies. SOmetimes it's opponent's fault, sometimes one's own, more often it's both your faults, maybe you asre both laughing too much, but whatever, it's a tournament game -finishing due to time is part of the landscape.



Ohhh, + 1,000,000,000!!!

Seriously - someone who had a list of contacts for all the clubs, what they'd be willing to provide, and then help work out the logistics in a timely manner would be awesome. I am sure many TO)s are re-inventing the wheel sourcing terrain/tabletops and so forth from all over the shop where as if there was a coordinator who could help with logistics, wow...

Suggestions from clubs in how the TRournaments can show their appreciation - eg can we help with recruitment - maybe pass out some info about the club to players from relevant suburbs? TOurnaments do generate revenue, so it is conceivable that a modest appreciation fee would be available.

I already paid to hire a van for Lords, it would have been possible to visit several clu7bs to secure terrain.



Yes this is the price structure I am hoping to set for next year. The biggest factor will be the venue cost, but we do have some wriggle room of course with the extra $10 per head.



Lol, both you and jasonc seemed to feel similarly about this mission. However jasonc's observation merely proved the risk of relying on anecdoctal evidence, Mark's feedback forms suggests the mission mix was much more varied than he thought.

But not to worry, the mission choices were deliberately a bit conservative this year so you can all get used to the concept. They'll be slightly more complex next year and we'll try to mix it up a lot more with more choices, and no easy ones.

Someone else suggested forcing the precious to be 6" away from a table edge, which sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks for the great feedback, Loriness. Such A well reasoned argument deserved a full response.

Thanks for the picture, it really is a nice piece.

Idea for Paint marking next year:
Considering Open and high Lords are two different events would it help if 2 of the TO team marked one lords each. For example Alex marks the High lords and Richard marks the Open event.

Just a thought I think any one who wins High lord should be allowed back in every year after
So auto entry for Dave, Denis and Myself regardless if we qualify or not
Plus any one makes it a podium 3 yrs running free entry

Good idea

But when the players cap is full of past winners then ever year after that you will all just be playing with each other

Thats what Qld'ers do anyway...

Here's a thought...

TO Lords of Terra for 3 years, get 3 years auto invite to High Lords...

Valkyrie - oh they do that inbetween the important task of bending the yellow fruit....

AJenko - Oh don't worry, I definitely *won't* be marking painting solo with Richard around.... at least, that's my current thinking, we still need to work out how to handle Data entry. We may wish to pool our judgement for some of the armies as well...

Hmmm, On current trend, next year's Lords could well grow to over 100 strong - we already had 3 officials at the past 2 Lords (and the 1st we actually had a team of 4). We'll probably need more than just Richard and I to work this well. SOmeone to free us up for the on floor duties required of TOs. And will definitely be taking advantage of those willing to volunteer their time/help before and after the event.

Stapping myself in the foot, but i will vounteer my time for Data entry.

That would be cool, Adam, if you are sure. Thank you. I'll pencil you in as our 3rd TO at this stage then.

Summary of the feedback from the tournament can be found in the attached file.

Regards

Mark C

Very interesting reading Mark.

I agree

I loled at a few, particularly the request foir "More Goblin Green tables"...

Obviously awesome feedback, I am very pleased to see that secret Orders was as popular as it was. I don't count it a failure and hope most of you are willing to go through another version. Personally I really like the concept.

However, I am very keen to really revamp the mission mix next year. I'm pretty keen to use some Battle Missions, maybe get rid of "Caprure and COntrol" style mission for something else.

I think Mark was right about ppl preferring KPs as mission #2 instead of what we did last year ("seeded" by KPs in round 1 for KP mission)

I feel that Secret Orders is not a good mission for a tournament. But I'll play it every time if given the option between it and BEANS.

If you are going to use Battle Missions, I urge you to playtest them thoroughly. Mission 3 at Pheno was weighted so heavily in favour of the defender it wasn't funny.

Secret orders didn't surprise me in that it was the mission with the lowest % of a result. I thought there would be a fair few draws out of that one.

Another that didn't surprise me was the comments of making HLoT players play in HLoT... It's all well and good to say 'it's just for fun', but the players pack even says 'All those players who normally win are playing in HLoT' so a huge drawcard for entering the Opens is that you do have a higher chance since the best of the best aren't around.

so a huge drawcard for entering the Opens is that you do have a higher chance since the best of the best aren't around.
[/quote]

The best of the best what? Gamer or dice roller.
Love it when people have a go at people behind their backs but don't have the balls to do it face to face.

So...are you having a go at those who played in High Lords?

No!
I'm just saying best of the best of what.

Crochet.

Hmmm, please start a different thjread if you really feel the needs to discuss this particular issue. This year's Lords of Terra was specified as "open" in an attempt to dissociate away from the unfortuante "Aspirants" tag.

And it doesn't stop good players who haven't played 40K enough t get a result in the past year getting there anyway.

However, we will be inserting something along the lines of "High Lords invitees ineligible for Prizes in the open,, which default down, or even just request invitees only play in the HLoT.

And assuming we get as large a field in the open compared to HloT again, I'll put more prizes into the open instead of making it roughly equal.

And default properly! :oops:

Then what's with the "Gamer or dice roller" thing?

You mean keyboard warriors insulting hard working volunteers from behind anonymous screen names?

Yeah, you they should grow some balls, I agree!

hehe, I think that was from me

but being serious, I did like the green tables, mainly because of the way I based my army

Best of the last year's players at 40k tournaments. Pretty simple, needing to finish in top 10% of a tournament to qualify. Hope to see you out of the kiddie pool next year!

Out of the kiddie pool hell no loved it and by the way my name is Eddie Duncan and I do have balls!

Better lay up on the good paint jobs then... top 10% paint scores get you an invite.

Did not know that. But my gaming results with the help of my dice should keep me out of the top ten %

So, once again

what's with the "Gamer or dice roller" thing?

Again like a smell that will not go MJB!

A best of the best gamer is someone who knows the game inside out or lucky dice roller as you know or should know dice play a large part in the result, well they do in my games
But as Alex said this is not the place for this subject so pm me if you like and we can talk more.

Good feedback summary - (PDF)

You really don't get it do you?

In both this thread and the one about tournament pricing you've cast aspersions about people (HLoT players/ Tournament Organizers) in a public forum, but when you've been questioned on it you've wanted to run to pm's both times.

You clearly have no idea about either the people who were invited to High Lords or why, and equally are clueless about tournaments, TOs and costs.

Perhaps moving forward, it might be worth stopping for a moment to think before releasing your keyboard warrior skills.

I really enjoyed this part. We could all learn from it. I would sigg it but it's already to long.

Speaking of keyboard warrior skills; great Sig!