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.

Much much clearer. Only thing is I assume the Orbital Bombardment does d6 wounds to the unit it hits instead of d. Otherwise they are much clearer and the auto-tie mission (#4) has been fixed.

Oooh....I'll have to go take a look.

2,600 mile trip is all scheduled! =)

Hulksmash wrote:Much much clearer. Only thing is I assume the Orbital Bombardment does d6 wounds to the unit it hits instead of d. Otherwise they are much clearer and the auto-tie mission (#4) has been fixed.

Yeah we will clean that up in the final revision, but it should be "d6 wounds".

Any word on when the painting checklist will be up? Thanks Phazael!

Soft-scores and 'wacky fun' missions. Why? lol your opponent gets to judge you on sports and comp. lol.

Olympia, We've already hashed that out numerous times. I'd appreciate it if you would stay out of the thread unless you plan to contribute to it in a helpful way.

Thank you

I do like that the killpoint mission discludes dedicated transports. Bwah ha ha.

Dashofpepper wrote:I do like that the killpoint mission discludes dedicated transports. Bwah ha ha.

Fascinating. Trukk mobz and nob battlewagons!

Actually, I'm bringing my DE. I can think of 9 vehicles that won't be giving up killpoints. =p

Dash,

If you look carefully I think you will see the "killpoint" mission you are thinking of is reverse kill points. So it is a disadvantage that d. transports don't count.

The only killpoint mission is slaughter style killpoints, where d. transports do count against you.

Dashofpepper wrote:I don't think that the INAT FAQ is necessarily better than no FAQ.

If you're read through it, there are quite a few pieces of it that dramatically alter rules, or completely negate rules and institute its own rules contrary to 40k - its a giant set of house rules that shouldn't be applied as a standard to GW events. There *are* things that need clarification, but changing a rule, or creating a rule and calling it a rules clarification when none was needed...

Well, I prefer not to play with the INAT FAQ.

First off, I want to state that no event should feel like it *has* to use the INAT FAQ...as you point out, it is just a set of 'house rules' for tournament judges (so what I write below is in no way a lobby to get the tournament to use the INAT).


With that out of the way, I take umbrage with your sentiment.

Does the INAT dramatically alter rules and/or institute its own set of rules from your perspective? I'm sure it does.

But I do not think there is a single ruling in the document that isn't an honest bone of contention amongst players. If you think there is a ruling in there that is a a change of rules that doesn't represent how at least a sizeable chunk of players choose to play 40K then point it out, I'll run a 'how do you play it' poll and if the results are incredibly lopsided (like 70-80%+ against the way we ruled) then I'll get that ruling reversed ASAP.

Yakface, let me...elaborate.

INAT is a good tool for a lot of TOs - my objection is two-fold: First, a lot of rule changes in INAT are labeled as clarifications, when they are absolutely not so.

Second (and this is completely biased), I disagree with several rulings, and the logic used to arrive at them (although I tended to not participate in those discussions) I had real problems with - enough that those watershed rulings made me feel like the document in its entirety probably suffers from serious flaws (although I have not read the entire thing through).

My personal problems with it:

1. INAT ruled that Deffrollas didn't work against vehicles. I *did* go round and round with folks on this one, until I felt like screaming obscenities. For something that to me was so clearly written in the rulebook as working to be ruled against tainted my opinion of the capabilities of those who wrote it. And it took GW writing an FAQ for something that....well, I still felt was clear.

2. DE Nightmare Dolls - INAT ruled that they don't work. Lol.

3. INAT ruled that the Doom of Malan'tai can affect units embarked in vehicles - certain things are sacred in 40k - units in vehicles being safe from harm until they disembark or get their transport blown out from under them being one of them.

I have others, but those are my big three objections - combined with things that I think are seriously mislabeled....and I *do* take grievance with that....its ok to create a house rule, or to make something up for ease of gameplay, or to change a rule....but put that junk in a section called "40k rules we didn't like so we changed or created our own" instead of "40k rules that weren't clear, so we've clarified."

Ahh....*runs to a corner now*



*EDIT* And I feel like you should run a poll on the Nightmare Doll. And also the Doom of Malan'tai. =p

Dashofpepper wrote:Yakface, let me...elaborate.

INAT is a good tool for a lot of TOs - my objection is two-fold: First, a lot of rule changes in INAT are labeled as clarifications, when they are absolutely not so.

Second (and this is completely biased), I disagree with several rulings, and the logic used to arrive at them (although I tended to not participate in those discussions) I had real problems with - enough that those watershed rulings made me feel like the document in its entirety probably suffers from serious flaws (although I have not read the entire thing through).

My personal problems with it:

1. INAT ruled that Deffrollas didn't work against vehicles. I *did* go round and round with folks on this one, until I felt like screaming obscenities. For something that to me was so clearly written in the rulebook as working to be ruled against tainted my opinion of the capabilities of those who wrote it. And it took GW writing an FAQ for something that....well, I still felt was clear.

2. DE Nightmare Dolls - INAT ruled that they don't work. Lol.

3. INAT ruled that the Doom of Malan'tai can affect units embarked in vehicles - certain things are sacred in 40k - units in vehicles being safe from harm until they disembark or get their transport blown out from under them being one of them.

So, your problem with it is just because they say "clarification" when they mean "change"? And you didn't take part in any of the constructive criticism feedback? So....why should yak run another poll for you that you won't participate in?

1. Deff Rollaz - GW finally gave it the official green light and then INAT changed to match GW, so what exactly are you upset about? If you think that Deff Rollaz was clear cut before, then well you probably don't understand what Yak is talking about in the first place.

2. Alot of people don't think Nightmare dolls work.

3. Alot of people are split on Doom of Malantai.

Please let's not turn this thread into a discussion on the INAT. It isn't being used in this tourney and that is the end of it. Please keep on subject.

Yep, back to talking about the hippies and beach bums in California.

I'm COMING FOR YOU ALL!

*looks around furtively*

Hulksmash wrote:Please let's not turn this thread into a discussion on the INAT. It isn't being used in this tourney and that is the end of it. Please keep on subject.

No problem and sorry about that.

Although, an argument on the INAT would keep the thread nice and high on the first page...

Very True Yak but it's a very tired subject

Those that like it or want to use it can and those don't won't. I don't see the main players changing their opinions anytime soon.

I plan on bringing an army that should score very high on comp, but to prove that comp does not work, I will get a bad comp score.

Checklist is there Blackmoor. You can gauge it from that. I know what I'm gauging my army at

Hulksmash wrote:Checklist is there Blackmoor. You can gauge it from that. I know what I'm gauging my army at

The first 2 matches are based on comp, so I want to see what the judges score me in comparison to the other armies that are there.

The check list means nothing because you are still being scored by your opponents, and your score will be random. I am building an army that should score a perfect 6 in each round, but I think I will score much lower. (See the checklist below)
You think a checklist is protection from somebody giving you a bad comp score?

The Checklist
#1) My opponent’s army was accurately represented or clearly explained in advance if not to WYSIWYG standards.
#2) My opponents list was not designed to abuse rule loopholes.
#3) My army was based on a theme and stayed within its fluff
#4) My opponent’s army made reasonable use of troop choices
#5) My opponent’s army did not unreasonably overwhelm the hand-to-hand or shooting phase.
#6) My opponent’s army was built for an enjoyable game, not win at all cost and sacrificed power for fun.

Now let’s break down the checklist:
#1) My opponent’s army was accurately represented or clearly explained in advance if not to WYSIWYG standards.
This one is pretty straitforward.

#2) My opponents list was not designed to abuse rule loopholes.
What is a loophole? What armies and units are based on a loophole? Can you give me an example of a rules loophole that is legal? Is the Nob Biker wound allocation a loophole? Vulcan affecting SoB? If someone is using a rules loophole it shouldn't it affect their sportsmanship score, and not their comp score?

#3) My army was based on a theme and stayed within its fluff
GW does not have any theme/fluff since 3rd edition. They have taken the stance of play what ever you want to. Look at the Chaos Codex and the Eldar codex there are no more themes in there. Also let’s talk about new gamers that have been playing for the last year or two, can they tell me what should be in an Iron Warriors army, or what should be in an Altioc army? Unless you have been playing since third edition, fluff and theme have gone far way. That is why every Space Marine army can take every Space Marine special character. Vulcan does not have to be in a Salamanders army, Khan does not have to be in a White Scars army.

#4) My opponent’s army made reasonable use of troop choices
What on earth does this mean? I thought this comp requirement went away in 5th edition. Now that only troops score, you have to take troops. If you want to have armies that are playing with a lot of troops, make sure you have missions with a lot of objectives. Also this falls into the area that some armies have great troops, and others have crappy troops and you are penalizing them for it.

#5) My opponent’s army did not unreasonably overwhelm the hand-to-hand or shooting phase.
This answers the age old question of what do Tyranids, Necrons, Orks and Tau have in common? Answer: They will be marked down in this comp category. Tau players, I want to see some hand-to-hand so you don’t go crazy in the shooting phase.

#6) My opponent’s army was built for an enjoyable game, not win at all cost and sacrificed power for fun.
I have no idea what that means, but if you win your game you should be marked down for it. This is really a judgment call and even though I toned down my army, I expect to not get this box checked.

So here is my army:
HQ
Demon Prince w/MoT, Wings, Winds of Chaos, Warptime

Elites
Dreadnought w/TL Auto Cannon, Heavy Flamer

4 Terminators w/MoT, Reaper Autocannon
1 Terminator Aspiring Champion w/2 Lightning Claws

Troops
8 Thousand Sons Marines
1 Aspiring Sorcerer w/Winds of Chaos
Rhino w/Combi-Flamer

8 Thousand Sons Marines
1 Aspiring Sorcerer w/Winds of Chaos
Rhino w/Combi-Flamer

9 Lesser Demons (Using Flamer Models)

Heavy Support
3 Obliterators
3 Obliterators
Land Raider

It is an army built around the Mark of Tzeentch (Formerly Thousand Sons). Notice that each troops squad has 9 models in it and for those few who remember 3rd edition, that was the secret number of Tzeentch.

No lash, Thousand Sons as troops, one HQ, some shooting, some assault and built around a theme.

I hope to score high in comp, but I don't have enough faith in the system. I would like to be proven wrong, but we will see.

Blackmoor wrote:#5) My opponent’s army did not unreasonably overwhelm the hand-to-hand or shooting phase.
This answers the age old question of what do Tyranids, Necrons, Orks and Tau have in common? Answer: They will be marked down in this comp category. Tau players, I want to see some hand-to-hand so you don’t go crazy in the shooting phase.

Please note that the front cover of the missions/rules pack shows Tau fighting Tyranids. Obviously, these low-comp scum were properly banished to play each other in round 1....

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll rate your comp high, Allan.

To be fair Blackmoor if that list get's hit on comp I'll cry for you myself. I fully intent to have my list post around 4-5 every game but that list should at worst give you a 5/6 and to be honest that is if someone finds you army boring to play which could happen.

I never said checklists keep people from chipmunking. Some people will chipmunk even if they have a great game just to give themselves a leg up. And unfortunately some people see comp/sports as a place to ding someone who just isn't fun to play against. I simply pointed out it's harder to do and it's easier to watch for based on a checklist.

Unfortunately we live in a tourney environment with comp/sports rules. There are very, very few tournies around that don't have these rules.

Blackmoor wrote:[The Checklist
#1) My opponent’s army was accurately represented or clearly explained in advance if not to WYSIWYG standards.
#2) My opponents list was not designed to abuse rule loopholes.
#3) My army was based on a theme and stayed within its fluff
#4) My opponent’s army made reasonable use of troop choices
#5) My opponent’s army did not unreasonably overwhelm the hand-to-hand or shooting phase.
#6) My opponent’s army was built for an enjoyable game, not win at all cost and sacrificed power for fun.

Never has a more ill-conceived set of tournament rules seen the light of day.

#2 What loopholes are they talking about? What nonsense is this? Would allocation of complex units? If so that is not a loophole it is an actual rule.

#4 What is considered 'reasonable' for troop choices? Obviously it's entirely up to your opponent; no doubt some will consider minimum choices to be unreasonable while others will think that is fine. Stern guard or Nobz as scoring troops choices--are they unreasonable or not? Answer--you are entirely at the mercy of your opponent.

#5 Horrible. In essence #5 demands that players bring mediocre armies. Punish anyone who specializes. BS2 orks you better not focus on hth! On the other hand, clearly two squads of lootas is too much shooting for orks! (The wording here is awful as well. What the "£%! does 'unreasonably overwhelm' mean? So it's fine to overwhelm as long as you don't do it unreasonably?)

#6 If you win better make it enjoyable for your opponent or else your list clearly scarificed power for fun!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@blackmoor,
OMG!!! You have six oblits!!!"!$%! You win at all costs terrible person!"$!%!"

I never said checklists keep people from chipmunking. Some people will chipmunk even if they have a great game just to give themselves a leg up. And unfortunately some people see comp/sports as a place to ding someone who just isn't fun to play against. I simply pointed out it's harder to do and it's easier to watch for based on a checklist.

Not when the checklist allows your opponent to mark you down for pretty much any reason they can come up with, hence the problem with subjective scoring. Feigning objectivity just gives TOs a way to feel warm and fuzzy about their completely ineffective system.

Seriously, just look at one of the criteria. Just one. "My opponent’s army made reasonable use of troop choices." Why does it matter if there's a little box next to that? How does that make it any more objective or any less difficult to abuse? Reasonable is quite literally anything the scorer wants it to be. A player might think that holding your Troops in reserve is unreasonable. Another player might think that putting your Eldar Guardians in harms way by trying to secure an objective unreasonable because the fluff says they're a dying race. Playing an aggressive army in Capture and Control? Maybe it's totally unreasonable to sit back on your objective.

This system, like any comp system, is a joke. It's their tournament and they can do what they want, but pretending like a checklist makes it somehow more fair, consistent, or reliable is just asking to be laughed at.

First off, we have used this checklist for both of our game system GTs for over three years now. Most people get 4-5 on them, which is what we both want and expect. Soft scores are always a sore subject for people, but the psychological aspect of their presence, however minor, keeps certain levels of assclownery in check. Admittedly, 40k is more of a wide open game and needs it less than Fantasy, but being the douche who runs something that looks nothing like an army but is instead just an excercise in min-maxing needs to have a consequence. The fluff bunnies paid the same price as the power gamers and they deserve a small say in the overall, even if it is less than half of what battle points say.

Remember, also, that the two invites are going to Overall and Best General. The Best General slot is decided soley on battle points, with softs as tie breakers only. So if you want to earn a golden ticket by playing full frontal male nudity face beater, go for it.

The checklist, item by item:
#1- This is totally under the players personal control and everyone who is not proxying ridiculously should get this one by default.
#2- There is a difference between using the wound allocation rules and taking useless upgrades to create unstoppable super units. There are a lot of other unsporting situations that are perfectly legal in the rules that this point is meant to address.
#3- This is basically, "does this look like an army or a collection of the most powerful pokemons of the codex tossed together?" and most people should easily claim this point.
#4- Reasonable core means taking enough basic troops to have a descent shot at claiming objectives. If you are the cock-wallet who shows up with two six man fire warriors on foot as your only troop choices with the intent to simply play games into a tie, then this point is aimed at your behavior. In 5th edition, most competant list builders will never lose a point here.
#5- Is playing an army with 20 Missile Launchers with Razorspam or Fatecrusher really fun? I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who said "yes" to that, so this point addresses those people.
#6- This is the hard one to get, for people who really balance their lists and keep things reasonable. Simply stated, this is for the Flufff Bunnies.

So, really, if you are a total powergamer, you should still grab at LEAST 3 points, more often 4-5. Meanwhile, only the fluff bunnies will be netting 6 on this. Past tournaments have shown most people score like this in our format. This helps us a lot, since it gives us some point spreads so we are not doing the tie breakers on things like post round 2 pairings and awards. This is crucial for an unbiased and transparent system. We also have (and will continue) investigated suspicious scores that look like chipmunking, to prevent the system from being used in a retaliatory manner. Its not perfect, but its the best possible comprimise.

@Blackmoore-
Realistically, if you run the same sort of army that you did at Tides of War (ie Foot Eldratar with some war walkers) I think you will fare well in the judge comp for pairings. The judges for that will be Scott Tiveron, Toby Walker, and myself. Our general criteria when rating an army is a) how enjoyable is it going to be to play against this army and b) how powerful is this army. I cannot speak for the other judges, but I know I would put your army at a 4-4.5 on our 0-5 scale. Its point denial eldar, which can be frustrating to play, but its does not have any kind of punch to it, outside of Eldratar, and is not really spamming units. Brad Townsend (hulk) would probably get a 2 from me, because unless you have an army specifically designed against his, its going to be a fast game of him rolling dice and you putting models away. Touradj's 24 Bloodcrusher army would get a 1 from me, because that army is really zero fun to play against and takes stupid amounts of firepower to even have a chance against. I expect Scott and Toby to have differing opinions from mine, which is the point and why our scores do nothing outside of pair people for the first two rounds.

The idea behind this is to give the casual people who paid the same to get in at least two reasonable games. It is also meant to make sure that Douche Bagious Ender of Hobbies does not get a couple easy ducks in the early rounds, essentially establishing an easy battle point lead through luck of the draw on pairings. Again, its not a perfect system, but it has been pretty good at leveling the field for everyone and drastically reducing the impact of lucky draws on the swiss system.

The Bash messed up the concept with two things. First, it is my understanding that they went an extra round with it. Second, they were using overall scores to pair people the second day, instead of pure battle points. We have been running this system for 3 years and it has gone pretty well for us and seen a descent spread of army types at the top, so I feel confident in saying it works as it stands.

Finally, I just want to stress that while we do have comp parings for two rounds and have soft scores, that we are ultimately a battle point tournament. It has been my feeling that battle points should be the main decider of tournaments and that they should be hard to get. The soft scores are their just to keep people from taking things too far, nothing more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS- Blackmoore
That chaos army would easily rate a 5 in my book. The only heinous thing in the list at all is the pair of oblit units (who are less than optimal when not backed with lash anyhow).

That said, actual army comp scoring is going to be done at the hotel (Double Tree) the night prior to the event, so while I can tell people what I would likely score something if they ask, I can hardly speak for the other two judges.

Hope that helps.

but being the douche who runs something that looks nothing like an army but is instead just an excercise in min-maxing needs to have a consequence.

Why, exactly? Define what someone needs to bring in order to "look like" an army. Again, it's your tournament so do whatever you want, but why do you find it necessary to force people to play a certain way? Your language suggests that it's almost a moral issue and not just personal preference.

Finally, I just want to stress that while we do have comp parings for two rounds and have soft scores, that we are ultimately a battle point tournament. It has been my feeling that battle points should be the main decider of tournaments and that they should be hard to get. The soft scores are their just to keep people from taking things too far, nothing more.

I'd be more inclined to believe you if soft scores didn't make up 50% of your entire "tournament." How do you reconcile this supposed attitude with the way you actually designed your event? You're trying to convince us that 2+2=5.

Danny is my new hero for using quotation marks around "tournament"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, why be cryptic about what you consider to be a 'loop hole'? Why not just say nob bikers (and whatever else) will be penalized?

Danny Internets wrote:

but being the douche who runs something that looks nothing like an army but is instead just an excercise in min-maxing needs to have a consequence.

Why, exactly? Define what someone needs to bring in order to "look like" an army. Again, it's your tournament so do whatever you want, but why do you find it necessary to force people to play a certain way? Your language suggests that it's almost a moral issue and not just personal preference.

Finally, I just want to stress that while we do have comp parings for two rounds and have soft scores, that we are ultimately a battle point tournament. It has been my feeling that battle points should be the main decider of tournaments and that they should be hard to get. The soft scores are their just to keep people from taking things too far, nothing more.

I'd be more inclined to believe you if soft scores didn't make up 50% of your entire "tournament." How do you reconcile this supposed attitude with the way you actually designed your event? You're trying to convince us that 2+2=5.

I reconcile it based on the results. On all but one of our events, the guy who won overall would have won Best General anyhow, if overall had not been the more prestegious award. Our point system is thus: Battle is 100 (half the score), Sports 30 (15%), Comp 30 (15%), and Painting 40 (20%). The painting is done on a checklist with little to no subjective choices on it (Matt Lewedowski's GW checklist) and we don't dock people for hiring sweat shop labor to do their army, just DQ them from best painted. If you are not a dick, you will get 30-36 points in sportsmanship. If you did not build your army to rapeface hardboyz standards, you will get the same from Comp. Nothing but Battle Points matter for netting Best General and a golden ticket. I fail to see how it could be balanced better or be more transparent, without either giving Combat Calculus guys free reign or making the fluff bunnies run away with it. The hardest armies WILL play each other at some point. Battle Points decide more than anything else.

I guess if you went to the tournament with some highly frustrating build (double Thunderwolf Cav, Fatecrusher, ect) and acted like a total dick the entire time you were faceraping people, your soft scores might prevent you from netting anything. If on the other hand you bring a hard, but fair, list and treat your opponents with respect, soft scores will mean absolutely nothing in the sceme of things. Are you honestly going to tell me that if two guys have equal battle points that the nice guy who won it with well painted no lash chaos army is not more deserving of the win than a guy who acts like Andy Dick while running unpainted double thunder wolf cavalry? I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that soft scores should have no impact and, right now, they amount to about half of what the battle points do and are far easier to get. Just don't be TFG. Is that too much to ask?

And all your gnashing of teeth aside, I know the system works because it HAS worked in the past. Its not perfect, but nothing is and we are not running this GT for a living. People have been pleased in the past, outside of the one or two grumpy old men that really should never play in GTs ever. If you want no holds barred dick play with dick armies, then go for the Hard Boyz. Its never going to be that way at a paid Indy GT because, quite frankly, the fluff bunnies are the guys who pay for the hall and they need to feel like they are there for some reason beyond getting curb stomped by Johnny Netlist five games in a row. Soft Scores do not solve the problem, but a small amount of carefully crafted checklists does curtail the really out of hand crap, especially if you are equally dilligent about investigating obvious lowballing (which we have done).

If you feel you have a better system, by all means put it up for discussion and I will be all ears. For right now, this has worked well for us and kept our participants happy, so as long as everyone is happy, its what we will continue with.

I reconcile it based on the results. On all but one of our events, the guy who won overall would have won Best General anyhow, if overall had not been the more prestegious award.

Well, I did a little Googling and from what I gather there have only been 4 SoCal Slaughters, starting in 2007. Having only 66% of your "battle point tournaments" won by people who actually had the most battle points doesn't exactly support what you're saying. If anything, it should suggest to you that your "tournament" isn't really based on battle points at all, but is just another hobby event. Which is fine. Just don't pretend it's something else.

As for the painting checklist, can you provide an example? I'm looking at the checklist used in the 2008 Grand Tournament season and it is rife with subjectivity. I'd be curious to see what this list with "no subjective choices" looks like.

I fail to see how it could be balanced better or be more transparent, without either giving Combat Calculus guys free reign or making the fluff bunnies run away with it.

Well, the very fact that you think there needs to be a balance of soft and hard scores in an event billed as a tournament is the very crux of the problem. It is a transparent system, I'll give you that. Unfortunately it's also a completely subjective system, so transparency matters very little. Regarding comp, you might as well say "your opponent can give you whatever score they want, and for whatever reason." That, too, would be transparent.

I guess if you went to the tournament with some highly frustrating build (double Thunderwolf Cav, Fatecrusher, ect)

Frustrating for whom, exactly? These are exactly the kinds of armies I want to face at a tournament. A tournament is a competitive event and I attend because I want to participate in competitive gaming. It seems somewhat bizarre that you call it a tournament, but then tailor it very specifically to attendees who don't like playing in tournaments.

Are you honestly going to tell me that if two guys have equal battle points that the nice guy who won it with well painted no lash chaos army is not more deserving of the win than a guy who acts like Andy Dick while running unpainted double thunder wolf cavalry?

In a tournament, he is no more deserving (unless he cheated). In a hobby competition, he is more deserving. Why bill it as the former when you're hosting the latter? I could understand if it was simply a perpetuation of the misnomer that GW started, but you honestly seem to be under the impression that battle points are the focus of your event, which they are not. They barely constitute half of what determines the event's results.

Just don't be TFG. Is that too much to ask?

The problem is, you're asking for much, much more than that. How exactly does straying from the fluff or being "unreasonable" with Troops make someone TFG? Maybe TFG doesn't mean what you think it means.

And all your gnashing of teeth aside, I know the system works because it HAS worked in the past.

Define "works." Just because an event happens doesn't necessarily mean it was a success. Perhaps it would be more of a success if you were open to changing the format. How would you ever know if you simply stick with "hey, what we have already works"?

Phazael I am 100 percent with you. My advice is to ignore Danny. You will never convince him and every time you reply it just gives him another opportunity to complain about your scoring system. Personally I hate to see threads such as these thrashed by people who have absolutely no intention of playing in the event. If you do a little research you will find they have not won any major events either.

G