|
Post by wstevens on Apr 9, 2011 19:10:17 GMT
Just a big thank you to everybody that came today. It was a very good turnout and things seemed to go swimmingly well, apart from an enforced rejig for me, which I really enjoyed especially sharing some quality time with my daughter. I would like to thanks Davinder and my daughter Brittany who both filled in at the last minute. Thanks to all the who set out the hall today including Stephen, Andy, Darrell, Davinder, Julie and Brittany. Particular thanks to Julie who ensured that doughnuts, coffee, tea and squashes filled bellies in the morning and quenched thirst during the day. Also a big thanks to Justin Easby in organising the Norman Cross Guys - they pitted in with six teams (or was it seven?) a great show from that club! Here are the results it was very close at the top: Winners - SIDIUS - Justin and Nathan Easby (Daemons & WoC) VPs = 3430 Tournament pts = 51 1st Runners up - Letters of Intent - Paul Redburn and Emyr Mortimer-Roberts (WoC & Daemons) Vps = 3094 Tournament Pts = 51 2nd Runners up - Leicester Mega Skill - Andrew Botting and Dave McDermot (Empire & HE) Vps = 3614 Tournament pts = 45 OH so close but no cigar (4th)- Team Awesome - Matt Howley and Mark Wildman (DE & Beastmen) Vps = 2989 Tournament pts = 45 Phoenix Bloodthirsters 2011 scoring 3614vps - Leicester Mega Skill - Andrew Botting and Dave McDermot (Empire & HE) Best Painted Force Mark Wildman for those painstakingly painted Beastmen won by a massive margin - genuinely today's gamers favourite force! Well done they were awesome! Worth a Mention for coming second with his Painted forceNick Bunting - very nicely painted lizardmen! The Zombie Awards plus a free ticket for next yearThe Chuckle Brothers - Dan Rodgers and George Chapman (Empire & Lizardmen) An apology to Dan and George who I stated in the awards section that they scored zero points - correction they scored 3. Sorry for any embarrasment If you wish to know where you ended up I have put the excel sheet up for you to download. Feedback is most welcome Positives and negatives please! We just want to get it better for next year! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by stunties on Apr 9, 2011 19:40:56 GMT
great day thanks again warren really appreciate all your hard work, no negatives here a major positive is the rulespack (well done steve i think it was your handy work). All from NCC had a good time, ticket price was bang on. the only observation was the time perhaps 1hour 40mins would be enough instead of 2 hours other than that awesome.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Apr 9, 2011 20:03:27 GMT
Thanks Justin and well done in winning! We still had a number of teams that were still struggling to finish on the two hour mark, so I think two hours is about right considering we wanted an easy relaxed affair. Nothing is worse than rushing people to get done like they do at other more competitive tournaments, but its worth looking at I suppose. The rulespack was Stephen and myself with Stephen doing the proof reading. Great that everyone enjoyed themselves - now just waiting for your team challenge, oh and the MK Royal Massacre.
By the way how did you get on in the Grand National? Our family copped on to places 3,4, 5 and 6 - but only got the each way bets for the first three. Shame about the two horses though.
|
|
darkangel1(Darrell)
Gates of Antares
Master of the Ravenwing
The Dark Angels the First Legion the true Angels of Death
Posts: 1,060
|
Post by darkangel1(Darrell) on Apr 9, 2011 20:09:24 GMT
Well congragulations to all the winners i am glad that everyone enjoyed themselves. Amassive thankyo to warren for planning and running the rumble and everyone else who helped out on the day, we hope to see some of you back in 1012 Darrell Phoenix Chairman
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Apr 9, 2011 21:38:59 GMT
...and if we wait for another 54 years we will see the Normans attacking Hastings and Harold being shot in the eye (alledgedly).
I think you mean 2012??
|
|
|
Post by shamutanti on Apr 10, 2011 0:25:54 GMT
Me and Darran enjoyed the tournament and was worth the trip down, even if my army never got to see the actual gaming table. Couple of things on the flip side though: 1. I read the pack a fair few times and I interrupted it wrongly in places, more specifically, the area on how you work out your army lists. Maybe I simply didn't read it well enough or just jumped ahead of things but myself and Darran ended up going with 2 800point forces, rather than 1 1600point army, because we understood the pack to mean each force was to take its own percentile of points and that couldn't be split, evened up or adjusted between each other. e.g. He had a Lord for 198 points, because we assumed 200pts for his force was the limit, not 400pts for the army. Imagine our surprise when we saw someone using 400pts of Slaan and then 400pts of Engine of the Gods!
Something clearer in the explanation of the rules pack wouldn't go amiss in my eyes because I know we weren't the only ones to discuss us when we brought up. Luckily for others though it was explained to them! 2. We (luckily) didn't encounter the power scroll blip but banning that nasty surprise would be wise no doubt, because of the aggro it causes. 3. Did the tournament use list sharing or not? Because in one game we and our opponents kept closed lists until the end of the game, in another, we were asked to show/expand on lists (something I've never encountered in a fantasy tournament) before the game actually began, so all goodies and surprises were revealed instantly, and in the third it wasn''t sure which way we were doing things. Again, some clarity in the pack for that would be funky. 4. Let special characters in please :> You cut a chunk of wicked armies off by disallowing them (like Throgg or Thrott). 5. I still think Wood Elves shouldn't have a mysterious wood roll but then that's just me grumbling because apparently forest spirits are as likely to get abused by random forests as the next guy who wanders in the trees 6. I wouldn't use Blood and Glory as a third game finish. It was over exceptionally fast for at least three teams and it's typically an awkward one. It's good to encourage people to take standards and so forth, but I know in one game someone lost the game on like turn two to a irrestable uber spell that wiped the unit and general out. It also means that you have to either decide whether to play for the victory points and ignore the win (because it's arguably not important) or play for the win and stop victory points being accumulated. 7. Quicker games!!!! I honestly don't know how it took some games so long to finish. I admit we had a small army to play with but none of our games went over an hour (it's 8th edition afterall, games should be snappy, surely? ) When we finished game 2 we had an hour and 45minutes to wait before the next one. Which wouldnt of been so bad if we had not of had to wait an hour n' a half between game 1 and 2 8. The fragile alliance should be in play, in my view. There's a reason it's included into the rulebook (for one purpose or another) and it seemed odd to not have it being used.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Apr 10, 2011 11:07:39 GMT
Ok good thoughts Rory- 1) Maybe an example forces to show a potential army could be included into the pack next time for extra clarification. The explanation is a plain as day in the rulespack - I suggest careful reading next time 2) Power scroll, Book of Hoeth are top of the list for being potentially banned next year. They really gave those teams the edge. In one game when I was against the Book of Hoeth I had 8-12 dispel dice in every magic phase and couldn't use any of them throughout the whole game because of it and got really spanked for it. 3) Perhaps and added paragraph in the pack to say that you should have two lists. List a) The full list with all goodies that you submit to the organisers and this is the one you show at the end of the game. List b) A list that hides your goodies - why on earth someone asks to see your list prior to the game is frankly not sporting in my view. It almost seems as if they didn't trust you . I agree that this is a bit off, but fully agree that a hidden list (want for a better word) could be shown. However I fail to see what extra the opposition would gain from this as you would be pointing your out your units before the game in a index finger, "this is a unit of ... " styleee! 4) Definite no no on characters. You complain that it disadvantages certain armies by not having them in, however you have failed to realise that if this was allowed then you would see already powerful armies becoming even more uber! This is almost the same argument as not accepting the Power Scroll / Book of Hoeth. 5) Researched this one on the net, asked at two GW shops and also phoned in to HQ with this question and the extra WE forest do count as mysterious - period. If you didn't like that you could have chosen another army. 6) I would tend to agree with this - initially I was not in favour of this, but saw this as a good opportunity to "insist" that people take banners. This obviously doesn't effect Skaven as they love their banners! 7) Again if you read the pack you would have noted that between games 2 and 3 was an hour lunch. I can see that you were soundly crushed in game two by a very good side and this could have attributed for the quickness of your game (and that you are a GW guy who does have more experience in completling games a little more quickly than most). To be honest I was originally pushing for 4 games in the day and having 1hr and 45 mins for each. Another point is the fact that I played and was let down a little by the person who was coming to do the input of the tournament results etc.. This I had to do as well as play. Next year I will not play and I will just do the results as well as organise the other bits during the day - painting comp and spot prizes etc... Having to do all this and play would prove very difficult with shorter games and time inbetween. This could allow for an extra game - but do we want to change it into a frantic paced GW style tournament? Jury is out on this.... 8. I was over ruled on the fragile alliance. To be honest I felt that it should have been played - its part of the rule set and gives DE and Skaven a slight edge if its omitted.
|
|
|
Post by paulr on Apr 11, 2011 10:52:42 GMT
Congratulations Warren on running the event so well, it all went smoothly although I'm sure you were running around franticly to make it seem that way.
I think the game time was ok, we didn't complete one game and was close on the others, although having 4 games would be better as that way there wouldn't be two teams with three wins apiece.
I thought everyone at the event played in a great spirit, I only had to make one ruling and that was because I happened to overhear a rules discussion, I wasn't actually asked.
Look forward to the next one and hope to go one better (2nd twice in a row).
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 11, 2011 12:07:57 GMT
I was the other person involved in sorting out the rules pack with Warren, so I'm also interested in peoples thoughts on how the rules pack could be tweaked and improved.
1) Now I thought this was fairly clear on the percentage splits and teh Force and Army breakdown. But maybe that it could have because I wrote that, so I knew what I meant. We'll have to see if it can be reworded for additional clarity for next year.
2) I don't personally like banning stuf from use. Mainly on the grounds that removing things from an armies options can have impacts you didn't intend. Although in the case of the power scroll this is probably not an issue.
3) Techinally it was semi open. Which as far as I understand it means show your lists after your played your game. I only played in one game where we even showed each other our lists at all, so don't actually have a problem with it being a closed list tournament.
4) See point 2. I'm actually in favour of allowing special characters, although I do admit some are much more broken than others.
5) In agreement with Warren here.
6) I'm the one who wanted to include the Blood and Glory scenario. I like the scenario a lot, and think its inclusion makes people think more carefully about their army construction. I also think it tends to balance things up a bit more between serious power armies, and the more balanced but less focused force.
The scenario list was announced in advance of asking for army lists, so if you use an army that is going to work poorly in that scenario well it's your choice.
7) I had almost the opposite experience. All three of my games lasted almost the full round time. In two of the games we only managed to get 5 turns completed, and the other game only got through 6 turns because our army collapsed on turn 4, meaning that turns 5 and 6 took very little time at all.
Based on my experience this year, and last year, I'd almost want more time per round.
Now admittedly we were playing a fairly big army, with quite a lot of random effects (Goblins and Skaven), which tends to slow your play down a bit. And we may have been unlucky in also playing our games against other armies with a fairly large number of units.
Unless you drop the points down quite a bit (say to 500 point forces) I can't see being able to sensibly get another round into the day, without extending the tournament until gone 7pm.
8) I really don't like the Fragile Allience rule, as it seems to me to unfairly penalise the players of Skaven or Dark Elf combos over anyone else. The main issue I have with that rule is simply that it hands out a penalty to those two armies, without giving some sort of benefit to balance it up.
Additionally it adds extra randomness into the game, and means you have to keep track of what allience trustedness "level" you are currently at.
If we want to include it, I would have to suggest that you have the option of playing an all Dark Elf or all Skaven army to avoid having it apply to you.
|
|
james
Frostgrave
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by james on Apr 12, 2011 8:08:49 GMT
Just wanted to say I had a great time (thanks Warren and Steven), thought our opponents were all fair and friendly and that despite losing from 3 winning positions dont feel particuarly cheated by anyones army selections etc. Timing wise I agree with Stephen although I think an hours lunch is too long especilly as most visitors dont know Rushden well enough to go further than the chippy. Looking forward to next year.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Apr 13, 2011 15:19:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by carl on Apr 13, 2011 16:22:11 GMT
nice
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on May 14, 2011 8:37:41 GMT
Just quickly as I kept forgetting to mention it. Somebody left behind a very large red hoody sweat top thing. This piece of clothing has been washed as it needed it and if you wish to reclaim it tell me what is emblazoned on the front and I will be assured that its yours. PM me.
|
|