Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys just wanted to let you guys know about my Podcast PODHAMMER

Its a fortnightly podcast dedicated to everything Warhammer Fantasy.

Check it out at http://www.podhammer.net

Thanks for listening

Jeff Carroll

Hey Jeff!

I've been listening to your podcast and I love it. I've been thinking about calling in and asking you to do a cool review of the greenskins book like you did for the Wood Elves. It was rather funny when the suicide gobbo made it to almost everyone's top 5 annoying characters.

Your episode on painting inspired me to break out my greenskins again and finish a few of them off.

Keep up the good work!

Sweet a new episode! Thank you sir! Which episode is that Foda Bett?

The episode with the review of the wood elves is 3.
I listened to it a couple of times today as its VERY informative, that and I have a 6 hour break between classes.

I started listening to it a few weeks back as something else Warhammer-related to listen to while painting. To give you all an idea of how good it is, I don't play Fantasy and still find it very interesting. I need to add it to my podcast links in my sig.

Ironically, I learned about Podhammer from 40k Radio too.

Episode 18 is now available. This week we celebrate 25years of Warhammer.


http://www.podhammer.net

Hey cool, you answered my letter!

We had a recent tournament and the TO is in the gaming group that I run. Several people wanted a comp score but myself and others were wary of such a subjective scoring system. I am running a tournament in July and I think I'll try out your comp system of having the player score comp before the actual game and sportsmanship afterwards.

Appreciate the response and keep up the great work.

Ozymandias, King of Kings, a.k.a. Chris from California

Ozymandias wrote:Hey cool, you answered my letter!

We had a recent tournament and the TO is in the gaming group that I run. Several people wanted a comp score but myself and others were wary of such a subjective scoring system. I am running a tournament in July and I think I'll try out your comp system of having the player score comp before the actual game and sportsmanship afterwards.

Appreciate the response and keep up the great work.

Ozymandias, King of Kings, a.k.a. Chris from California

No worries mate. we always love a good comp question. Nothings gets our gums flapping more than comp!

Ozymandias wrote:Hey cool, you answered my letter!

We had a recent tournament and the TO is in the gaming group that I run. Several people wanted a comp score but myself and others were wary of such a subjective scoring system. I am running a tournament in July and I think I'll try out your comp system of having the player score comp before the actual game and sportsmanship afterwards.

Appreciate the response and keep up the great work.

Ozymandias, King of Kings, a.k.a. Chris from California

Why not just have a judge do it for all armies?

A judge (or small group of judges, preferably) reviewing all the lists (with player names detached) beforehand and grading is probably the best comp system presently in existence. It worked very well at the Crossroads GT last year, and I understand this is the preferred system in Australia at this point as well, though partially player-scored remains fairly popular too.

Ozy, if you have people judge comp pre-game, be sure to put it on the scoring sheets in BIG BOLD PRINT, and to clearly announce it to everyone multiple times on the tournament day. It's way too easy to miss otherwise, as players are accustomed to scoring everything after. The WH Escalation Tournament at Adepticon actually did this very well. You scored Comp beforehand, on something like 0 = Totally abusive and unfun list. 3 = Standard hard tournament army. 5 = Fluffy army, deliberately sacrificing power choices for sake of fun and/or theme. Then AFTER the game, you could adjust it up or down by 1 point (softer than it looked, harder than it looked) or leave the score alone.

Jeff, I started listening to Podhammer a few weeks ago and I have to agree that it’s probably the best podcast I listen to. 40k radio is pretty good too, but they don’t have nearly your expertise with rules and army lists. Their Tyranid army list criticism in a recent episode was a terrible blot on an otherwise very good show. Your analysis, on the other hand, is consistently entertaining and informative pretty much across the board.

What criteria would a judge use? I've seen judges who have done what was mentioned in the previous podhammer, have you spent x % on Core, y% on Special/Rare, etc. That is a terrible system as it inherently favors some armies over others. Me judging armies won't be much better, I have the same bias' as everyone else does. If you have 3 opponents , and those opponents get to judge your army before they play it, I think you'll get a decent score.

It does make Comp part of the meta-game, I'm not going to take my RAF or my Pope-mobile cause I'll get dinged on Comp. I'm running both a Fantasy and a 40k tournament, I think I'll try this system for both.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Sweet, I have time today, and more guard to paint, I think I will try to catch up and learn more about fantasy.

Thanks Jeff!

Ozymandias wrote:What criteria would a judge use? I've seen judges who have done what was mentioned in the previous podhammer, have you spent x % on Core, y% on Special/Rare, etc. That is a terrible system as it inherently favors some armies over others.

They use their experience of what armies are really tough, what armies make the game less fun, what choices are fluffy and sacrifice power. It's really a system that only works with very experienced judges who play with/against just about all the armies. Not every area has such people available, but once you get up to the GT level you can usually count on at least a couple being among the organizing staff. I've heard of some tournies using 3 or 5 judges. Crossroads just had two, judging on a scale of 1-10, and added them together. There's always a little grumbling, but out of a whole GT I think I heard maybe 2-3 people who were genuinely unhappy/confused by their score at Crossroads.

Ozymandias wrote:Me judging armies won't be much better, I have the same bias' as everyone else does. If you have 3 opponents , and those opponents get to judge your army before they play it, I think you'll get a decent score.

It does make Comp part of the meta-game, I'm not going to take my RAF or my Pope-mobile cause I'll get dinged on Comp. I'm running both a Fantasy and a 40k tournament, I think I'll try this system for both.

It's absolutely a legitimate approach. It's also less effort for the organizers, and not dependent on having multiple very experienced players handy to review and score all those lists. But it can tend to sacrifice consistency a bit, just because you might get lucky or unlucky and face opponents who are really easygoing or unusually harsh in their judgement of your army.

In this community, I'll take my chances. At all of our RTT events, no one really brings the ultimate top-tier lists.

Case in point, I took second with Ravenwing. (though someone still thought I was being cheesy with having an AV14 Sammael!)

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Problem with comp is that most people tend to score highely (ie 80% on average) and others score 50% as average. In this case a score of 1-10 is bad as it puts way too much choice in the hands of the marker and skews your results too much.

I once did a scoring system of 1 - 3 with 2 being average - unfortantly it didnt work as almost every non-regular tourny goer scored 3/3

At least with a score out of 5 you can question every 1 and 5 (buddy boosting and sniping) and that helps to keep the scores to a similar range (ie only the armies that deserve the scores; either high/low; get them.)

Comp - no easy answers but there are definitely some wrong ones

Mannahnin wrote:A judge (or small group of judges, preferably) reviewing all the lists (with player names detached) beforehand and grading is probably the best comp system presently in existence. It worked very well at the Crossroads GT last year, and I understand this is the preferred system in Australia at this point as well, though partially player-scored remains fairly popular too.

The prblem with a sing (or small group) of judges is that they are human and have bias. Players have the same but at the very least you are getting a range of opinion so that the odd scores are minimised.

Peer judged is the most popular in Australia. Any TO marked comp or restrictive comp is frowned upon here.

As mentioned in the show, you need to explain to people what the average is.

Jeff

Episode 19 of Podhammer is now up for download.

This weeks episode features Andy Przybyla from the UK to discuss the UK tournaments and events

Download the show at http://www.podhammer.net

Catpipe wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:A judge (or small group of judges, preferably) reviewing all the lists (with player names detached) beforehand and grading is probably the best comp system presently in existence. It worked very well at the Crossroads GT last year, and I understand this is the preferred system in Australia at this point as well, though partially player-scored remains fairly popular too.

T

he prblem with a sing (or small group) of judges is that they are human and have bias. Players have the same but at the very least you are getting a range of opinion so that the odd scores are minimised.

Peer judged is the most popular in Australia. Any TO marked comp or restrictive comp is frowned upon here.

Every human has bias. One advantage of the judges is that the bias (if any) is consistant. IF the judges dislike Vampire Counts, for example, at least every VC player is being judged by the same yardstick. And of course if you are fortunate enough to have a group of good judges, you can average the scores and any bias is averaged out. I've been playing with opponent-scored composition for enough years (eight) to know that there are substantial inconsistencies from player to player. My Wood Elf army will almost invariably get top comp marks from a player very familiar with WE, or who plays the army themselves. But against a less-experienced opponent who doesn't know the book well, scores can vary dramatically.

But the main advantage is simply that an experienced, respected judge, who plays several armies himself and has lots of play experience against the others, is that he knows what's good and bad in a book. He will spot the fact that, for example, WE player Z chose not to take the Hail of Doom, and chose not to use the Ancient with Netlings combo, and reward appropriately. With players (IME) it's much less consistent.

Catpipe wrote:As mentioned in the show, you need to explain to people what the average is.

All the scoring sheets I've seen in the last eight years have done this. But somehow people still don't read them, and mostly just score max or one below max for 90% of their opponents, with the occasional hit for someone who have them an unfun game or whose army they really don't like (whether for good reason or not).

There are a couple of systems that get around this- for example, using a pure comparison system, where in a three round tournament you score your 3 opponents from 1-3, best to worst comparing purely to one another. But that’s got its own issues. I personally like to reward or punish people purely on their own merits. But at least it forces differentiation.

Another good system is the one Adepticon uses. Exchange lists before the game, and score BEFORE playing. 0= abusive and unfun. 3 = Normal, competitive tournament army. 5= Fluff bunny, deliberately handicapped for fun or theme factor. Then AFTER the game you mark either +1pt (softer than it looked), 0 (no adjustment needed), -1 (harder than it looked).

I'd listen to your podcast except for some reason I can't seem to get it to work.

I click "save target as" under the mp3 download button and only get a 1.5kb file, all attempts in this way only get the 1.5kb file.

I click to directly stream and nothing happens...no progress in the caching etc.

If I click the link to download normally I just get linked to a quicktime window that comes up with a question mark.

The fact that there is no easily available support for a bug like this and having the associated problems has meant that I have given up trying to listen. I can manage to get other podcasts so don't understand what's going on here. I'm sure its a great podcast but if it's hard to get people won't bother.

I asked a couple of friends to try for me too and they had similar issues and have also given up.

I have had no problems with it. Sounds like an error 18-24 (the error is 18-24 inches from the screen).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandius, you have the right attitude for being a tech support person (always blame the user), but I wouldnt go into the field just yet. From the site:

I have only become aware today that people have been unable to download podhammer episodes direct from the site. I think it has something to do with some changes I made to Wordpress and Podpress (the plugin that powers the podcast).

Never the less I have fixed the problem and I apologise for any inconveniance caused.

So try again BeefyG and you might have more luck. That sort of problem is usually caused by server configuration on their end.

Ah, so it was. Sorry BeefyG.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

No worries,

I tried again and it worked thanks Legoburner.

Episode 20 is now available to listen. Check it out at podhammer.net

This week we talk about FOW and non GW minis

p.s. Sorry about the hassle BeefyG.

Love the podcast, keep it up!

Episode 21 is now available for download.

This week we have Mike Lee from the Black Library to discuss his upcoming novel "Nagash the sorceror"

Download the show at http://podhammer.net

Wow, two shows back to back!

Will listen.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Episode 22 of podhammer is now available for download.

This week one of Australias best O&G generals joins me to discuss the Greenskin horde.

Check out the show at http://www.podhammer.net

Thanks for listening


Jeff Carroll