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.

Great event guys! I played 6 great opponents and the tables were very nice. As a tall guy I especially dig the 40" high tables in the front of the store.

My only suggestion would be to try to stick more closely to the posted schedule for the next one.

Great event, and very fun. All the terrain was great, as was the prize support.

Picture of Winners of the Grim Open-

Left to Right (Starting with Guy Holding Sword)- Best Over-All, Best General (Chaos Daemons- Nurgle heavy), Best Sportsmanship



Pictures here of the event:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-25220-17589_Grim%20Open%20Gt%20Selden%202011.html

The Warm Fabric Nationals showed up at this GT with six members and all of us had a fantastic time. The tables were well put together and the terrain was line of sight blocking and fair. In addition I can safely say that I had some of the best games of Warhammer 40k that I have ever had at this tournament. Two highlights being a very exciting game against another Ork player who I can only assume was the spiritual reincarnation of William Wallace and another against a chaos space marine player battling me for the top of losers bracket. That particular game included a combat that lasted from turn 1 to the end of the game at the end of turn 4 ( a game revolving entirely around an army wide combat is kinda slow).

.

haha yea- that was epic- nob biker/battlewagon rush vs. Khorne CSM ~ a bloody affair to say the least

I thought they did a great job with the terrain- went by what the BRB suggested and games were tactically interesting (not just a shooting gallery). Hopefully I got enough pictures in to fill in the gaps in my memory for battle reps!

Was there a painting score sheet and/or a final overall score tally? I might have missed it at the end of the tournament

Bertimismaximus wrote:
Was there a painting score sheet and/or a final overall score tally? I might have missed it at the end of the tournament

They had one after the awards. I'm hoping they'll post it online.

Are you the young lad with the hat? If so, congrats on that win... I hope to be half as good as you at tournaments.

Alfndrate wrote:Are you the young lad with the hat? If so, congrats on that win... I hope to be half as good as you at tournaments.

Why yes I am. And thank you. Although I did have quite a bit of luck, I got the right wave in 5/6 games, and only lost a unit to mishaping once.

How was scoring calculated for this event?

Looking at the results:
http://www.brgrim.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Grim-Open-Final-Results-2011.pdf

I can't for the life of me figure out how you get the overall score from the three numbers listed. The 7th place finisher was 20 points higher on overall seed, has the same painting score, but 2 points lower on sportsmanship than the 6th place finisher. 2 points of a soft score outweighed 20+ points in battle?

It looks like there was a very heavy weighting on sports and painting but the actual formula isn't obvious.

I'm not quite sure how it's possible for me to have gotten a 10 on painting and a 5 on sportsmanship..?

Considering that the only 10 and 5 score is listed at 21st overall, the scoring makes even less sense than I realized.

Bodiless wrote:Considering that the only 10 and 5 score is listed at 21st overall, the scoring makes even less sense than I realized.

This is likely due to my battle scores bringing me up. But compare 4th and 7th, and 15th and 16th. In one, 5th place had 20 less battle points than 7th, but 5 higher in soft scores, so ranked higher. But comparing 15th to 16th, 15th had 6 more battle points, but 5 less soft scores...and ranked higher. So it appears that the scores are weighted differently on different people? I'm very confused.

If it followed the Nova format then "Overall" should have been 33/33/33 (BP/Paint/Sports) and the tournament winner would have been the undefeated champion. So for overall the soft scores are far more heavily weighted than the battle scores. But that's the Nova and I don't know how similar this format was.

I agree. Like I said, other than the fact that soft scores must have come heavily into play I can't figure out how you get the overall score from what is listed.

And FWIW by all accounts I've heard and read (I wasn't there, but know people who went), there is no way you deserved getting such a low score in sportsmanship. This all looks very odd.

If they used the NOVA's scoring system, we do as follows:

For competitive standing:

(Win % x 10) + (VP Scored/Possible) + (Objectives Captured/Possible) + (Quarters Taken/Possible) ... they could have multiplied that # by 10 to get your Overall Seed ...

I.E., someone who hasn't lost will have between a 10-13 for the most part, b/c of Win % of 1.00 x 10 = 10 + (0 to 1) + (0 to 1) + (0 to 1) ... which would explain scores of 112, 118, etc. 11.2 x 10, 11.8 x 10, etc.

Then if they simply didn't "by 10" the Overall that would also make sense. For our Overall, we simply do (Competitive/Possible + Appearance/Possible + Sports/Possible) / Highest Possible Combined Rating, yielding a percentage ... hence, Evers scored 73.2% of maximum possible when evenly combining competitive rating, appearance score, and sportsmanship.


I have NO IDEA if that's the system they used, but that is the approach we use. We weight competitive, sports, and appearance evenly when evaluating Best Overall (which we call Renaissance Man). Though, for 2011 the NOVA in particular will be going to pass/fail sports.

Hulksmash wrote:If it followed the Nova format then "Overall" should have been 33/33/33 (BP/Paint/Sports) and the tournament winner would have been the undefeated champion. So for overall the soft scores are far more heavily weighted than the battle scores. But that's the Nova and I don't know how similar this format was.

So without knowing the max score for each category you can't work out the overall ratio? That would help make this make sense.

DarkCorsair - You probably got terrible sports scores because you are young. Happened to me all the time when I was "that kid" winning tournaments in 3rd edition.

A lot of the yahoos that play this game really don't like the idea of losing to someone your age. I played many of the same people you did... several giant clowns. Not surprised. Don't sweat it.

MVBrandt wrote:If they used the NOVA's scoring system, we do as follows:

For competitive standing:

(Win % x 10) + (VP Scored/Possible) + (Objectives Captured/Possible) + (Quarters Taken/Possible) ... they could have multiplied that # by 10 to get your Overall Seed ...

I.E., someone who hasn't lost will have between a 10-13 for the most part, b/c of Win % of 1.00 x 10 = 10 + (0 to 1) + (0 to 1) + (0 to 1) ... which would explain scores of 112, 118, etc. 11.2 x 10, 11.8 x 10, etc.

Then if they simply didn't "by 10" the Overall that would also make sense. For our Overall, we simply do (Competitive/Possible + Appearance/Possible + Sports/Possible) / Highest Possible Combined Rating, yielding a percentage ... hence, Evers scored 73.2% of maximum possible when evenly combining competitive rating, appearance score, and sportsmanship.


I have NO IDEA if that's the system they used, but that is the approach we use. We weight competitive, sports, and appearance evenly when evaluating Best Overall (which we call Renaissance Man). Though, for 2011 the NOVA in particular will be going to pass/fail sports.

I'm still confused about the "Overall Seed" score.
Andrew was 6-0 and got an "Overall Seed" score of 130.90775
Nick Nanavati was 5-1 (I believe) and got an "Overall Seed" score of 173.14275

It's probably due to margin of victory. I won every game handily, and my loss was almost draw straight down with a difference in 7 VP's. Not KP's, VP's.

If it was a battle point system I'd have won general, but since it was NOVA I got 3rd.

My recent tournies have been the opposite Yermom. If it was Nova I'd have won since my wins are normally extremely narrow which results in ties

By request, I supplied one of the TO's with the spreadsheet and modified NOVA scoring formula that I had devised for the BFS GT back in October.

I don't know if my spreadsheet was ultimately used at the event, but I know that a very strange seeding spread will result if the seeding formula is used beyond the pre-set number of pairings. One of the consequences is that people with worse win/loss records can actually out-seed those with better records, which may be the case here. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it makes the final seeding value an analogue for battle points, but it could potentially throw off the distribution of the sample of players and affect the extent to which game performance contributed to overall score.

discountbarber wrote:DarkCorsair - You probably got terrible sports scores because you are young. Happened to me all the time when I was "that kid" winning tournaments in 3rd edition.

A lot of the yahoos that play this game really don't like the idea of losing to someone your age. I played many of the same people you did... several giant clowns. Not surprised. Don't sweat it.

Yes, I realise me being young comes into play. However, at the Conflict GT, I got maximum sports scores, and also was 1 favorite opponent vote away from winning best sportsman. I used the same army: the only difference I see is that at the Conflict, I went 2-3. At this one I went 6-0.

Bertimismaximus wrote:

I'm still confused about the "Overall Seed" score.
Andrew was 6-0 and got an "Overall Seed" score of 130.90775
Nick Nanavati was 5-1 (I believe) and got an "Overall Seed" score of 173.14275

Many of my games were very close, i.e winning by a single plaguebearer or having 5 more VPs than my opponent in a quarter. yermom, I understand, nearly tabled all his opponents. So margin of victory probably affected this.

discountbarber wrote:DarkCorsair - You probably got terrible sports scores because you are young. Happened to me all the time when I was "that kid" winning tournaments in 3rd edition.

A lot of the yahoos that play this game really don't like the idea of losing to someone your age. I played many of the same people you did... several giant clowns. Not surprised. Don't sweat it.

He got an E (which was Excellent) from me as his first round opponent.

WarOne wrote:

discountbarber wrote:DarkCorsair - You probably got terrible sports scores because you are young. Happened to me all the time when I was "that kid" winning tournaments in 3rd edition.

A lot of the yahoos that play this game really don't like the idea of losing to someone your age. I played many of the same people you did... several giant clowns. Not surprised. Don't sweat it.

He got an E (which was Excellent) from me as his first round opponent.

I gave you the same. But if you gave me an E, that means atleast 2 people gave me a 0 on sportsmanship. I know for a fact that one of my opponents did, but all my other games went very well...

DarkCorsair wrote:

WarOne wrote:

discountbarber wrote:DarkCorsair - You probably got terrible sports scores because you are young. Happened to me all the time when I was "that kid" winning tournaments in 3rd edition.

A lot of the yahoos that play this game really don't like the idea of losing to someone your age. I played many of the same people you did... several giant clowns. Not surprised. Don't sweat it.

He got an E (which was Excellent) from me as his first round opponent.

I gave you the same. But if you gave me an E, that means atleast 2 people gave me a 0 on sportsmanship. I know for a fact that Rob did, but all my other games went very well...

You were a nice kid. Your father had a looming/menacing quality to him, but I understand he would want to watch over you being in a wierd place such as Brothers Grim.

Have you talked to the other opponents yet, or can think of any reason why your opponents would give you such a score?

Definately should of went for the Waaagh! on turn 2 rather than turn 3.

WarOne wrote:

DarkCorsair wrote:

WarOne wrote:

discountbarber wrote:DarkCorsair - You probably got terrible sports scores because you are young. Happened to me all the time when I was "that kid" winning tournaments in 3rd edition.

A lot of the yahoos that play this game really don't like the idea of losing to someone your age. I played many of the same people you did... several giant clowns. Not surprised. Don't sweat it.

He got an E (which was Excellent) from me as his first round opponent.

I gave you the same. But if you gave me an E, that means atleast 2 people gave me a 0 on sportsmanship. I know for a fact that Rob did, but all my other games went very well...

You were a nice kid. Your father had a looming/menacing quality to him, but I understand he would want to watch over you being in a wierd place such as Brothers Grim.

Have you talked to the other opponents yet, or can think of any reason why your opponents would give you such a score?

Definately should of went for the Waaagh! on turn 2 rather than turn 3.

Oh, if my father did anything he didn't mean to he just gets bored waiting for the games to end.

My 5th round opponent accused me of cheating on multiple grounds, as well as modelling for advantage: both of which I did not do. So he definitely gave me a 0 on sports. Any of my other opponents, I don't understand.

And on our game, a turn 2 waaagh would've helped I think. Those power weapons on the burnas scared me a lot. I didn't know they were I3 though; that really was a surprise. Also, on the night fight thing, I apologize for not remembering to check for it till after I had fired. Turns out I was sick, as 10 minutes after I left the tournament on Sunday I got very sick and we had to pull over. But it was a fun game.

I gave you a "G" I believe Andrew, as I handed out my only excellent of the day to Nick for one of the greatest games of 40k Ive ever been a part of.

A problem with your sportsmanship could also have come from either tournament drop outs or people not turning in their cards at all. This happened to the best painted player, who was quite close to winning best overall but found a sportsmanship card with his name on it not turned in or filled out in anyway on the table, and the player meant to turn it in meandering about after the awards ceremony.

So dont take too much stock into a low score, especially that low of one, when you know you are a pleasant player to play with. I certainly dont think a bunch of people game you zeros intentionally.

Sean our game was a lot of fun, just wish we both didn't make such silly moves . I definitly look forward to a rematch.

Also Andrew I'm with everyone else on this, I wouldn't put too much stock into your low sports score. It could have been from your incorrect bases on day 1, but I don't know. I am aware you fixed theem for day 2 so who knows really.

Either way, you proved you are good player and many agree a good person.

There are alot of people who are jerks and others who misinterpret. I think the latter happened in the tourney, so don't take it to heart.