Battlecry 2011 Warhammer 40k Results

[Wayde]

1st Overall: Doug Sainsbury
2nd Overall: Charles St Clair
3rd Overall: Mark Buttle

Best Army: Paul Monk
Best Sport: Damien Reid
Best Presented/Painted: Damien Avery

Results:

Rank   Player   Total   Battle Total   Sports Total   Comp Total   Pres Total   Sports   Army Comp   Pres
1   Doug Sainsbury   195.25   67   45   56.25   27   30   5   16
2   Charlie St Clair   188.56   89   45   22.5   32.06   30   2   19
3   Mark Buttle   172.44   68   42   33.75   28.69   28   3   17
4   David Dawn   171.13   62   45   33.75   30.38   30   3   18
5   Damien Avery   170.13   61   45   33.75   30.38   30   3   18
6   Andrew Bartosh   168.06   64   45   33.75   25.31   30   3   15
7   Daniel Hayden   162.88   65   45   22.5   30.38   30   2   18
8   Steve Davis   158.69   64   43.5   22.5   28.69   29   2   17
9   Paul Monk   156.06   34   45   45   32.06   30   4   19
10   Damian Reid   154.37   52   45   33.75   23.62   30   3   14
11   Simon Denerly   154   55   45   33.75   20.25   30   3   12
12   Robert Power   153.75   69   42   22.5   20.25   28   2   12
13   Chris Ward   151.75   64   45   22.5   20.25   30   2   12
14   David Wilson   150.94   39   45   45   21.94   30   4   13
15   Tristan Sample   150.75   63   45   22.5   20.25   30   2   12
16   Andrew Duncan   149.69   55   43.5   22.5   28.69   29   2   17
17   Ben Harris   146.94   53   45   33.75   15.19   30   3   9
18   Thomas Porteous   146.63   51   45   33.75   16.88   30   3   10
19   Matthew Robinson   146.38   50   43.5   22.5   30.38   29   2   18
20   Nathan Harris   144.69   35   45   56.25   8.44   30   5   5
21   Ryan Cripps   144.37   42   45   33.75   23.62   30   3   14
22   Daryl Painter   142.81   53   42   22.5   25.31   28   2   15
23   Jonathan Peters   140.12   49   45   22.5   23.62   30   2   14
24   Campbell Jeans   139.56   49   45   33.75   11.81   30   3   7
25   James Dean   137.31   58   45   22.5   11.81   30   2   7
26   Dean Oldham   137.25   51   43.5   22.5   20.25   29   2   12
27   Vebjorn Hovrud   137.06   60   36   22.5   18.56   24   2   11
28   Matthew Lenton   136.56   46   45   33.75   11.81   30   3   7
29   Daniel Bray   136.06   50   45   22.5   18.56   30   2   11
30   Leighton Coles   135   36   45   33.75   20.25   30   3   12
31   Kyle Wilson   134.94   47   43.5   22.5   21.94   29   2   13
32   Stan van der Ham   134.62   21   45   45   23.62   30   4   14
33   Mathew Aggus   133.5   66   45   22.5   0   30   2   0
34   Paul Bennett   133.31   54   45   22.5   11.81   30   2   7
35   Haydn Korach   130.25   62   43.5   11.25   13.5   29   1   8
36   Edmund Whittaker   130.12   39   45   22.5   23.62   30   2   14
37   Regan Ridge   130.06   47   37.5   33.75   11.81   25   3   7
38   George Herbert   129.12   38   45   22.5   23.62   30   2   14
39   James Hale   122.62   45   45   22.5   10.12   30   2   6
40   Mitchell Dean   119.81   36   45   33.75   5.06   30   3   3
41   Tim Oliver   116.75   47   45   11.25   13.5   30   1   8
42   Shamar Henderson   116.5   31   45   33.75   6.75   30   3   4
43   Aidan Auld   115.75   37   45   33.75   0   30   3   0
44   Matthew Bowmar   115.44   35   45   33.75   1.69   30   3   1
45   Aaron Seth   114.56   24   45   33.75   11.81   30   3   7
46   Chris Harris   112.31   33   45   22.5   11.81   30   2   7
47   Michael White   111.56   39   45   22.5   5.06   30   2   3
48   Aidan Holroyd   110.87   22   45   33.75   10.12   30   3   6
49   Joe Pearson   106.88   36   45   22.5   3.38   30   2   2
50   Chris Doussau   100.25   44   45   11.25   0   30   1   0

[Sectiplave]

Solid work Dave, 4th is a pretty impressive result. I'm somewhat pleased to be up 5 slots from 47th to 42nd

Anywhere we can grab the excel spreadsheet of this?

[HarasinCreed]

Wow totally confusing trying to read the scores. I dont know how u could do it better though and thanks Wayde for running such a good event.
Ed

[Hunter_Flood]

I love it how the only reason Doug Sainsbury won to Charlie was because of his perfect comp score. Anyone know what he took in his list? (Dark Angels surprisingly)

[NeckFace]

ravenwing with a buttload of melta apparently

[Lazarus]

odd how ravenwing get a 5 for comp and deathwing get a 2. ?

i would be in the top 10 if i did not make a silly last min mistake on my two draw games. my issue for not being 100%

[bartosh]

its not odd dude. its just bad, cause it threw out everyone elses scores

[xyphoid]

Yeah, 5 multimelta attack bikes, 4 2xmelta bike squads, and 3 multimelta/typhoon speeders. I'd love to know what was in the other list that got 5 comp - trying to figure out what kind of list to take to a tournament is kind of a fascinating question (clearly i haven't figured it out yet)

[Sectiplave]

I'd love to know what was in the other list that got 5 comp

It was a Necron list I believe, he played across the table from me in one of my games and I remember he came 20th in the ranking call out at the end.

From memory it was single Monolith, and a heap of foot slogging troops and immortals supported by a lord ( I presume with res orb ), not many destroyers of either type, and no Nightbringer. I would say that list deserved a 5.

For anyone who is interested I got bored this morning and have placed the results into a much nicer to read 2007 Excel spreadsheet. Just PM me if you want a copy, that way Wayde can rest

[Lazarus]

i have one melta gun in my army and two lascannons and i get a 2 WTF sucky

[Big D]

i have one melta gun in my army and two lascannons and i get a 2 WTF sucky

That sounds terrible Laz, until you remember to mention they're all in Terminator armour 

[Sectiplave]

i have one melta gun in my army and two lascannons and i get a 2 WTF sucky

You forgot TWENTY TWO TERMINATORS in landraiders, and a partridge in a pear tree

This is getting dangerously close to becoming your all too common for City-guard comp whinge thread

I could be biased because I got a 3 though

[Lazarus]

hay most of my termys died almost every game. There was only 22 one of the other guys had i think 38 in his deathwing haha.

[daemion]

comp is crap. thats why i dont have it at grumpy D. but then i never whinge bout what my opponent has across the table anyway. dont care. never will. bring it all on.

[Solarian]

I dont uderstand a bad comp score for deathwing. Its not one of the hardest armies to do well with but its up there. terminators tend to fall over and die if someone sneezes in their direction.

High armour saves + low volume of firepower + slow movement = big slow punching bag

[Lazarus]

Am really really liking my Deathwing they are a really fun army to play and they do win now i have worked them out. And i can win with them 80% of the time now.

[Vulkaan]

who scored the comp?

[Lazarus]

ya we should find out and slap him one and go WTF are you thinking.

[daemion]

nah. comp is always subjective to whoever does it in each torney. one torneys 5 maybe another ones one...move on....

[blood_god]

I'm hoping that in the not too distant future comp will vanish from the NZ tourney scene. Its not really achieveing what its supposed to, its too subjective, and all it really leads to is bitching after every event.

For example Dougs army was given a 2.5 on OTT only a week before it was given a 5 in battlecry. I went from a 2 to a 3. No offence intended to those who do the comp scoring, but it simply proves that it comes down to who looks at the list as much as whats in it.

Lets get rid of it!!!!

Mark B

[Solarian]

Comp is too subjective, however it does make people think twice about their choices.

Standardisatio n of comp is not going to happen.

Would a easy fix be to just reduce the percentange of your final score allocated to comp? A slight reduction may find the right middle ground.

[blood_god]

Why would it stop people thinking twice about choices? You still have to look at your list and decide what are the best choices for the armies that are around in the scene anyway. There isn't a perfect list.

The issue with having a smaller comp percentage is that someone who has a hard army wins most of their games by a big enough size thart the comp % isn't big enough to have any evening out factor, then it has no effect whatso ever on the final score. If its not going to have an effect then why bother?

[pete dunn]

I'm hoping that in the not too distant future comp will vanish from the NZ tourney scene. Its not really achieveing what its supposed to, its too subjective, and all it really leads to is bitching after every event.

Lets get rid of it!!!!

Mark B

Aren't you running Nicon 40k? You should do it there. Give it a run and report back on how it went.

Pete

[daemion]

nah. kyle. disagree bro. my events hav no seperate comp. its part of sports.-ah, i see u have bought a dnuchebag army along- nt very spoorting what?- wnh, you even play like a douchebag as well? 0 for yOu buddy. players know what is a crap army selection- thats why i let them judge it. with me being supreme high solver of problems with a baseball bat- dnt pla stink stink. dnt take shit combos. simple. yo! cn i still score those gnoblars off you?

[Vaul]

Aren't you running Nicon 40k? You should do it there. Give it a run and report back on how it went.

Pete

How do you feel about comp in 40k, pete?  You'd be one of the few people on this forum that organises events from the two systems with the most comp; 40k and fantasy.

[pete dunn]

Think Comp is easier to organise for Fantasy than it is for 40k.

You can draw up an ETC type system that works in Fantasy, not really easy in 40k.

Two things don't work in 40k - Peer or Maths.

I think the best is TO comp but this has a few provisos. One it is subjective so the person/persons (if panel) need to know their stuff. Second, they need to divorce fluff from it if it is meant to be a handicap system, Third they need to be fair.

The key think with all Comp is that because of GW's release schedule not all books are created equal. Clearly the Imp Guard and Space Wolves books are significantly stronger than all other books as were the DoC and Dark Elf books in Fantasy 7th Ed. In 40k, until the release of latest Dark Eldar you were comparing books over 12 years and 3 editions....no t easy.

No-comp may be the way to go. I'm keen to see how it works. what I do suspect is you'd see a lot of red, blue, green and black "counts as" Space Wolves armies.

The old UKGT Final tended to have a limited variety of armies in the Top 20. If people are comfortable playing a limited variety of armies and lists then no-comp solves a lot of problems.

One of the most refreshing things with 8th Fantasy is the full range of armies are pretty much viable with little or no comp.

YMMV

Pete

[NeckFace]

No-comp may be the way to go. I'm keen to see how it works. what I do suspect is you'd see a lot of red, blue, green and black "counts as" Space Wolves armies.

as much as this is discussed on forums, I have yet to see anyone actually run their army as something that its not (even the kids with unpainted armies).  has this been the case elsewhere?

[Fujin]

Think Comp is easier to organise for Fantasy than it is for 40k.

I think the best is TO comp but this has a few provisos.

I don't have the breadth or depth of knowledge any more to be able to confidently agree or disagree with a Fantasy/40k comparison.

I went with straight TO comp for Fantasy at Battlecry and know for a fact that not everyone was pleased with their score. Unfortunately most of us have seen the effects of 'no comp' in Fantasy played out in some overseas tournaments where a very limited number of armies end up being viable and 'competitive' (whatever that means).

Is there an ETC system for 40k already (excuse my ignorance)?

[Lazarus]

well you could say i fall under this in a way. but you have to be dumb if you though i used the BA codex for my army.

Main issue with 40k comp is its all personal preference of the guy marking the lists. And what he thinks is a bad comp list may be false. what i see with comp is if you get a 1 your amy is cheese and build for killing you get a 5 its soft and you should get someone to right a new list for you.

[pete dunn]

The ETC uses the teams nature of the event as Comp.

i.e. you can only have one of each army and then you have a match up process.

My suspicion is that there would have been some very one sided games due to matchups.

The biggest problem with a singles event and no comp is that for there to be a level playing field you have to accept that all codexes are perfected balanced relative to each other and the suite of missions.

If they aren't then army choice can be significant contributer to outcome.

Conversely when you look at TO or panel comp you need to accept that they have the skill to balance all these inequalities.

My view is that TO/Panel balances some aspects but it is ridiculously optimistic to think it balances all. Still I suspect that it is more conducive to a wider varietyu of armies being competitive than no-comp.

Personally I don't mind no-comp as it increases the meta game. However as a TO I am always mindful of people's enjoyment and I can't think it is too much fun to be flog silly and see no compensating factor in the scoring just because your army is the army de jour.