My buddy and I have already got our tickets, rooms, and travel plans; I was wondering if anyone else from Dakka Dakka was going to make it.

Signed up and paid.

Looks like there is going to be a horde of folks there (almost 70 pre-paid).

I am excited, been trying some odd lists for it.

I am facing a dilemma which is the comp scoring. Due to the fact that you opponent scores you on your comp, they could "theoretically" mark you down if you win. I have seen the score sheet and you should always get 2 points if you show up to your table on time with your stuff....but the other points are subjective and you could be chipmunked.

I am just going to take the army I want and da hell with the comp.

Magilla Gurilla wrote:I am just going to take the army I want and da hell with the comp.

Heck yea, that is what I always do. Any comp is horrible, but I could not pass up such a large tourney on an aircraft carrier.

Sazzlefrats & I are going to make it; should be a blast, and I'm happy I can support a local GT-caliber event.

I'm not going to fret comp too much - Tyranids are strange, and I'm not expecting to see anyone else with an overly-similar build. It's mostly a question of finishing up some conversions in a timely manner.

I'll be there with 5 other friends. Should be fun

Great!
I had not heard much buzz on the forums about Da Grand Waaagh GT, so I was wondering if anyone from Dakka would be there. I will be there with the Angels Encarmine.

Same here, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to play on an Aircraft Carrier.

This will be my second showing at this tournament. My son and I are both going. Last year I played Deamons and got my teeth kicked in. This year I hope to do better with my Angry Marine (counts as Blood Angels) Army. I wouldn't worry too much about comp. Everyone who was there last year was top natch. Heck I even won best sportsman.

The prize support is great and the organizers are too. Oh and its on a Aircraft Carrier!

veritechc wrote:The prize support is great

Good to hear, my lady just asked me about this but I had no real idea. Though I 100% do not expect to win anything, I love the idea of winning a prize for rolling HORRIBLY.

I've got a ticket to the Grand Waaagh, and have been spending my evenings trying to finish painting my army in time for the event. Hopefully it'll all come together, but I had forgotten what an incredibly slow painter I am...

Wish me luck.

Good luck!

I finished all my models, the dropped and broke a few en route to a practice match.

I'm still on the fence about this, it'll really depend if I can get my army finished in time. How many here are entering Fantasy as opposed to 40k?

I plan on covering this event for my blog as I did last year.

Anyway besides the lame ass comp system it is really a great event.

As for how many people they have I think they are almost sold out on the 40k side maybe 6 slots left out of 80. Fantasy is almost 40 players and they have space remaining.

Well to all those people trying to get their armies painted in time, I wish you luck.

I will be there and while I have to agree with tastytaste that the comp system leaves something to be desired...
...I am just hoping for 5 fun games on a freakin Aircraft carrier.

I'm going as well, for the fantasy event. I could not pass up playing on an aircraft carrier, definitely since I'm only about a half hour away!

I too am also frantically painting to get ready for this, have 21 models left to go, then I still have to go back and base and magnetize everything. :( It'll be close, but should get it ready in time! Can't wait.

I would love to go....I've been to the Hornet before and it is the awesome! Unfortunately, I had to leave for college before I could have my Imperial Guard get their teeth kicked in on an aircraft carrier.

I want to go, but I am moving up that week. I don't think I will have the time to get unpacked, moved in and go to a GT.

Good luck to everyone! Looks to be a lot of fun.

I’ll be returning to play again this year.
Looking to best my 2nd place finish from last year, not going to be an easy feet with so many players this year, but that is my goal.

The Imperial Guard of Angel One will be there in full force.

Doc

UGHUGHUGH I live in livermore CA, which is like a 30-40 min drive MAX from Alameda and i love biking the area.. and the hornet ROCKS... but im am but a poor college student and wasn't able to throw down the $70 for it :(:(:(

Signed up and paid today. I don't quite have 2500 pts of fantasy painted yet so my list is now largely determined by what I have painted and can paint in less than a week. Add to that having only been able to play one game of 8th and I'm pretty sure I'll be contending for the bottom spot.

Still, it's warhammer.... on a boat!

Me and my Space Wolves will be there. How many will be painted remains to be seen...

theHandofGork wrote:Signed up and paid today. I don't quite have 2500 pts of fantasy painted yet so my list is now largely determined by what I have painted and can paint in less than a week. Add to that having only been able to play one game of 8th and I'm pretty sure I'll be contending for the bottom spot.

Still, it's warhammer.... on a boat!

That is my same logic! Though I paid about 2 1/2 weeks ago, so I've had some time to get painting. I've gotten quite a few 8th ed games in, so I think I might be playing for the middle.

But, as you said, warhammer on a aircraft carrier? That alone is worth the money!

The website seems to be down this afternoon, which is unfortunate timing. Registration kicks off at 8 AM, I believe; see you all tomorrow!

Good luck to all going. Wish I was up there

So, after a disaster earlier this evening involving freshly varnished miniatures, a sudden gust of wind, and gravel, I have decided that rather than pull an all-nighter painting I'm going to go out with friends and celebrate the arrival of Friday.

If you see me, say hi. I'll be the guy with the awesome old-style Cadians supported by a Psyker Battle Squad that, for purely tactical reasons, have coated a lot of their gear with black electrical tape.

Be sure to update us with the results this evening.

Dave47 wrote:So, after a disaster earlier this evening involving freshly varnished miniatures, a sudden gust of wind, and gravel

Oh dear, that sucks :(
I get annoyed when 1 unvarnished metal model falls over and chips ever so slightly... never mind a whole batch w/ height and gravel. Ut oh.

Top 5 for the WHFB tourney was:

1. Dark Elves
2. Empire
3. Vampire Counts
4. Chaos (not sure if daemons or warriors, think warriors)
5. Brettonians

Will have stuff up on my blog.

Not to spoil anything but the 3 of the six players on the final three tables were Space Wolves.


www.bloodofkittens.com

Ahhh, but how many space wolf players were there?

Hulksmash wrote:Ahhh, but how many space wolf players were there?

A lot.

Strange event. I finished 2-0-3; no idea on overall standings, as I bailed before the outcome was announced. I'm going to sleep on my thoughts, and try to make them coherent - there were both positives and negatives, and I want to be constructive in my feedback.

Horribly ran tourney/ set of missions. (especially the last mission) From what I could tell judges didn't know the rules real well. Judging of painting scores and army composition scores were done pretty poorly ( I for one somehow managed to score pretty low comp and i was using 2 whirlwinds, and having flamers and combi flamers in all but 1 tactical squad. Were as my friend using thunder wolve's all wound allocation-ed up and my other buddie using 6 predators scored better then me HA. I guess having 9 easy to kill attack bikes is "cheesy")

Didn't look like they REALLY looked at everyone's models after looking at a couple of peoples score sheets. I really dont know what they were doing when it came down to judging paint/ modeling. Hell my friend had a fully converted up Chaos nurgle army. Im talking every single model was converted and he somehow didnt get points for having any conversions. Nor did he get points for adding extra work to the basing (when he did indeed add bitz). He even had a display board and didn't even get a point for it. Sad I tell you, he had a very nice looking army with a lot of work put into it.

But yes It was my first GT and will probably be my last after having that experience. Was shocked at how much they were trying to change the rules in all the missions. One of my buddies even won all 5 of his games and had a fully painted army and somehow managed to not win anything haha. Classic.

But yes i ended my record with 2 wins 2 ties and a Lost to another one of my friends. (the nurgle list)

Well, the experience is one sliver of the tourney life. Try another one and see if the results are different.

italiaplaya wrote:Horribly ran tourney/ set of missions. (especially the last mission) From what I could tell judges didn't know the rules real well. Judging of painting scores and army composition scores were done pretty poorly ( I for one somehow managed to score pretty low comp and i was using 2 whirlwinds, and having flamers and combi flamers in all but 1 tactical squad. Were as my friend using thunder wolve's all wound allocation-ed up and my other buddie using 6 predators scored better then me HA. I guess having 9 easy to kill attack bikes is "cheesy")

Didn't look like they REALLY looked at everyone's models after looking at a couple of peoples score sheets. I really dont know what they were doing when it came down to judging paint/ modeling. Hell my friend had a fully converted up Chaos nurgle army. Im talking every single model was converted and he somehow didnt get points for having any conversions. Nor did he get points for adding extra work to the basing (when he did indeed add bitz). He even had a display board and didn't even get a point for it. Sad I tell you, he had a very nice looking army with a lot of work put into it.

But yes It was my first GT and will probably be my last after having that experience. Was shocked at how much they were trying to change the rules in all the missions. One of my buddies even won all 5 of his games and had a fully painted army and somehow managed to not win anything haha. Classic.

But yes i ended my record with 2 wins 2 ties and a Lost to another one of my friends. (the nurgle list)

Well, to be fair, you deserved a low comp score. They just deserved even lower comps...

And I think the nurgle list was TOO well converted. The guy built plague marines out of putty and vanilla marine tactical squads and they looked so much like the real thing that you wouldn't know that they were converted unless you picked them up and realized they were plastic. But he definitely missed a few other points he should have gotten not related to that.

And that last mission was absurd.

But whatever, I had fun

Here's the army I took. (NOT the nurgle list italiaplaya is talking about, but I'm still proud):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320527.page

If you recognize this army and you played me let me know! All my opponents were pretty cool.

WarOne wrote:Well, the experience is one sliver of the tourney life. Try another one and see if the results are different.

There arn't a lot of GT's around here unless i want to drive out to So Cal. But after that experience I dont know if it would even be worth it.

Anyways, everyone i played was great no real problems there. Had a good time for the most part playing the actual game.

Yeah, I had some doubt's about the judge's knowledge in the fantasy battles also, but since the rulebook is only 4 months old, I couldn't really get too upset, as lots of us still get 7th/8th mixed up a little.

As far as the painting/modeling I didn't see any errors, but then again I only saw the scores for the three of us that went, none were fantastically painted and scored accordingly (around 28).

I think the reason there might be some complaints, is they doubled their capacity from last year, that's a lot more people to try and accommodate and if you aren't ready for it, can cause some problems. If they keep it the same size next year, I bet it's a lot smoother, as they'll be completely ready for it.

It was my first GT experience also, and have to say it was very fun, since all of my opponents were pretty good guys with decent lists. Even though I got stuck playing against my brother in the second round. >.<

whocares wrote:

italiaplaya wrote:Horribly ran tourney/ set of missions. (especially the last mission) From what I could tell judges didn't know the rules real well. Judging of painting scores and army composition scores were done pretty poorly ( I for one somehow managed to score pretty low comp and i was using 2 whirlwinds, and having flamers and combi flamers in all but 1 tactical squad. Were as my friend using thunder wolve's all wound allocation-ed up and my other buddie using 6 predators scored better then me HA. I guess having 9 easy to kill attack bikes is "cheesy")

Didn't look like they REALLY looked at everyone's models after looking at a couple of peoples score sheets. I really dont know what they were doing when it came down to judging paint/ modeling. Hell my friend had a fully converted up Chaos nurgle army. Im talking every single model was converted and he somehow didnt get points for having any conversions. Nor did he get points for adding extra work to the basing (when he did indeed add bitz). He even had a display board and didn't even get a point for it. Sad I tell you, he had a very nice looking army with a lot of work put into it.

But yes It was my first GT and will probably be my last after having that experience. Was shocked at how much they were trying to change the rules in all the missions. One of my buddies even won all 5 of his games and had a fully painted army and somehow managed to not win anything haha. Classic.

But yes i ended my record with 2 wins 2 ties and a Lost to another one of my friends. (the nurgle list)

Well, to be fair, you deserved a low comp score. They just deserved even lower comps...

And I think the nurgle list was TOO well converted. The guy built plague marines out of putty and vanilla marine tactical squads and they looked so much like the real thing that you wouldn't know that they were converted unless you picked them up and realized they were plastic. But he definitely missed a few other points he should have gotten not related to that.

And that last mission was absurd.

But whatever, I had fun

Here's the army I took. (NOT the nurgle list italiaplaya is talking about, but I'm still proud):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320527.page

If you recognize this army and you played me let me know! All my opponents were pretty cool.

Haha he built them out of putty and chaos marine box sets . Its true however that they did look really close to the actual plague marine models. But then again they should have actually looked at them closely to see all the work put into them.

Yes your army was very nice looking as well and had some nice custom work. Never saw the chosen you converted up till the picture but they look really good. Very nice work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also heres some random picture I took of some of the tables. They had a huge turnout.



And of the army I brought. (Not completely finished painted but had 3 colors on everything that wasnt) One of my buddies let me borrow it since i wasnt going to have enough time to finish up my army.

Da Grand Waaagh! was my first tournament, and I had a great time. Right now I'm looking over the schedule of events, and trying to figure whether it's worth the weekend of my wife gambling to play in Los Vegas, such was the fun.

Of my play local play group, I was the only guy to go; I didn't know anybody there, but found every -- and to my surprise -- kind and sporting. I worried (a little) that I would encounter the rude, Comic-Book-Guy archetype we all know & dread. I really understand the value of the sportsmanship portion, at least as it affects my own behavior; it is really easy to remind somebody that he didn't shoot with a unit, etc, when such is in your own best interest.

Lamentably, I didn't get the chance to explore the aircraft carrier. However, all that fresh air was a pleasant change to the fetid dungeon that is my typical game spot.

I can't speak to the criticism above, as to the fairness of paint scores; I can say that my army was the worst painted there; the average army was to these wonder-worn eyes quite the sight.

The final mission wasn't all that bad; there's a lot worse in the battle book. The theme was interesting: undetermined aims. That being said, I played it just awfully. Part of the problem was the terrain I was against: very little high ground that was accessible, and the inaccessible killed the line of sight of my shooty orks.

Once again, this was my first tournament, and have nothing to judge it against. That being said, I would pay the sixty-five bucks again, and take the day off work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, seeing the table picture in Italiaplaya's post above reminds me: there was a huge amount of terrain on the tables, and there were a lot of tables. My local guys, the guys who didn't come, warned me to expect very little. I was pleased.

From the picture the terrain looks excellent and even well placed (which is where a lot of events fall down). I'm looking forward to next year as I'll have to make the drive up that way. Reece doesn't know it yet but someone is crashing with him

I'll hope they drop 40k comp next year. Sports I can tolerate since I always max it with a few favored opponents in there but comp makes my skin crawl Looking forward to some more reviews and seeing what Mr. Janth has to say about it!

Hmmm.

Complaints about subjective soft scores.

Complaints about homemade missions.

Hahahaha, sound familiar to anyone?

The future is the no-comp, missions out of the book tournament. You don't hear anything about those other than how good they were.

Well, I am glad everyone seems to have had fun. Doesn't sound like I missed too much, although I would have loved to meet some gamers in my new home.

@italiaplaya

Don't be too hasty to judge. Tournaments are great fun, most of the guys who get into it end up going to tons of them because they are such good fun. Maybe they aren't for you, but give a SoCal GW tournament a try. Like the SoCal Slaughter or the SoCal Smackdown. Those are excellent events and great fun.

You got low comp? Why? Because of the spammed attack bikes?

Ach, Comp systems are wretched. Even the one I was playing around with ended up being stupid. Your list is totally fine. Any legal list is fine.

@whocares

What about that list prompts you to say he deserved a low comp score? I am honestly curious. If I saw that list across the table form me I wouldn't even bat an eye. If anything it looks like a themed Sallie list. Given, I never cry cheese about anything so long as it's legal, but I am trying to get my head around why someone would think that list was overpowered when, to me, it clearly is not.

@Janthkin

I am curious to hear what you have to say, buddy. Sounds like you came up against some tough competition. Are you going to post any bat reps?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Hulk

Ah yeah brother, you can count on staying at my place, no doubt!

"Yes your army was very nice looking as well and had some nice custom work. Never saw the chosen you converted up till the picture but they look really good. Very nice work."

Thanks!

thunderingjove wrote:Oh, seeing the table picture in Italiaplaya's post above reminds me: there was a huge amount of terrain on the tables, and there were a lot of tables. My local guys, the guys who didn't come, warned me to expect very little. I was pleased.

Yeah, this is true.

In most big tournaments you'd be lucky to have a tree on your table. I was very happy with the terrain.

Reecius wrote:Hmmm.

Complaints about subjective soft scores.

Complaints about homemade missions.

Hahahaha, sound familiar to anyone?

The future is the no-comp, missions out of the book tournament. You don't hear anything about those other than how good they were.

Well, I am glad everyone seems to have had fun. Doesn't sound like I missed too much, although I would have loved to meet some gamers in my new home.

@italiaplaya

Don't be too hasty to judge. Tournaments are great fun, most of the guys who get into it end up going to tons of them because they are such good fun. Maybe they aren't for you, but give a SoCal GW tournament a try. Like the SoCal Slaughter or the SoCal Smackdown. Those are excellent events and great fun.

You got low comp? Why? Because of the spammed attack bikes?

Ach, Comp systems are wretched. Even the one I was playing around with ended up being stupid. Your list is totally fine. Any legal list is fine.

@whocares

What about that list prompts you to say he deserved a low comp score? I am honestly curious. If I saw that list across the table form me I wouldn't even bat an eye. If anything it looks like a themed Sallie list. Given, I never cry cheese about anything so long as it's legal, but I am trying to get my head around why someone would think that list was overpowered when, to me, it clearly is not.

@Janthkin

I am curious to hear what you have to say, buddy. Sounds like you came up against some tough competition. Are you going to post any bat reps?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Hulk

Ah yeah brother, you can count on staying at my place, no doubt!

Well I always attend tournaments locally and within a hour or 2 driving distance. But who knows I may give GT's another chance sometime in the future. A drive to So Cal wouldnt be to bad i suppose if some friends came along. (I went for ard boyz this year and it was just fine.)

Ya I had a themed Sallie list with vulkan. Lots of flamers and meltas. It was either the attack bikes, or the command squad in the drop pod with 4 flamers a commander, and vulkan attracted to it that did.. I dont really see how i scored low. But it happened haha.

Yeah, that's the thing with comp scores. You're better off just bring a hard list anyway as something like what happened to you always seems to occur. Or someone with a bad ass list gets good comp! Haha, it's silly.

Better to just bring the hard list and kick the crap out of people and max battle points.

Comp is a failed concept. It is a good idea but it never, ever works. At least not that I have seen.

The drive to SoCal isn't too bad. To Anaheim or LAX I think it's about 6 hours? You could fly round trip for like $150 which is not bad at all.

Well, too bad and getting shafted on comp. Some people see Vulkan and get their panties in a bunch which is silly, he really isn't that amazing. Damn good, but not game breaking by any stretch of the imagination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The terrain does look excellent though. My Footdar would have loved those boards.

Reecius wrote:
The future is the no-comp, missions out of the book tournament. You don't hear anything about those other than how good they were.

Well, I am glad everyone seems to have had fun. Doesn't sound like I missed too much, although I would have loved to meet some gamers in my new home.

Ach, Comp systems are wretched.

Not to be stupid (this was my first tournament), but I have to ask: "comp" is "Army Composition" scoring, right? I got a four out of five; that there were a few "tricks," but fair to play against. I accept that; I did spam: two SAG Big Meks, three loota squads, three barrages of Zzap Guns. I think was saved me against spamming was a used units considered uncompetitive; that is, the SAG and the Zzaps.

By "out of the book," do you mean the Missions Book?

Reecius wrote:What about that list prompts you to say he deserved a low comp score? I am honestly curious. If I saw that list across the table form me I wouldn't even bat an eye. If anything it looks like a themed Sallie list. Given, I never cry cheese about anything so long as it's legal, but I am trying to get my head around why someone would think that list was overpowered when, to me, it clearly is not.

I just want to preface this by saying that I don't like comp scores at all. I'm with you in that I think so long as an army is legal, let me at it. It's such a subjective score, and there are so many lists that are "cheesy" until they run into the rock to their scissors.

But that said...

Salamanders (according to the fluff) don't do the fast attack at all. In their first codex they were even limited on fast attack choices. So nine attack bikes goes totally against the fluff, which is fine, but that sort of factors into the comp score.

Also, it is a fairly strong list. Sure, the attack bikes can be easy to kill. But with Vulcan all those multi meltas are twin linked. And that command squad can go crazy with 4 flamers and a heavy flamer with rerolls to wound.

So, essentially, the list was built neither for "fun" (how you define that I have no idea, but it's the way people usually put having a less than competitive list because they just like, say, storm guardians) and it wasn't fluffy. So it was built to win, which you can figure is going to drive the comp score down just about every time. Now, I know you're probably thinking "hey! you're saying he should be penalized for wanting to win!" And, as counter-intuitive as that is, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. He should be penalized for fielding an army designed to win. If you have a problem with that philosophy, then you have a problem with comp scores. (which, obviously, both you and I DO) But GTs have comp scores. That's a part of the format. *shrug*

Also note, I'm not saying he should get the lowest comp score. But he shouldn't get a particularly good one, either.

And, for the record, I'm the guy he borrowed the army from. So I'm basically knocking my own list here.

Who here is from the bay area who went? im assuming most of you!

Reecius wrote:Yeah, that's the thing with comp scores. You're better off just bring a hard list anyway as something like what happened to you always seems to occur. Or someone with a bad ass list gets good comp! Haha, it's silly.

Better to just bring the hard list and kick the crap out of people and max battle points.

Comp is a failed concept. It is a good idea but it never, ever works. At least not that I have seen.

The drive to SoCal isn't too bad. To Anaheim or LAX I think it's about 6 hours? You could fly round trip for like $150 which is not bad at all.

Well, too bad and getting shafted on comp. Some people see Vulkan and get their panties in a bunch which is silly, he really isn't that amazing. Damn good, but not game breaking by any stretch of the imagination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The terrain does look excellent though. My Footdar would have loved those boards.

Ya thinking back on it now and looking at the scores I got on painting and comp. I should have just had brought out my orks. Even with them not being painted haha.

150 on top of the price of a GT, food and other random expenses. Better driving down with a group of people and each fading a little cash on gas.

Hes nothing to crazy, but on the other hand any character that is T4 and can be instant killed is not very favored by me haha. But he made the list work with the models my friends had, what can i say.

I played Italiaplaya and thought his list was fine. However, the mission we played (the last one) was pretty lame in my opinion. Way too many special cases and rules modifications.

I thought the painting scores were way off. My buddy who went to the tourney with me always jokes about his painting. He has Tyranids that are based black and have a bit of purple and green on them. He made a display board the night before the tourney out of cardboard and got a 20. I'm not a great painter, but I spent a bit of time and had details on all my units. I also had a display board with some terrain on it. I got a 23.

As far as comp scores go they are subjective and subjective scores are always going to be a problem. My thought is if you are going to a tourney you are probably trying to win. If you are trying to win you are going to make a tough list. If you can legally make a tough list why wouldn't you?

@Italia: what did you get on comp, anyway?

I would have given that list a 3.

It's definitely not a 1 or a 2, but I don't think it deserved a 4 or 5, either. Just a nice, solid 3.

It was Sean's comp that was bs...

But whatever.

I did have a good time. I'd rather have nice terrain and wonky comp scores than the other way around.

a1steaks wrote:I played Italiaplaya and thought his list was fine. However, the mission we played (the last one) was pretty lame in my opinion. Way too many special cases and rules modifications.

I thought the painting scores were way off. My buddy who went to the tourney with me always jokes about his painting. He has Tyranids that are based black and have a bit of purple and green on them. He made a display board the night before the tourney out of cardboard and got a 20. I'm not a great painter, but I spent a bit of time and had details on all my units. I also had a display board with some terrain on it. I got a 23.

As far as comp scores go they are subjective and subjective scores are always going to be a problem. My thought is if you are going to a tourney you are probably trying to win. If you are trying to win you are going to make a tough list. If you can legally make a tough list why wouldn't you?

Ah good to see some one i played is a dakkadakka memeber haha. You were the space wolve player in the last game right.

But you have it right the painting, modeling and, comp scores were way off. I think the main problem was it wasn't very consistent from army to army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whocares wrote:@Italia: what did you get on comp, anyway?

I would have given that list a 3.

It's definitely not a 1 or a 2, but I don't think it deserved a 4 or 5, either. Just a nice, solid 3.

It was Sean's comp that was bs...

But whatever.

I did have a good time. I'd rather have nice terrain and wonky comp scores than the other way around.

If i remember correctly I believe it was a 2. However it may have been a 3, pretty sure it was a 2 though. I left my paper in the car. I thought i deserved a 4 to be honest with you. Who do you see play with 2 whirlwinds other then yourself? Haha, i could have had a Dev. squad.

But ya other then all of that. I enjoyed the games I had and the people i played against. Didnt have to deal with any asshats, as Sean would say haha.

Don't hate on my whirlwinds, man!

DON'T HATE ON MY F%$#ING WHIRLWINDS

When you bring the whirlwinds into it, s*^t gets personal.

@Whocares,

I just saw your Aspiring Champion: damn, freaking masterful, and well conceived!

@italia: Yeah I was the SW player you played last. I got a 2 on comp by the way.

thunderingjove wrote:@Whocares,

I just saw your Aspiring Champion: damn, freaking masterful, and well conceived!

Thanks.

@A1steaks,

What didn't they like about your list? I don't think we met at the tournament.

a1steaks wrote:@italia: Yeah I was the SW player you played last. I got a 2 on comp by the way.

Really? I believe i scored the same. I gave you a 3 if you were wondering. I think you scored low because of the 2 dev missile squads and the thunder wolves. Atleast all of yours didnt have storm shields. My buddies army however that did have all storm shields and ran 2 squads of 3 with 2 lords some how managed to get a 3 comp score. Weird i know lol. He ended up going 5 and 0 and didnt win anything.

@thunderingjove: I think we played each other in the first game. I was the Space Wolves player with the tattoos. You played the Ork list with a bunch of zap guns and 2 big meks right?

@Whocares

That's the thing, in the fluff, it mentions nothing about Sallies not using fast attack or being slower than other MEQ's anymore.

That always bugs me about comp scores based on fluff. The fluff changes every edition! You can't expect people to be held to a standard that no longer exists.

And actually, most GT's are moving away from or to minimal comp. I thought the same thing but was recently shown that all the big events apart from Da Grand WAGHH! and the Broadside Bash are either no comp or going to a no comp format. Like you said, penalizing someone for bringing a competitive list to a competitive event is silly.

@Thunderingjove
Yeah, your comp score is the score a judge or your opponent gives you base don their opinion of how powerful your army is. It sucks.

If the judges were consistent they should have knocked everyone who spamed, not just some people based on their subjective opinion of what is good and what is not. That is a perfect example of why comp blows.

At any rate, it sounds like people had fun which is the most important thing. Hopefully they get their system tuned better for next year as they seem to have a strong following developing.

I woke up at 5 am Sunday with a terrible stomach bug which I am sadly still coping with, so I ended up missing the second day, and have no idea how my soft scores or anything were. I don't have a lot of elaborate observations, but I did think that the missions tended to encourage draws, by demanding such large margins of victory.

It's also worth noting that the sound system was difficult to hear if you were in the Table 33 to 35 range, and absolutely deafening if you were next to it. I think that the sound system was largely responsible for why neither my opponent nor I (nor, apparently, several other people) had any idea that Mission 3 was actually supposed to use the 4th mission in the book. The sound system (and the incredibly strict enforcement of "dice down") also meant that one game ended with my opponent having received a full extra turn, which is always a frustrating outcome, especially since he so clearly felt bad about it and wasn't trying to abuse the clock.

I got a 1 comp with my big bugs, but I asked a pair of other Tyranid players with wildly vaied lists and they also got 1. hehe
(Note: I hate comp, but that is not related)

I did well enough, I guess? Last round on table nine and tied.

But I think 80+% tied that mission. (Round one saw one of my models deployed vs 56 enemy models-who went first and included a heavy weapons team in impassable terrain 12" above the center of the table)

I had 5 great games and a lot of fun.

(2wins 3 ties)

Space Wolves, the new IG

Haha, Wolves have been top dog for a while now.

italiaplaya wrote:

a1steaks wrote:I played Italiaplaya and thought his list was fine. However, the mission we played (the last one) was pretty lame in my opinion. Way too many special cases and rules modifications.

I thought the painting scores were way off. My buddy who went to the tourney with me always jokes about his painting. He has Tyranids that are based black and have a bit of purple and green on them. He made a display board the night before the tourney out of cardboard and got a 20. I'm not a great painter, but I spent a bit of time and had details on all my units. I also had a display board with some terrain on it. I got a 23.

As far as comp scores go they are subjective and subjective scores are always going to be a problem. My thought is if you are going to a tourney you are probably trying to win. If you are trying to win you are going to make a tough list. If you can legally make a tough list why wouldn't you?

Ah good to see some one i played is a dakkadakka memeber haha. You were the space wolve player in the last game right.

But you have it right the painting, modeling and, comp scores were way off. I think the main problem was it wasn't very consistent from army to army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whocares wrote:@Italia: what did you get on comp, anyway?

I would have given that list a 3.

It's definitely not a 1 or a 2, but I don't think it deserved a 4 or 5, either. Just a nice, solid 3.

It was Sean's comp that was bs...

But whatever.

I did have a good time. I'd rather have nice terrain and wonky comp scores than the other way around.

If i remember correctly I believe it was a 2. However it may have been a 3, pretty sure it was a 2 though. I left my paper in the car. I thought i deserved a 4 to be honest with you. Who do you see play with 2 whirlwinds other then yourself? Haha, i could have had a Dev. squad.

But ya other then all of that. I enjoyed the games I had and the people i played against. Didnt have to deal with any asshats, as Sean would say haha.

I got a 2.

I think the reason I got a 2 was because it specifically mentions min/max, and since I have 3 of the same HS and 3 of the same FA thats why.

Still irritates me, cause I would have run the list with the TH termies and been a lot more competative had I known I was getting that low of a score.

kirsanth wrote:I got a 1 comp with my big bugs, but I asked a pair of other Tyranid players with wildly vaied lists and they also got 1. hehe
(Note: I hate comp, but that is not related)

I did well enough, I guess? Last round on table nine and tied.

But I think 80+% tied that mission. (Round one saw one of my models deployed vs 56 enemy models-who went first and included a heavy weapons team in impassable terrain 12" above the center of the table)

I had 5 great games and a lot of fun.

(2wins 3 ties)

That was a fun game, best of my weekend. Bad terrain though. And that Doom thingy of yours, but all in all and fun time.

Doc

doc dragon wrote:That was a fun game, best of my weekend. Bad terrain though. And that Doom thingy of yours, but all in all and fun time.

I had a blast playing it too! I totally applaud the placement of those guys on the terrian, btw, even if I agree the terrain itself was a bit shady. Good times.

a1steaks wrote:@thunderingjove: I think we played each other in the first game. I was the Space Wolves player with the tattoos. You played the Ork list with a bunch of zap guns and 2 big meks right?

Greg! That's right! I was thinking I played a standard Space Marine army Round One, but remember those canine-mounted bads coming down on me. Good to actually have meet somebody here!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My composition score was four, even though I ork-spammed the HQ, the Elite, the Heavy Support and three of the five Troop selections. I think they (the judges) accepted my thesis and respected the fact my Heavy Support and HQ spams are poorly regarded.

italiaplaya wrote:Didn't look like they REALLY looked at everyone's models after looking at a couple of peoples score sheets. I really dont know what they were doing when it came down to judging paint/ modeling. Hell my friend had a fully converted up Chaos nurgle army. Im talking every single model was converted and he somehow didnt get points for having any conversions. Nor did he get points for adding extra work to the basing (when he did indeed add bitz). He even had a display board and didn't even get a point for it. Sad I tell you, he had a very nice looking army with a lot of work put into it.

Here is what he is talking about:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320722.page

Reecius wrote:@Whocares

That's the thing, in the fluff, it mentions nothing about Sallies not using fast attack or being slower than other MEQ's anymore.

That always bugs me about comp scores based on fluff. The fluff changes every edition! You can't expect people to be held to a standard that no longer exists.

And actually, most GT's are moving away from or to minimal comp. I thought the same thing but was recently shown that all the big events apart from Da Grand WAGHH! and the Broadside Bash are either no comp or going to a no comp format. Like you said, penalizing someone for bringing a competitive list to a competitive event is silly.

@Thunderingjove
Yeah, your comp score is the score a judge or your opponent gives you base don their opinion of how powerful your army is. It sucks.

If the judges were consistent they should have knocked everyone who spamed, not just some people based on their subjective opinion of what is good and what is not. That is a perfect example of why comp blows.

At any rate, it sounds like people had fun which is the most important thing. Hopefully they get their system tuned better for next year as they seem to have a strong following developing.

I am not saying I am for or against comp but when you are looking at the background of an army you have to look at the whole background of the army not just a paragraph from one source. Yes some of the "fluff changes from edition to edition but for the most part additional material is added to the existing to create more background. In the case of the Salamanders all the current Space Marine codex states is that they are artificers and that they have red eyes and black skin. They would still have the established background living on a heavy grav world so not training or fielding as many "Fast Attack" options they would also have the background of fighting short ranged fire fights as their prefered style. This is a good example of the disconnect between the different styles of players one side looks at all of the material to build an army that looks and feels like the army, another side looks at what are cool models and builds the coolest looking stuff, and another group builds just for the table top effect. No one is right or wrong.

I respect your opinion, vhwolf, but open the color section of the space marine codex and right there in the picture of the sallies army, they have them with a land speeder with multi melta. GW apparently likes to use fast attack in their example army of Sallies, why can't anyone else?

As for previous codex or even worse, Black Library, justifications. Think of it this way. If you just started playing the game in 5th ed, bought your awesome sallies army, built it up and went to a tournament and they marked you down on your comp score, because you didn't know the fluff about your army from a book that it is out of print and not valid, would that be fair? The answer is obviously, no. No, it would not be fair. No one should be help to a standard of knowledge that includes out of date material.

I love the fluff of this game as much as anyone. But the fluff and the game mechanics are two separate things. They simply don't overlap.

I'm not trying to start a fight with you either, I hope I don't come across that way. Just stating my point.

Considering the Space Marine Codex pretty much encourages you to make up your own Chapter with it's own fluff, a TO or "Soft Score Enthusiast" would have to have some brass balls to chipmunk you on the grounds of Army Theme.

Comp scores based on some subjective ideal is going to have some major issues when you are talking about a 70 person plus tournament.

As well as the issue of player judged comp adding to that and to top it all off its all added together for the best general category.

So you had 100 points possible in your games.
25 by your five opponents and 15 from the judges.


Of the judges 15 comp points, 10 of the points included such things as did you have squad names, a story for your army or other such stuff while 5 points were the judges idea of how your army comped out.


I'm guessing that somehow you were able to get some bonus points somehow as I received more than 40 points for my comp.


I got 11/15 on the judges comp thing which I think my army scored a 3. I ended with a 142 which is 45 added to my 97? Not sure where the extra points came from... maybe that favorite opponent stuff added points to you at the end?


Sacramento's COC tournament has a comp score but at least you know what your looking at going into it where here it seemed some people with very similar armies received very different scores. I think that has a lot to do with player judged comp.


Lastly I'd hoped that they would give out a bit more at the end. I can understand maybe some smaller prizes like say a box or a gift certificate or even a blister. Some people would be happy with even just a certificate. The tournament little guidebook had around 8+ stores as contributing I'm sure a couple certificates could come about.

Maybe overall and second overall as well as best general and second best general.

Before the tournament started they stated the tickets would be going to first and second overall. If I didn't win best general with second overall would they have given out a prize to the other space wolf player that went 5-0? I think I should have received second overall and he should have received the best general award.

Having a fully painted army and going 5-0 getting 96/100 possible battle points should be worth something.


I had a great time though and played some great opponents so don't wanna complain too much. Player judged comp just opens up a real can of worms.

Reecius wrote:I respect your opinion, vhwolf, but open the color section of the space marine codex and right there in the picture of the sallies army, they have them with a land speeder with multi melta. GW apparently likes to use fast attack in their example army of Sallies, why can't anyone else?

As for previous codex or even worse, Black Library, justifications. Think of it this way. If you just started playing the game in 5th ed, bought your awesome sallies army, built it up and went to a tournament and they marked you down on your comp score, because you didn't know the fluff about your army from a book that it is out of print and not valid, would that be fair? The answer is obviously, no. No, it would not be fair. No one should be help to a standard of knowledge that includes out of date material.

I love the fluff of this game as much as anyone. But the fluff and the game mechanics are two separate things. They simply don't overlap.

I'm not trying to start a fight with you either, I hope I don't come across that way. Just stating my point.

You are 100% correct about the GW picture but Salamanders have always used a little "fast attack" (the old rule was no more than one of each type so you could still have 3 choices) stuff but the background is that they tend towards close range fire fights. For the record my Salamanders army built in 3rd edition and added to ever since has a bike squad, a attack bike, 2 land speeders, 40 tactical marines, 20 devastators, 1 dreadnought, 10 terminators, 20 scouts, and various command models (yes I have Chaplin Xavier)and transports, so I understand that they use fast options just not a lot of them.

The biggest problem with comp is non transparent scoring. I fought against it back in 3rd edition when GW did not give anyone but judges the comp criteria nor did they give the paint criteria, however in the last ten or so years I have also realized that you can't give perfect guidelines for subjective things. If you enter an event that is judging you how well you know the background and represent the background of a thing it is your responsibility to research it(I am not simply talking about game events). Just because a book is out of print does not mean that the information is unaccessable or no longer valid.

I am not saying that I agree with judging comp based on the background of an army . What needs to happen if there is comp is that the criteria needs to be clearly explained (to the best of ones ability) and people who enter the event need to understand that the event is not strictly a win the games event.

I am not trying to start a fight either and I hope I don't come across that way either. The main point of my first post was to point out that just because it wasn't said in the Space Marine book doesn't automatically change the background of an army. I was also to try to help the OP understand why in an event that uses background as a part of comp why that build of Salamanders would probably receive a lower score (however if you called them the green meanies it might not). It has nothing to do with game mechanics (which doesn't include fluff) but game mechanics are a part of the tournament mechanics (witch overlaps fluff, and a bunch of other stuff).





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Considering the Space Marine Codex pretty much encourages you to make up your own Chapter with it's own fluff, a TO or "Soft Score Enthusiast" would have to have some brass balls to chipmunk you on the grounds of Army Theme.

Not if you were presenting your army as a specific Chapter with it's own unique background in which case it would be perfectly legit to ding someone for not adhering to the theme if that was part of the criteria. Back in the day you used to actually write a back story for your army so that people would better understand the theme you went with.

You make perfectly logical points. If the comp and paint ruberics are clearly defined in advance, you can eliminate as much of the ambiguity as possible, which it sounds like this tournament was full of.

It is just bothersome that someone who goes 5-0 with a fully painted army doesn't at least win best general. That just feels wrong.

Maybe they should call this a hobby event instead?

Well, maybe we should look at organizing a competitive event in the bay area. It sounds like there is certainly enough players who would be interested in it.

Reecius wrote:Well, maybe we should look at organizing a competitive event in the bay area. It sounds like there is certainly enough players who would be interested in it.

This. Schedule for ~February, as there's an exploitable gap in the national & local schedule around there. I'll help.

Reecius wrote:Well, maybe we should look at organizing a competitive event in the bay area. It sounds like there is certainly enough players who would be interested in it.

Reecius wrote:You make perfectly logical points. If the comp and paint ruberics are clearly defined in advance, you can eliminate as much of the ambiguity as possible, which it sounds like this tournament was full of.

It is just bothersome that someone who goes 5-0 with a fully painted army doesn't at least win best general. That just feels wrong.

Maybe they should call this a hobby event instead?

Well, maybe we should look at organizing a competitive event in the bay area. It sounds like there is certainly enough players who would be interested in it.

Our gaming group has actually been talking about organizing a tournament at GT caliber in the bay area. And If all goes well we hope to maybe have one within the next year. It would be no comp. lighter paint scores. Bring your nasty list


--With the help of others we could possibly speed-in the process to a Feb Tourney.

-We were thinking in Concord or Walnut Creek area.
-We would need enough tables/chairs.
-Battlemats/terrain.

Count me in guys! I am new to the area but I would be happy to help.

Walnut Creek is right in my backyard, that would be awesome.

I personally have two game mats and enough terrain to cover three tables well.

If we got a group fired up, we could easily make a few 4x8 boards.

Actually, we should probably start a new thread on this as otherwise it will wildly derail this thread.

Reecius wrote:Count me in guys! I am new to the area but I would be happy to help.

Walnut Creek is right in my backyard, that would be awesome.

I personally have two game mats and enough terrain to cover three tables well.

If we got a group fired up, we could easily make a few 4x8 boards.

Actually, we should probably start a new thread on this as otherwise it will wildly derail this thread.

Well being that it would be the first "GT" type of tournament we ran. (I dont know what it takes to actually be counted as 1). We were thinking we would need enough room/tables/terrain to accommodate ATLEAST around 50 players.

Now our group has connections thru GW Alamo, and Black Diamond games. So there terrain and tables could most likely be borrowed for the event. However your right, we would more then likely have to make a couple more tables.

We wouldnt need to start a thread haha. But of course if some people wanted to be apart in helping out, We could talk thru pms and see what everyones thoughts would be in some good spots and what not. So we can get the ball rolling.

I'd be up for helping to organize this.

I could write the software that tabulates the scoring. Of course if I win you can't hold it against me.

grogugluk wrote:Comp scores based on some subjective ideal is going to have some major issues when you are talking about a 70 person plus tournament.

As well as the issue of player judged comp adding to that and to top it all off its all added together for the best general category.

So you had 100 points possible in your games.
25 by your five opponents and 15 from the judges.


Of the judges 15 comp points, 10 of the points included such things as did you have squad names, a story for your army or other such stuff while 5 points were the judges idea of how your army comped out.


I'm guessing that somehow you were able to get some bonus points somehow as I received more than 40 points for my comp.


I got 11/15 on the judges comp thing which I think my army scored a 3. I ended with a 142 which is 45 added to my 97? Not sure where the extra points came from... maybe that favorite opponent stuff added points to you at the end?

My buddy was the third place finisher with 135 Best General Points.
He only had 61 battle points. So that means he would need to score a 74 on composition!
It appears from what is appearing on other sites and forums that your composition score was doubled and then added to your battle points score for your Best General Points.
This works for both my buddies score: he got a 37 composition score and doubled it became a 74 which when added to 61 gave him 135 Best General Points.
This means that you got 22 or so on composition and if double it would give you the score you got for battle points which was 96 or 97.
The same thing works for my score and several of the other players at the tournament.

I am guessing you got 96 Battle Points had a comp of 23 and double it would give you 46 composition and a total score of 142.

By the way, congrats on the win with the Foot Wolves!

Thanks!

Ya I have no idea on how they did the scoring... if your friend got 61 battle points and got third best general... that is just weird.

Doc got 5th place and he went 3-1-1 I think.

I got 97 battle points so earned 45 more somehow.


When I was talking to one of the TO's afterwards he said you have 40 possible extra added to it.

Bottom line is that when you have so many players coming from all over at least make it more transparent.

Maybe explain how the totals come about? who knows...

Looking at the final excel sheet I have no idea how the general points came about....

If it is doubling the comp that is crazy. I'm really curious... looking at some of the players and their battle records compared to the best general score is kind of weird.

Should squad names and a story for your army really apply to the best general category?

I was 3-1-1 with 74 battle points and 39 comp points for a total of 123. My comp was not doubled.

Seems the scoring might have been a bt off. It happens, I'm not worried about it.

doc dragon wrote:I was 3-1-1 with 74 battle points and 39 comp points for a total of 123. My comp was not doubled.

Seems the scoring might have been a bt off. It happens, I'm not worried about it.

A recent email explained there was a doubling on an initial tally but it was taken care of --it did not change positions around too much and not at all in the top seats.

Also I got 74 bp, too

kirsanth wrote:

doc dragon wrote:I was 3-1-1 with 74 battle points and 39 comp points for a total of 123. My comp was not doubled.

Seems the scoring might have been a bt off. It happens, I'm not worried about it.

A recent email explained there was a doubling on an initial tally but it was taken care of --it did not change positions around too much and not at all in the top seats.

Also I got 74 bp, too

At 2-0-3, I got 78 BPs.

Janthkin wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Also I got 74 bp, too

At 2-0-3, I got 78 BPs.

I had 2 wins and 3 ties. I had one mission with zero bonus points, however.

Mine went like this:

Game #1: win 19-8
Game #2: lose 7-16
Game #3: win 16-8
Game #4: win 18-9
Game #5: draw 14-14

Doc

Okay, finished with my reflections; here's my dissection of Da Grand Waaagh.

Venue: Nice. Yes, it's an aircraft carrier, which is cool 'n stuff, but it's also spacious, high-ceilinged, and has great airflow - we weren't bumping butts, it never got hot, and it never got smelly. There was food available on-site (which is good - the Hornet is not terribly near any other options), and it was reasonably tasty, prepared fresh, and not eye-gougingly expensive. Sadly, no adult beverages.

Two negative: first, there was an eternal high-frequency whine in our end of the hanger bay - I don't know if it was the PA or electrical system, but every now and then I would notice it again, and it would annoy me for half an hour; second, the decks are made of metal, which is pretty hard on the legs when standing. I brought a foam rubber kitchen mat to stand on, and I think it helped me a lot.

Recommendations: It might be nice to pass along a little more venue-related info to players - remind them that the decks are metal and recommend a mat, or good insoles, or even just sitting more than they usually do.

Terrain: Great. On most tables, there was a lot of it, of various types, and there were some LARGE LoS blocking pieces. Also, they weren't afraid to put pieces in the middle of the board, which I really appreciated. Boards/battlemats were placed on larger-than-needed tables, which is great - it gives your casualties a place to go.

There were a couple of odd tables that stood out - one was nothing but 6" tall rock pillars, ranging from 2" circles to 2"x4" ovals; a second had a couple trenches and a bunch of bunkers; a third had the sole river of all the 40k tables. I'll talk about the latter two below, when I go over my individual games.

One minor comment: at the start of the event, we were told that Monstrous Creatures (and Vehicles) would NEVER benefit from a cover save from area terrain, irrespective of whether they were actually obscured (e.g., by large bushes). I think this was a needless deviation from the actual rules. The intent was probably to avoid any arguments (as the bushes were often movable), but most (all?) jungle/forest templates had obvious locations for their bushes - reasonable players would not have had too many problems.

Recommendations: Two minor suggestions. First, the boards/battlemats could be shifted all the way to one side on the tabletop; this would leave about 2'x5' clear at one end, which is large enough for display boards/casualties, without worrying about them infringing on the play area. Second, the table number stands could be double-sided - we were going to the "back" of the "hall" to get table assignments, but you could only read table numbers from the "front."

Armies: A very nice mix. We started with 72 players on day 1 (lost 4 for day 2), and saw everything but Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Sisters/Witchhunters. And there were some truly lovely armies present!

Organization: I'm going to break this up a little. Pre-tournament organization was okay. Aside from their website going offline the day before the event (probably not their fault), it was easy to access the available information. Cost was in-line with events of this scope ($65).

Recommendations: I was never really clear on what the "last" day for registration really was (I registered after the posted date, for example), so I stopped encouraging others to attend after September 1. More clarity along those lines could further boost attendance.

Tournament results/Scoring organization leaves some room for improvement. There are some non-transparent factors involved in the "Judge Comp" category, but a quick look at the scores suggest that Judge Comp was non-determinative as to who placed. There was some irregularity regarding score calculation day-of, but that wasn't significant. There is also at least some irregularity in the "Player's Choice" voting - a pro-painted army won, while at least one vote for George Flower's arson-themed orks doesn't appear to have been recorded. There was some inconsistency with paint judging, as discussed above; that part is troublesome, as paint scoring was checklist-based, and was determinative of overall placement in a number of cases.

Thank you to whomever voted my Tyranids for Player's Choice; I don't agree with you, but I'm glad you liked them!

Recommendations: I think many of the issues can be attributed to growing pains - DGW is about twice as large this year as last. Painting is the most important one; if there isn't consistent application of the checklist, maybe fewer judges should be used, and paint judging should be spread across more than one break in game play. One approach: assign "paint judging" groups to people, and have group 1 judged during day 1's lunch, while group 2 is judged during day 2's lunch.

Judge comp ranged from 5 to 16 (both are outliers); 58 of the 72 attendees fell in the 9-to-13 range. This category could probably dropped completely, which would save the organizers presumably non-trivial time (reading 72 pieces of fluff & judging 72 army lists, in the 3 days before a tournament doesn't sound like my idea of fun), and remove one of the focuses for drama. It's a tempest-in-a-teapot situation.

(My Tyranids got a judge comp of 11; Tyranids ranged from 13 (no idea what Paul was running to get that) to 5 (worst score of the event).)

Day-of organization has a mix of good and bad. The event ran reasonably smoothly, all things considered - we got through the right number of games, most games started & ended in a timely fashion, and there was a lot of flex built into the schedule. Table assignments were posted promptly, and while it was strange to sort by first names, it worked fine. I have a couple of suggestions, and 2 issues I found troublesome.

Recommendations: Some people ended up playing on the same table more than once (Sazzlefrats was on table 23 for 3/5 of his games); with a bit of Excel macro'ing work, that sort of issue is fairly easy to identify. It's not hard to avoid, and it does have an impact on people's enjoyment of the event - there's all these cool tables, and they keep drawing the same one!

Armies require some unpacking at the start of an event; let us use the tables for that. If the play area is moved all the way to one side of the table, it won't even affect the terrain layout.

If an event-altering announcement has to be made (such as changing the order missions should be played in), it's important that everyone hear it. Many people did not hear the change of mission order that occurred in round 3. Better would be just not to do that - everyone is going to play every mission over the course of the tournament, making the order much less important. As it was, a significant number of tables in round 3 played the "wrong" mission, and those people played the same mission again in round 4.

On a similar note, announcements to players should convey meaningful and actionable information. During the Saturday pre-tournament instruction phase, we were told to score our opponent's comp according to the checklist, and to do it honestly, but that the judges didn't think there were any '0' comp armies out there, and didn't think there were any '5s' either. Net effect: some people wouldn't grade comp above a '4' all weekend, because the judges told them they couldn't (2 of my opponents mentioned that). Some care needs to be taken in presenting instructions to players, as many of them are only half-listening (or can only half-hear).

Problematic Issue #1: Rules interpretations and consistency. We began Saturday with a 15-20 minute instructions session. Early on, we were told that the INAT wouldn't be used, because it wasn't official rules and it was opinionated. 2 minutes later, we were told that we should use RAW, or common sense if necessary, but everyone's common sense was different.

In the back of my head, I'm remembering that the TO's responded to an emailed question about Spore Pods and Death or Glory by telling Tyranid players to use the Vehicle Ramming rules.

If you don't care to use the INAT FAQ, or to provide one of your own, that's fine, but using part of the introductory speech just to toss a shot at the people who created it looks petty.

Problematic Issue #2: Respect for your participants. As mentioned previously, round 3 offered some confusion - we were instructed to play the fourth mission in the packet, rather than the third. I knew some people didn't find out about that in time. So, at the start of the second day, during the opening announcements, I asked a simple question: "What mission do we play for round 4?" Instead of a simple answer ("Play the Lightning Raid scenario"), I got 3 minutes of how we were all adults, and we could read, and it was at the top of the table assignment sheet, and it was important to read all the words.

First, it was an insulting response to a simple question. Second, it took MORE time to discuss than it would have taken to simply state, in front of most of the players, which mission to play. It is better to err on the side of redundant information, than to rant at the people who are trying to enjoy the event.

Now, it's entirely likely that, if I knew the TO as an individual, I'd have taken both of these comments in a different way. But I don't.

Missions: We played 5 missions, most of which involved some tweaked rules. Some were fine, others were less so.

One thing I didn't care for: most missions included a margin of victory requirement higher than that normally associated with the mission objective (e.g., win by 3 Kill Points). It made for a lot of ties - looking at the results, out of 176 games played, 62 ended in draws. I suspect the margin of victory was intended to provide separation (where another event might have offered massacre/major/minor victories, this was mostly massacre/draw/loss). It's a preference thing - I'd prefer fewer draws, both as a player and an organizer, but I can understand the choice.

Mission 1: Smash and Grab
Pitched Battle deployment zones, with 5 objectives placed. The mission was Kill Points (must win by 3), with each objective controlled counting as 2 KPs. The "Unprepared" rule required deployment of 2 Troops and 1 HQ, with everything else in Reserves. Fixed game length of 7 turns.

I think Dawn of War deployment would have covered the purpose of "Unprepared" as well or better - forcing an army into Reserves is a heavy-handed approach, and can be especially problematic in some types of missions - any non-mechanized army is at an artificial handicap for any mission that requires crossing the board, for example.

I liked the "Objectives count as Kill Points" approach - it kept the focus on KPs, but made Objectives something worth fighting over in a way that Secondary/Tertiary mission objectives sometimes aren't.

I didn't care for the margin of victory requirements, as it exacerbates a KP problem about match-up dependency.

My opponent, William "Curt" Combs, had a Biker Ork army (2 units of Warbikes, Nob Bikers, Warboss on Bike, Ork SC on Bike, 3 Deffkoptas, and a Looted Wagon). We got the single table with the board-spanning river. I quickly suggested that it wouldn't be dangerous terrain for his bikes. Great guy, and I voted him for Player's Choice, as the army style was highly amusing. I won (the Ymgarl all came out of the river on turn 2 & ate his Warbikes & Warboss)

Mission 2: Foothold
Dawn of War deployment, with turns 1 & 6 using Night Fight rules. Seize Ground with 6 objectives (must win by 2), fixed game length of 6 turns.

Not sure why we needed 6 objectives, or the margin of victory, but the mission was fine.

I played against Lance Porter's Space Wolves; we drew, with me up by 1 objective.

Mission 3: Lightning Raid Assassination
Pitched Battle deployment; KPs (win by 3), where the army commander is worth 3, any other HQ is worth 2, and everything else is worth 1. 6 turns.

Nothing wrong with this mission, either. The table could have been pretty nasty against a shooty list, but offered some interesting choices for two assault armies w/o assault grenades.

I played against Mike Larson's Fatecrusher Daemons (fun fact: Fateweaver + Bloodthirster + 2 units of 7 Bloodcrushers, 4 min-sized Plaguebearers, and 2 Soul Grinders got a (fairly average) 11 Judge Comp). We played on the 2 trenches + 6 bunkers table, decided not to use the Building rules, and played to a draw (I was up by 1 KP).

Mission 4: Lightning Raid (for real, this time)
Spearhead deployment, KPs (win by 3) with Capture & Control objectives counting as 3 KPs each, and dedicated transports over 100 pts counting as 2; everything else was 1. The "Committed" rule denied use of normal Reserves, unless your unit also had Scouting, Infiltrate, Deep Strike, or any more specific rule (e.g., Dormant for Ymgarls). 6 turns.

Odd choice, with the Dedicated Transports rule. I know at least one game where it seriously impacted Eldar - Wave Serpents are expensive. The entire list I could come up with was: Land Raiders (bought as dedicated transports), Wave Serpents, and properly-equipped Devilfish. I don't think it added anything tactics-wise; it just annoyed those people with those units.

I played against Mark Reindl, with his Khan-led Ultramarines (complete with outflanking dedicated Land Raider, carrying Khan, a Librarian, and Assault Termies). After spawning more 'gants than I ever have before (~50), I drowned Khan and friends in bodies, and won.

Mission 5: The Fog of War
Pitched Battle deployment zones, with 6 objectives. Each of us had to place 3: 1 in our own deployment zone, and 2 in our opponent's table half. We deployed a single Troops choice w/o a dedicated transport. Everything else went in NORMAL Reserves. Random Game Length.

Victory conditions: from the following list, you need 2 more than your opponent:

• Blitzkrieg: Capture one objective set up in your opponent's half of the table.
• Break Their Spirit: Destroy the most expensive enemy unit.
• Defend the Flag: Capture all 3 objectives in your own half of the table.
• Assassinate: Destroy your opponent's army commander.
• They Shall Not Pass: No unbroken enemy units in your half of the table.
• Capture and Hold: Any unit w/in 3" of the center, and no enemy units w/in 6".

My opponent, Michael Usi, was playing some lovely converted Nurgle marines. On turn 2, we combined for a total of 2 successful Reserves rolls, out of a total of 17 attempts. Turn 3, he looks up and asks me if this mission is leaving me feeling unsatisfied, too. I agreed. Unsurprisingly, we finished with a Draw (he was up by 1 victory condition - he had Defend the Flag and Assassinate, to my Break Their Spirit).

Any mission that forces armies into Reserves, and then involves victory conditions requiring crossing the table, is a bad mission. I like the intent behind this mission - it's a sort of buffet-style victory, where you can adapt what you're trying for based upon what your opponent is doing. But the deployment rules single-handedly killed it - no foot army was going to achieve Blitzkrieg, for example, and poor Reserves rolls made several of the others almost impossible.



So yeah - strange tournament experience. I ended up as part of a 3-way tie for 11th overall, with my 2-0-3 record (sharing the honors with Mike Larson's Daemons, as well as some Space Wolves). I met some great people, and played some fun games, but I don't care for the mission design - it seems designed to force Draws, when I'd rather win or lose.

I also did not care for having to wipe out an entire guard platoon to get 1 kill point...

If you're going to use the KP rules, you should use the KP rules.

Gadzooks, man! That was well stated Janthkin.

Also, I voted for George Flowers for player's favorite, so if the one vote you said was lacking was NOT from me then at least two were lost.

The orks were beautiful, themed and named (despite the lack of points given to him for it), as well as very well played.

whocares wrote:I also did not care for having to wipe out an entire guard platoon to get 1 kill point...

If you're going to use the KP rules, you should use the KP rules.

Oh yeah - forgot about that change. I agree with you: one Unit = one KP. (For those of you following along at home, the TO inexplicably changed KPs at the start of the tourney, to make it per Troops CHOICE, rather than UNIT.)

kirsanth wrote:Also, I voted for George Flowers for player's favorite, so if the one vote you said was lacking was NOT from me then at least two were lost.

The orks were beautiful, themed and named (despite the lack of points given to him for it), as well as very well played.

Interesting, then. There are 66 recorded votes, out of a total of 68 (4 people dropped from day 1). So I guess JUST his 2 got lost...?

Ach, that is everything I find distasteful about home brewed rules and missions. Bad missions can ruin a tournament. And one troops CHOICE is a KP? Holy crap. That is interesting......Combat squad marines and IG get a massive benefit from that.

Janthkin wrote:Oh yeah - forgot about that change. I agree with you: one Unit = one KP. (For those of you following along at home, the TO inexplicably changed KPs at the start of the tourney, to make it per Troops CHOICE, rather than UNIT.)

Yeah, I remember hearing that, too, and being confused. At the end of Game 3, neither I nor my opponent (also IG) were sure how Infantry Platoons were supposed to be counted, and since we were the table next to the judges section, we asked.

According to the judges, IG squads were supposed to be one kill point each, just like in "standard" 40k.

I think perhaps the announcement was supposed to be about the Deployment for Mission 1 (where the ability to deploy whole slots made it markedly different from DoW) but this confusion just reinforces an important point: Aircraft carriers are all sorts of awesome, but they are not known for their concert hall acoustics, and there were a lot of people there. It' was genuinely hard to hear things.

I was going to type up something similar, however, I agree with 90 percent of what Janthkin wrote, so why expend the effort.

Mission 5 was strange. I was playing on table 4 - the previously mentioned table with nothing but a few bunkers and a whole bunch of trenches and barricades. Both my opponent and I were afraid to commit as we didn't want to give up the objectives two early. That is definitely one mission that has to go.

Like Janthkin I agree that the location made for a fantastic tournament. However, some tightening up needs to be done on the scoring.

I ended up tieing for 8th in the NEW revised score sheet with 79 Battle Points. I ended up with 2 wins and 3 ties.

I will go back again next year, even if it is a drive up from SoCal.

Dave47 wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Oh yeah - forgot about that change. I agree with you: one Unit = one KP. (For those of you following along at home, the TO inexplicably changed KPs at the start of the tourney, to make it per Troops CHOICE, rather than UNIT.)

Yeah, I remember hearing that, too, and being confused. At the end of Game 3, neither I nor my opponent (also IG) were sure how Infantry Platoons were supposed to be counted, and since we were the table next to the judges section, we asked.

According to the judges, IG squads were supposed to be one kill point each, just like in "standard" 40k.

I think perhaps the announcement was supposed to be about the Deployment for Mission 1 (where the ability to deploy whole slots made it markedly different from DoW) but this confusion just reinforces an important point: Aircraft carriers are all sorts of awesome, but they are not known for their concert hall acoustics, and there were a lot of people there. It' was genuinely hard to hear things.

In their hand out, under kill points, it explicitly stated "troops choice" so what they told you directly contradicted what was written down.

It wasn't just confusion from mission 1 deployment.

Obviously, that must have been a typo...but one hell of a typo.

One addendum to my list of suggestions:

Do not send out group emails to all participants, that reveal email addresses to all recipients; that's what the BCC field is for.

Odd not hearing from the fantasy side at all...but not too surprised when outnumbered 2:1 at the tourney!

Janthkin, I remember that high pitched sound, it bothered the crap out of us as we looked at all the sweet 40k armies. Once we retreated back to our fantasy half, it went away though.

I also agree about the acoustics, every time an announcement was made, I would have to double check on what was said, as it sounded like a bunch of mumbling.

That sucks about that last 40k scenario, I would have hated to play it. I thought they did a great job with the fantasy scenarios, simple and easy to understand. Only complaint was having to win by 250 VPs when the average game length (for me) was 3 turns. I went 1-3-1, when in reality would have been 2-0-3, yes my score would have been worse, but that's what happened, one of my draws, my opponent was up 242 at the end (Scott Garriot's epic goblin warboss flank charged my general's unit on the last turn, they roll a 10 on LD to flee and he catches gaining a whopping 690 VPs).

The metal floors were totally rough on my knees, I found myself sitting down almost exclusively at the end of both days.

The only two "real" negatives I had over the two days would have to be:

1.) Game length, fantasy games always take longer than 40k, and 2 hours that includes army deployment was never enough time, I got to turn 4 twice by my opponent and I just speeding things up with 10 minutes left, which forced both of us to make poor decisions. It might be like this at most GTs, I wouldn't know since this was my first, so I know now I should just plan for a 3-4 turn game instead of 6.

2.) With 8th edition being so new, rules problems were abound. I think 1 rule that still messes with people is the "dead or fled' rule. Units fleeing at the end of the game do not count towards victory points, they have to be fled off the board or completely wiped out. My last round opponent was new to the game completely, we didn't even make it to turn 3 because of all the time spent going over the rules (mostly me explaining them). If I was actually in competition for anything, that would have been bothersome.

All in all, I will most likely be going next year, the TO for fantasy was a great guy, always felt he was on top of things. (just my opinion).

Janthkin wrote:One addendum to my list of suggestions:

Do not send out group emails to all participants, that reveal email addresses to all recipients; that's what the BCC field is for.

But the replies from some folks are so entertaining! It's like a forum without mods.