|
Seattle GT Scoring Battle 40 Let's look at these scores in detail: Battle: in each battle you could get 5pts for a loss, 10 for a draw, 15 for a victory and 20 for a major victory, giving a maximum possible of 100pts for this category. I got 1 major victory and 4 losses, for a total of 40 points. I knew going in to the GT that I'd have a lot of trouble dealing with vehicles. I didn't think that I'd manage to go up against 3 Eldar armies with multiple Grav tanks. (Most of them fit the armies, I just hadn't expected to see that many.) Ultimately, I think I might have done better if I had been more aggressive with my Tyrant. My thinking at the time was that, as my only effective anti-vehicle unit, I should hold him back safe and wait until the gaunts engaged the enemy to bring him up. End result, the Tyrant got smoked in every game except Game 2 (my Major Victory.) Instead, I should have moved him out more aggressively, trying to take down a vehicle with his High Power Warp Blast during the first turn. This probably would have still resulted in a dead Tyrant, but it would have given me a shot at lowering the vehicle counts, giving me a bit more of a chance in the other games, plus reducing those incoming shots slightly. Alternately, perhaps I should have taken a "tougher" list with more Anti-vehicle stuff. Sportsmanship: in each battle you could get up to 6 points for Sportsmanship, with an additional bonus of 1pt for each opponent that chose you as their favorite opponent, leaving a potential maximum of 35 for this category. With a 31, I was up there pretty high on the list, getting maximum points from every one of my opponents, and having one of them select me as his favorite opponent of the tournament. I make it a point to have fun with my games and not worry about little things here and there or rules issues. I like to have a good time, and I like my opponent to have one as well. I also did some things because I thought they'd be funny, such as bringing a can of Raid for my bugs, or giving opponents an Honorary Windshield Award when they splattered my bugs in a particularly spectacular way. When you are losing a lot, it's a lot harder to smile and keep up the cheer, but I've gotten fairly good at it. It can also be difficult to stay excited when you are really tired, but a few smiles here and there and the little things like shaking hands before and after the game and being friendly about rules or reminding an opponent to move something go a long way. Selection: scored by your opponent, this was 0-3 points per battle, with general questions ranging from an army designed to take advantage of the rules, all the way up to an excellent example of the particular type of army. I got the full 15 points, which meant that all of my opponents felt that it was not merely fair and balanced, but actually an excellent example of what a Tyranid Army should look like. When I was creating and fine-tuning the army list, I did make some conscious choices about what not to include in the armylist, even though I knew it would hamper my effectiveness on the battlefield. For example, I know how effective Carnifexes with Venom Cannons are at stopping vehicles, but I was aiming for a fast army with no guns, so I felt they didn't fit the "fluff" of the army. The same goes for Zoanthropes. While they don't have guns, they are slow, and again, don't fit the story behind the army, so I left them at home. Ultimately, I maxed out my score in this category, but handicapped my Battle score due to those choices. Appearance: also scored by the opponent, this was 2-10 points per battle. There were five checkboxes, worth 2pts each, the opponent was supposed to fill in based on how well you had painted your army. In order, they were: Is the army fully painted? Is the army consistently based? Does the army feature appropriate unit markings and banners? Is every model detailed, shaded and highlighted? Is the army Jaw-droppingly gorgeous. Did people come up and ooh and aah at it? Well, my army was fully painted and based consistently, so those two were guaranteed. I had also stayed up the night before to paint different colors on the tip of different Gaunt crests, so that one brood would be readily identifiable from another. (Red Brood is assaulting that side over there, while Green Brood is scuttling through the forest in the middle.) The next one was a bit harder. I had detailed each model and used shading, but not highlighting. 3 of my opponents gave me credit for this, while 2 did not. The final checkbox, of course, really only applied to the most magnificent armies. While I was proud of the way mine looked and I did get a lot of compliments (and even a few oohs and aahs) I knew it didn't fit the last category. I had considered (if I had the time) going back over the two larger models with a bit of Blood Red on a few surfaces, which would have highlighted them effectively, but it wouldn't have happened to the whole army. (For that matter, I'm not sure it would have looked right anyway.) A bunch of conversions with the gaunts in various leaping poses, or with the All-Talon look like my other gaunts have, might have squeaked me into the ooh and aah round, but I'm not sure, and it would have taken too much time for now. You be the judge. Being scored by an opponent makes sense for Sportsmanship, but I'm a bit leery about having my opponent score my Appearance and Selection. It's hard not to be affected by the loss of a game, and even without any intention behind it, that can sneak into subjective scores. In addition, since these are subjective scores, tastes come into play. If all of my opponents are particularly fond of the way I painted or composed my army, I will score higher than someone with the exact same army that had opponents that thought differently. Now, to combat this, there were checkboxes that made the Appearance judging a bit less subjective, since they were (mostly) yes or no questions. However, this isn't perfect, as my score will attest. While I'm pleased with my Appearance score, I find it interesting that 3 of my 5 opponents gave me the points for detailing, shading and highlighting every model, while 2 of them did not. (Technically speaking, they were all detailed and shaded, but none of them were highlighted, just so's you know.) The Selection checklist was much more subjective. Not everyone knows the background behind an army. Even if they do, they may have a totally different concept than you of what constitutes a good example of that army. I have run into people online that feel, no matter what, more than 2 Tyranid Monstrous Creatures is cheesy and completely against the background. Some of these people also think that Tyrant Guard are Monstrous Creatures. (Don't I wish!) On the flip side, there are a lot of armies that I am not totally familiar with, and even the known ones have different wrinkles. If I came across someone doing, say, the 5th company of the Ultramarines, I'm not sure I'd recognize it as an excellent example of a Space Marine army. Weighting of scores. Ultimately, I was not pleased by the weight given to Battle scores over those of Painting/Selection and Sportsmanship. Despite getting high marks in most of my other areas, my low Battle points ensured my status in the middle of the pack. While I enjoyed my games, this setup certainly makes me want to design a much more efficient and powerful army for next year. Just look at the numbers, the maximum of 15 points that you can get for excellent Selection is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Battle Points. Getting one additional normal win and a tie would have made up all 15 of those points, even if I got a complete zero for the Selection score. Personally I wouldn't have as much fun with a totally tooled-up army, but some people would, and a partly tooled army would be more likely to win me more games. To a lesser extent, the same thing goes for Sportsmanship and Appearance. A tooled up army that is painted to a mediocre standard and played by a person that isn't a jerk will do quite well, provided the person can win a few games, and with a tooled up army, that person is more likely to do it. For example, let's say this person gets 4's on Sportsmanship across the board. (A good opponent, but not amazing) Then gets 1's on Selection (Not a complete loophole army, but it was definitely a "hard" army. Then gets 6's on Appearance (Fully Painted, Consistently Based, Appropriate Unit Markings.) This will give a base score of 55points. To beat my score of 122, the player would only need 4 regular victories and a tie. I'm not saying it's totally lopsided, but too many points come down on the side of Battle, which tends to leave the other parts of the hobby a bit neglected. While I had a great time at the tournament, I would have appreciated a more balanced weighting of scores, and possibly being judged by a single person or group of people. Even if they use the same checklist, they'll still be more consistent simply due to them being the same judges from one army to the next. If you enjoyed this, email me and let me know |