Thursday, 27 March 2014

Post Tournament musings & Photo dump

A big shout out to the tournament community for making it to Equinox and making it another bang on the button top event again this year. Of course going forward we would like Equinox to improve and become better each year so we thought we'd touch on few things and also answer a few of your Questions.

Early registrations & Travellers.

Equinox will endeavour to have a Date & Venue secured every year 6 months out from the actual tournament weekend. Deepest respect to those who make an effort to travel to tournaments. I know from personal experience it's a big job but also very rewarding all the same. Having this extended time will give travellers & locals plenty of leeway to organise and plan for those elusive holidays and grabaseat flights to get you to the gaming weekend. With an earlier set date, we will work hard to make sure our registration system is on par to handle your interest quick smart by centralising it for the next tournament going forward.

Due to the Xmas season being bang in the middle of the registration period we will continue to offer very generous discounts to your tournament fee if you register prior to this busy time for work and family. If you register in advance, it gives the tournament organisers vital logistics information to better manage the tournament as a whole and this really does benefit you the tournament goer as well.

Players Packs & Discussion:

Nikola & I have been running Equinox for 5 years together now. We both come from a very long back ground of Wargaming and Tournament experience. Players packs we will endeavour in future to get done before the Christmas break. You will find that Players packs will be very mainstream, designed on the premise that "So all can come and play". This will mean that we stay as the tournament that caters to all levels whether you are a beginner or a tournament veteran. So more often than not this will mean that the pack will reflect these ideals.

1. Due to our expected mix of experienced and just new to tournament going audience, we would like to nurture an environment of fair play and good sporting behaviour. This is the reason that the Sports scoring for the WHFB tournament has changed to the 0-3pt model from the 0-5pt model. I find that using the 0-5pt model it is very difficult to show that you had a frictious game and in part this encourages perfect sports scoring in so many of our recent tournaments with a 0-5pt sports model. With the 0-3pt scoring system, a 2 is the normal score with a 3 earned if you had an exceptional game. This means that any scores of 2 or above will not warrant a T.O investigation. This also means that there is a expectation that you ensure that you give your opponent a good game to earn your full 3 pts. In Equinox Sports pts are worth 2bp and noone lost more than 1 Sports point each round at the tournament. With so many 3's awarded it meant that I as the T.O. can rest assured that we had a very well behaved tournament.
NB: All those who got -2 for sports at Equinox received only one sports score of a 2 in 6 rounds of play. this means you got 5 x 3pts of perfect sports which is bloody good I reckon.

2. There was a mention of there being too long between rounds for the tournament. I think the 15-30mins between rounds is realistic as Equinox is only going to get bigger. We have to cater for up to 50+ in each of the Warhammer systems. The time between them is to make sure that we get the results entered right and the rounds get under way properly.

Thank you to all those attended and those who volunteered their help. We wouldn't have tournaments without you all.

Ice Queen on Owl
Kelly's Woolly Mammoths
 Ryan's Blue Chaos
Bobby's Demi-Bears 
 Richard's Chaos

 Dave's Necrons

 Scott's Eldar - Marines

 Steve's winning entry

 Tank Mentor
 Dave's Templars

Bolt Action

Thanks for the impressive show Bolt Action guys! James & Dean and possibly SAm will be at the club Sunday to show it all off again.


  1. 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.

    1. I agree. You say most games should be a '2' and yet a '2' is effectively a sports hit. And as a result a 2 is -2 tournaments points [ie 2 BP's lost]. This might significantly change the places of players and might even affect podium positions at future events.

  2. I've posted in the original thread and added you comment there for completeness.