Monday, 24 March 2014

Equinox V Results

Another Equinox has been played and Won. We had a big turn out and certainly the biggest Warhammer events so far this Calendar year. Plenty of new players entered which is great news for the scene. So if you want to come and join the fun lets see you come out of the woodwork and attend a tournament some time soon!

Warhammer Fantasy Results

Rank Name Army Batt Sports Tot Paint Tournament Total
1 Dan Butler Chaos Warriors 85 28 85
2 Nick Munn Daemons 80 24 80
3 Russ Simister Vampire 79 -2 28 77
4 Antony Kitson Bretonnian 76 -2 25 74
5 Jeff Kent Lizard 71 28 71
6 James Cardno Chaos Warriors 71 -0.1 25 70.9
7 Glen Tibbles Chaos Warriors 70 -2 28 68
8 Ry Simister Chaos Warriors 70 -4 28 66
9 Paul Dalton Lizard 66 -2 27 64
10 Glenn  Patel Lizard 64 -2 23 62
11 Kelly Gragg Ogres 62 -2 30 60
12 Mal Patel Lizard 58 26 58
13 Rich Barby Chaos Dwarf 59 -4 25 55
14 Bill Shera Vampire 54 24 54
15 Michael Coxon-Baines Orc & Gobbo 56 -2.1 22 53.9
16 Rowan Coker Dwarf 57 -4 20 53
17 Rich Holtzhausen Chaos Warriors 52 26 52
18 Mike Stewart Chaos Warriors 51 26 51
19 Erdem Oguz High Elves 50 -2 22 50
20 Ron Golds Chaos Warriors 48 -2 19 48
21 Derick Willams Ogres 44 23 44
22 Neil Heineman Lizard 43 -2 24 41
23 Bobby Grindrod Empire 36 30 36
24 Chris Ellis Tomb Kings 37 -2 19 35
25 Greg Sugre Empire 4 19 4
26 Claire Vander Goes High Elves 3 28 3
27 Josh Jorgenson High Elves 2 19 2
28 Steven Gillian Bretonnian 2 22 2
29 Aaron Duncan Dwarves 1 20 1
30 Atreyu Bennett Orc & Gobbo 1 19 1

Best Presented 
1st  Kelly Gragg
2nd Bobby Grindrod
3rd Glen Tibbles

Best Sport : Richard Holtshausen

Best Table
1st   Pascal Roggen
2nd Antony Davy



*NB: 1. Painting was max'd at 16pts. Additional check marks were to determine Best presented.
         2. Sports were deducted from Batt Total for ease of use for tournament ranking.
         3. Tie Breakers were .1 deductions in sport ;)

We carried on the sports scoring system from GuardCon to great success I believe. The overall tournament was friendly and played in the right spirit.There were very few T.O. calls asked for, which is reflected in so many players getting maximum sports scores. The new system has an expectation of only scoring 2 out of the 3 points offered to your opponent each round. The fact that so many 3's were given must reflect the quality of the players who attend, well done chaps!

The longer than usual 1st day lunch break was asked for from the 2 Paint judges to give them time to judge the painting properly. Big Thanks and shout out goes to Claire and Steve for their time, plus Atreyu on the second day. They all commented on the massive step up in quality of all the armies that attended. Everyone should be stoked as well as we the tournament organisers, with the depth that the hobby is continually developing.

Hope you guys all enjoyed the tournament and lets see you back Next Year!

Big Big Thanks to all the People who helped make the tournament happen. that's you guys who helped setup and pack down. The other T.O's who gave up their time to put something back for the Hobby and Community. The Ladies who volunteered in the Cafeteria, with who you wouldn't be so well watered and feed over the weekend. It's great when the community gets together!


Warhammer 40K Results

Superb field gathered to contest the Equinox 40K trophy this year amongst some eye poppingly nice terrained tables. We had a big contingent of Aussies that we hosted (great bunch of guys!). This of course generated interest in the 'Battle of the Ditch (Botd)', games on the Saturday night were NZ regained the much coveted mantle for this year and the sweet trophy. 

Rank Player Army Total Battle Total Sports Total Pres Total Sports Pres
1 Charlie St Clair tau 181 103 40 38 30 19
2 Mark Buttle eldar 172 92 40 40 30 20
3 Joshua Diffey demons 170 90 40 40 30 20
4 Dean Oldham chaos space marines 165 87 40 38 30 19
5 Scott Birrell eldar 162 82 40 40 30 20
6 David Hillier space marines 158 78 40 40 30 20
7 Chas Roberts tau 152 74 40 38 30 19
8 Christian Pride eldar 151 71 40 40 30 20
9 James Davison imperial guard 151 71 40 40 30 20
10 Leigh Tresidder eldar 149 69 40 40 30 20
11 Frank Redmond space marines 148.67 72 38.67 38 29 19
12 Pascal Roggen blood angels 147 67 40 40 30 20
13 Tristan Sample eldar 146.33 69 37.33 40 28 20
14 Daniel Hayden demons 145 69 40 36 30 18
15 Simon Dennerly legion of the damned 145 67 40 38 30 19
16 Ivan Soo tau 143 65 40 38 30 19
17 Anthony Davy eldar 141.33 64 37.33 40 28 20
18 Dave Foster necrons 140 62 40 38 30 19
19 Corey Buchanan eldar 138 70 40 28 30 14
20 Chris Ward imperial guard 138 58 40 40 30 20
21 Adam Thornton tyranids 137 57 40 40 30 20
22 Andrew Duncan space marines 137 57 40 40 30 20
23 Michael Shehan tyranids 135 57 40 38 30 19
24 Ming Zhang imperial guard 134 56 40 38 30 19
25 Dean Bradley imperial guard 134 54 40 40 30 20
26 Cole Mendoza tau 133 57 40 36 30 18
27 Robert Power eldar 130 54 40 36 30 18
28 Doug Sainsbury imperial guard 128 50 40 38 30 19
29 Matthew Lenton necrons 126 46 40 40 30 20
30 Andrew Long demons 122 44 40 38 30 19
31 James Stott eldar 121 49 40 32 30 16
32 James Piesse orks 121 47 40 34 30 17
33 Michael Partridge tau 121 47 40 34 30 17
34 Tu Tamase space wolves 120 52 40 28 30 14
35 Andrew McCartney necrons 120 42 40 38 30 19
36 Adam Synoradzki tau 119 41 40 38 30 19
37 Ben McIntosh eldar 119 41 40 38 30 19
38 Stan Van Der Ham imperial guard 118 40 40 38 30 19
39 Brendan Dee imperial guard 118 38 40 40 30 20
40 Steve/Henare tagteam chaos space marines 116 76 40 0 30 0
41 Paul Bennett space marines 116 36 40 40 30 20
42 Ben Foster grey knights 110 30 40 40 30 20
43 Selby Dascent tau 92 26 40 26 30 13
44 Mitchell Kyne space marines 57.67 19 38.67 0 29 0
45 Tanis Heath space wolves 37.67 11 26.67 0 20 0
46 spookyghost space marines 26.67 0 26.67 0 20 0

Best Sport: Dean Oldham
Best Paint : Steve Gillard

We had a massive field entered for WH40k this year prior to the tournament of 65+. Unfortunately with real life and commitments of some of the preregistered, it meant we couldn't quite reach the numbers to set a record this year. Never mind, WH40k is growing exponentially and it won't be long before it reaches new soaring heights and numbers.

Dan Hayden handed his prize from one of the ladies managing the Cafeteria. Other winners were, Selby Dascent, Cole Mendoza & Mike Patridge.


         






More Photo's as they arrive. Big Thanks to Lee Jaques for his exceptional photography (The bad ones are mine).
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

13 comments:

  1. Jeff Kent24 March 2014 at 16:47

    Thanks a lot for your efforts in putting this on Phil. I had a good time and I think you're onto a winner with the new venue. Also good to meet so many new players.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kiwi Dan24 March 2014 at 18:59

    Thanks Phil, great event and a pleasure to attend, I'll look after the Auld Mug till next time :)

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shadowmancer24 March 2014 at 19:36

    It was Dean Oldham that got best sports not Chaz in the 40k.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Elven Glades24 March 2014 at 19:43

    What ever Shadowmancer! Chas always wins Sports :P I know Dean Won. I just wanted to see who would notice first. Soz Chas, you gotta work on your game man. Focus the sports!

    @ Jeff. Excellent to have you along. The new venue is sweet and we'll be having some large scale events up here in Aucks. Keep an eye out for em.

    @Dan. Well done big fella. Consistent play and you deserve the ol' mug for sure. Will be excellent to have you come defend it next year!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unknown24 March 2014 at 20:16

    Hi Phil,

    Thanks again for the tournament, I agree with Jeff that the new venue is nice (especially compared to last year!).

    On the sports scores, i'm not convinced that the change to this system is necessary or helpful. My reasoning is as follows: As far as I have seen (which is, admittedly, only since last year), the standard of sportsmanship at WHFB tournaments in NZ is high. I think it is high enough that a default expectation of max sports scores is appropriate.

    At this tournament, I both gave and received 3's in every round, and I would have a hard time deciding whether any of my opponents were lesser sports than the others. But having an expectation of 2 leads to people trying to make these decisions. I think that if you look through the scores up there, some of the minuses are likely to be the result of conforming to the letter of the sports pack rather than any real belief that the opponent deserved less than full marks. So, taking my opponents as examples, Russ, Glen, Ryan and Rich all got sports hit to varying degrees, and I don't see what any of them do that they deserve to lose any sports points. I've played each of them more than once now, and the games are always fair and well fought, win or lose. But if someone enters round 4 of a tournament under this sports comp, having given out 2-3 3's, they might give a 2 just because they rules say they should be giving 2s on average. Alternatively, if someone gets beaten severely, even in the nicest possible way, the temptation to give a 2 is *justified* by the comp pack, which says 2 is the expectation.

    Now, I take it there were perceived to be problems with the 'maximum sports is default expectation' ruleset which used to be used, but i'm not sure either that this change is better, or that any change was needed. I don't know the reasoning for the shift to this pack, but perhaps someone could try to convince me this step is needed?

    (All of the above, I hope it goes without saying, is just me wondering out loud. As it turned out, none of the placings were decided by sports, but having the conversation before it becomes controversial might result in a calmer discussion?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Elven Glades24 March 2014 at 21:02

    Good discussion Nick. I have a small amount of comments and suggestions also via email. I'll wait a day or so and gather them all. I intend to write an article with my summary of what I think could happen better next time around and to answer all of your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unknown24 March 2014 at 21:06

    Awesome stuff Phil. This isn't a knock on this tourney at all, just something that could cause controversy down the track and which would be good to clear up pre-emptively.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unknown26 March 2014 at 09:59

    where can we find some more photos of the weekend mate. good weekend and big thanks the kitchen ladies for giving up there weekend for all of us nerds to play games

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nick Lironi-Irvine28 March 2014 at 21:28

    Nick - I put that sports scoring system in place when I ran GuardCon in 20whenever it was and again in 2013. It's all in the way it's presented/perceived, another way of looking at it is, firstly, 'You get multiple best sport votes, not just one. Don't be dumb and give them to everyone', and secondly, 'This is a whole hobby tournament, if you manage to brighten up someones day, give them a highlight of the weekend to laugh and reminisce about, you deserve a couple of points that actually move you up the rankings'. Hark back to the good old days where sports and comp boosts led to me actually doing well at events :D

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unknown29 March 2014 at 21:18

    That sounds like a rather self-serving reason to institute a system, Nik. >>

    Regarding best sports: If you actually want it to do this, why do we still have a best sports vote?

    On the 'whole hobby' approach: If you are shy/nervous, if it is your first tournament, if you had a bad sleep the night before, you have a new baby, whatever, you might not be the kind of outgoing charming person that will get those full marks. An expectation of less-than-max points disadvantages certain people for things beyond their control (in a way that painting/battlepoints do not). It is also likely to develop into either a race to the bottom (where the ultra-competitive types sports hit each other in a misguided attempt to gain competitive advantage), or an old-boys club (where various in-groups agree to give max points out within the group, and those who aren't part of the group, or who play those outside the group, suffer). Neither is good.

    I recall you doing ok at Fluffycon. Although I would have sports hit your filthy, filthy list had I got the chance. >>

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elven Glades31 March 2014 at 14:49

      Nick Munn27 March 2014 20:51

      I think that this sports system leaves a problematic disconnect between people's experiences and the end results though. If a perfectly fine game can score either 2 or 3, but the difference between writing down a 2 or a 3 is 2 tournament points, then it is perfectly possible for the winner to be determined by how many times your opponent has already written a 3.

      One option would be to cap sports, such that you get full points if you average a 2 over all your games, but use the 1-3 system such that it can decide tiebreaks. (So, 50bp + 12 sports = 62 tournament points, 50bp + 15sports = 62 tournament points, but beats the person with 12 sports).

      I suggest this just because, as currently set up, had Russ got 1 more battlepoint, he would have come third behind me solely on sports. He and I both gave each other max sports, which is as it should be, the game was not at all frictious, even though it was tactical and hard fought. But had he sports hit me, we would have drawn! had I sports hit him, I would have had a comfortable lead! Neither of these outcomes would have been good, and neither *should* be available. The 0-3 system as it stands, makes them available, which I take to be a bad thing.

      Another example: I rolled a bunch of 8s on winds of magic against Ryan. I rolled a bunch of sixes determining whether his units got hit by it. These events made that game way less fun for him. They were also nothing to do with me. Dice are luck, not skill. So, he had a shit game, because of my dice, not my behaviour. He would have been within his rights to give me a 2 on this system. Not because of anything I did, but because I had good luck with dice, and that made his game less fun than it otherwise would have been. That also seems wrong: it (potentially) punishes someone for things beyond their control.

      (Just posting here for completeness)

      Delete
  11. Elven Glades31 March 2014 at 14:57

    Food for thought.

    0-3 Sports system. Player empowered to affect sports scoring. Sports scoring matters in this type of system and giving your opponent a better game matters.

    0-5 Sports system. T.O mediates and controls sports points. T.O is not at the table so should they have a significant part on the decision making of whether you had a good game or not? From my experience sports system gives perfect sports scores, therefore sports has no affect on the tournament.

    I would like more of a sample from the community and will probably run a poll on the Auckland City Guard Facebook page or the Forum.

    Aucklandcityguard.com

    *Nick- Russ is going to help run/T.O. GuardCon so you have a inside running at the moment as he's in favour of the 0-5 too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Unknown31 March 2014 at 15:59

    Couple of things here, Phil. I don't think the difference between the two systems is as clear as you make it. For example, I don't see that 0-5 prevents players from having a say on sports. People still get hit in that system, and all that changes is the T.O. wanders up to the hitter at some stage and asks why.

    With empowerment: Empowering is not always a good thing. Why not? Well, some things that cause you not to enjoy a game are out of your opponents control. Sometimes things all go right for you, while things all go wrong for your opponent. That game will suck for them. Not your fault, but under 0-3, they not just can but (arguably) should give you less than max sports. It is unreasonable to expect each player to separate out the caused and uncaused components of how much they enjoy a game (that is, the aspects that are the fault of the opponent, and the aspects that are beyond their control). These are closely linked, and they feed into each other. So, a better reflection of actual player experiences is to have an expectation of max points.

    (Note: The above doesn't imply that everyone should always get max points, just that having an expectation of max puts the burden of proof in a better place)

    What do you think of the suggestion I made for having an 'effective cap' with tiebreakers? (I haven't actually worked through the details on it, but it at least looks to me like it would provide a sensible middle ground.)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)