|
Post by wstevens on Mar 7, 2010 21:00:58 GMT
Small Gremlin wouldn't let me move one of the teams places and I have rectified the bonus points forgotten by one team, as well as used a hieroglyphic translator for some slips. Everything is fine now - this has not disrupted any award places and now I can sleep knowing everything is hunky dory. Please ignore the one in the post below and take this a read! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by deadpool on Mar 8, 2010 13:40:02 GMT
It was a fun event, all our opponents were good folks to play. We'd come back again. Had some difficulty finding the place is the only downside, the postcode seemed to point somewhere else on the SatNav. (might be the SatNavs fault, or the postcode could have been wrong in the rulespack). You guys should do a WFB Singles tournament next
|
|
|
Post by paulr on Mar 9, 2010 9:37:25 GMT
Very well run event, especial congratulations to Warren, who managed to both play and organise, not an easy feat.
Emyr also really enjoyed himself, not sure if he will come all the way from Wales again, but I may be able to persuade him to.
One complaint is that YET AGAIN you have spelt my name wrong.
Comments I have to improve an already great event for next time:
1. Put table numbers on each table.
2. Be clearer about when the round will be ending, only on the first game did I know when it would finish.
3. Announce when the next games are up on the board.
4. Personal preference this, would need a vote: I prefer not to have bonus points because it benefits some armies and not others, but if they are awarded make them more interesting than related to number of kills or units not reduced to below half points.
It appeared that everyone had a great time and next year I'm sure the tickets will sell out quickly.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Mar 9, 2010 12:51:45 GMT
Obviously not then if I STILL get your name wrong. It's a bit strange as its correct on the other form I did and also the one I am sending to RHQ. I can't apologise enough (again!!!) Could you change your name by depol to Yusuf Al'rhabat?? I might just get that one right. I did have the number of the tables on the computer but had a nightmare with the computer as it wouldn't do any printing so that's the reason for that one. Rounds were clearly listed as which time they would finish and I gave 20 min callouts to go on every round on one I even gave 10 mins (10 mins after that) and so did Carl. We kept ridgedly to the timetable set for the day - there was no compromise at all except for the first game waiting for some entrants by 5 mins to sort themselves. You diddled yourself out of some points on the sheet which I rectified for you. I think the bonus points worked well - not saying anything to anybody about them worked a treat a stopped people tooling out their general for the first round especially on armour. The other two have been used at a lot of tournaments before and its simple and effective rewarding individuals that little extra for battling well.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Mar 9, 2010 15:37:43 GMT
Personally I like little twists like bonus points / secret objectives etc, that said I would of liked to of known the tournament would be using them (even if what they were was secret). Also, it would of been nice to have a sheet explaining them all handed out in the morning so everyone was clear. The only bonus I thought was a mistake was encouraging defencesive play in the last round, final games tend to be quite cautious anyway especially on the top few tables.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Mar 9, 2010 15:53:58 GMT
Nothing cautious in our game against Paul and Emyr - the bonus incentive was a mere formality in the end and I believe that people should get the bonuses as they earned them. This also encouraged a different way of playing each game without having way out wacky scenario designs that confuse a lot of people. They were simple and short. There have been posts up before about the added bonuses but the details were going to be kept secret hence the reason why they were non-random affairs and not badly orchestrated to completely nullify a particular army. I can't see the problem with any of them really. A sheet was handed out in the morning before game no 1 to all tables detailing all bonuses - I'm surprised you did not see this John.
|
|
james
Frostgrave
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by james on Mar 10, 2010 8:06:22 GMT
Chris and I had a great day but are confused by our placings and the scoring system if we are honest - for example we won our first game but ended up on table 6 looking up at the guys we beat on table 5. We then finished on table 5 despite a solid victroy in round 2 building on a minor one in round 1. Is this because our wins were small or because of bonuses? either way to win two and not finish in the top half of the table makes no sense too me although I guess the total massacre in the last round may have something to do with this! GREAT DAY though with good opponents. Thanks for organising and we would do it again. Anyone fancy organising a 40k tournie too? - these one day events suit me down to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Mar 10, 2010 15:45:05 GMT
Yes there are wins for people at differing wins and the bonus points, coipled with vp differences. Its when people win 3 and are all above then it becomes clearer. Even 2 wins and a draw would beat you hands down. We had a win, draw and a loss and ended up 11th from being on table 1. - a big tumble. A number of sides got a lot of wins - the side that came third actually lost their first game but clawed 3 points out of it - they when on to achieve x2 20-0's and as well as a bunch of bonus points (all 9 I think).
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Mar 10, 2010 23:31:38 GMT
For Arrows and Axes there was a mistake on your round one sheet which I have rectified due to the VP differences - this does not effect the top awards so I don't mind posting again though but puts you at 10 place. I do think something has to be done vis a vis the battle recording sheets as these seem to be a nightmare. Anybody has any other bright ideas bar better handwriting from punters, filling them in correctly and better QC on the organiser's part? I think putting both results on the same sheet maybe the downfall here - ok it saves on paper but I'd rather sacrifice a few bits of paper to stop the double confusion. Maybe the battle report sheets should just have Table no - Round no Then just the outcome with the 20-0 to 10-10 only and placing winner one side and loser on t'other. This eliminates the two listings we currently have and will totally nullify any mistakes in future tournies. I will definately design something like this as I feel I owe it to all potential Phoenix Tournament goers. The two columns has proved to be a bit of a no-no in my book and I am to blame for this design. It won't happen again that's for sure!!! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by shamutanti on Mar 11, 2010 1:22:53 GMT
Frankly the only things that matter was first, second, third and last place. Any in between mean nothing anyway so I wouldn't worry too much.
I'm attending the Mayhem Tournament in April and the sheets they sent us are very simple.
I'll see if I can take a picture or do a photocopy.
Basically every player gets one and as they were sent out before the event you can check through it, work it out, etc.
It's ideal really for copying.
|
|
james
Frostgrave
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by james on Mar 11, 2010 20:04:26 GMT
Cheers Warren - we aimed to finish tenth so to do so is great. Can you email the results as still can not download.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Mar 11, 2010 22:47:12 GMT
Yes there are wins for people at differing wins and the bonus points, coipled with vp differences. Its when people win 3 and are all above then it becomes clearer. Even 2 wins and a draw would beat you hands down. We had a win, draw and a loss and ended up 11th from being on table 1. - a big tumble. A number of sides got a lot of wins - the side that came third actually lost their first game but clawed 3 points out of it - they when on to achieve x2 20-0's and as well as a bunch of bonus points (all 9 I think). The 20 point system can lead to a teams with a couple of wins finishing below teams with close losses (we finished upper half with 2 13-7 losses). The team that finished 3rd was the one we beat in the first round, yet as Warren says they maxxed out the wins on the next two games and finished above at least one team that never lost.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Mar 13, 2010 12:30:14 GMT
Sorry to say that I have just received an email from Ben Curry who deals with RHQ for the UK and he said that it would be impossible to put the doubles results as the rankings are for singles events only. This conflicts with what Andrew Galea from Australia RHQ said but I will go with Ben's final word - so not at this time sorry folks for leading people up the garden path on that. When we do a singles comp - then the results from that one will be added. cheers!
|
|