The Conclave

3rd Update:

We have one week to go now, and I thought I'd better put up a checklist of things to bring along next Saturday:

1-3 models representing your player characters.

Character sheets for these models.

Your scenario.

Stationery - pencil, eraser, spare paper.

Gaming aids - D10s, D6s, D100s, measuring tape, reference sheets.

The above are the definite things to have on you, and you'd be advised to bring these things too:

Rulebook.

Annuals, faction sourcebooks, Dark Magenta articles (if you have them, and/or need to refer to them for Special Abilities etc).

A copy of the briefing pack (download from my signature).

A name badge (I have stickers for those who don't manage to make one)

Doors open at 1000, and registration begins at 1010. The first game will start at 1030. You can register up to 1400, but won't get points for the games you've missed and you may not get to run your own scenario.



2nd Update:  Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2013 Briefing Pack Download Link (http://www.mediafire.com/?az7zavrs882cg9r)

The Briefing Pack with details of how the day will run and how you can buy your ticket is available to download above.  Tickets are £10 in advance (payable by Paypal or cheque - details in the Briefing Pack).

If anyone has further questions please ask in the thread or PM me.


Update time: Date is Saturday, March 30th 2013.

The tournament will run similarly to previous years, with each participant expected to prepare and run a scenario as a Games Master within a 75 minute time limit.  Each attendee will also take part in three games as a player.  Warbands can contain a maximum of three models, with the GM allowed to decide on which characters can take part in their scenario.  There will be a painting and modelling score so bringing your own models will be a requirement for that!  A full event pack with all details will become available soon.

There will be two separate event for 54mm and 28mm warbands this tournament.  Each event will have separate scoring by the participants involved in their own event.  There will be a special prize for the highest scorer out of both scales.

The following Conclavers have shown an interest in attending.  If you wish to be added to the list please post in thread, giving details of which scale you would like to participate in.

54mm Participants

Marcoskoll
Bloodpact
Kaled
DirkThe1

28mm Participants



Either Scale Participants

Necris (prefers 28mm)
Greenstuff_Gav (prefers 54mm)
Hadriel Caine
DapperAnarchist
Koval (prefers 54mm)



Ladies and gents of The Conclave,

As the new organiser of the Grand Tournament, I thought it best that I create a thread to keep you all updated on the state of play regarding the 2013 Grand Tournament.  Once again, the plan is to have it at Warhammer World in Nottingham.  As for a date; this will be confirmed in due course.  I have been in contact with the Events Team at Warhammer World to request Saturday 30th of March 2013, but won't have a decision until September/October as their calendar operates on a six month rolling schedule.  That should hopefully still be enough notice for people to get organised in time!

I'm going to keep the format quite similar to the events of recent years, so there shouldn't be too many surprises for people.  A rules pack will become available once the date is finalised. 

As I'm going to organising things there will definitely be at least one attendee staying in Nottingham on the Friday and Saturday night.  This creates the possibility of extra games on the Friday, Saturday evening and Sunday morning or some other form of socialising for the community.  Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader games have been considered for the Saturday evening at past events, and this may be a golden opportunity.

One last thing I'm considering is the inclusion of 28mm warbands, but would prefer the input of the community before any decisions are made.  Clearly, 54mm and 28mm models couldn't populate the same table, and I don't think it's my place to tell people what scale they should play in or make anyone bring warbands at two scales.  For the tournament to run at two scales there would have to be enough participants in both scales.  To my mind, that would be 10 entrants at each scale. 

I open that one up to the forum to decide.

Ruaridh

so since 28mm and 54mm warbands are not going to populate the same table what your actually running is two events, it would have to be two different tournaments with participants picking there scale on sign up, otherwise if players could play at both scales they could potentially be playing two games at once or even Gming two games at once. As a player and GM if i was in a situation where one of the participants of the game (be they GM or Player) where running off to another table to play at the opposing scale i would be marking them very poorly (this is not a scale thing just if your playing a game You are playing A game).


Also how early can you book at your hotel i might stay over night

Catering for both scales is an interesting idea, but I think it would have its issues.

Firstly, players would be forced to pick a scale (as you can't really let people play at both scales, as players aren't normally allowed to change their warband during the event), and I'm wary of that kicking up a 54 vs 28 issue.

Secondly, I think it'd probably be wise have to have two sets of placings. If it were only one set of placings, then a player could perform equally well but get scored very differently depending on which group they elected to play with. (The different scales do have very different pools of reference to draw from when scoring.)
And we don't really want 54 vs 28 to show up in the scoring either, which this would avert.

Sure, we wouldn't get to hand out a massive mega prize, but the kitty per scale would be pretty similar to what we've had in the prize fund before.

I was kind of hoping for more feedback by now, but general forum traffic hasn't been too heavy I guess.

I should confirm that in the event of both 28mm and 54mm tables, players would have to commit to one scale or the other.  My other intention was that there would be one final tally of scores - regardless of scale used, everyone would have the same chance to place well in the final outcome.  It's one of the advantages of having a player and GM-based scoring system.

Ruaridh

Depending on exactly what the provision is going to be for 28mm, I'm tempted to jump in (in fact, the cell I've posted on the rules board was devised for that purpose)

I have to say i agree with Marco on having two sets of Placings, I'm not sure i would feel comfortable in a competition against 28mm players when there is no chance of me playing against those players.

I'm in two minds about whether, if I were still running it, I'd have one score board that covers both scales or keep them separate.

On one hand, in theory everyone is playing the same game and there should be no difference between scales and no reason to separate the scores.  However, having analysed the scores from the last two tournaments, there does seem to be a tendency for more experienced players to give lower scores (presumably because greater experience gives them more ability to discriminate between what is really good and what is pretty average), and as the 54mm community seems to be, on average, more experienced than the 28mm one that could bias the scoring towards 28mm - but the effect may not be pronounced enough to care about.

Probably the thing to do is just try it one way and see how it works. Personally I think I'd allow players to switch scales during the event and relax the rules on how many characters they can bring. (But that would make scheduling games very difficult.)

Quote from: Kaled on April 26, 2012, 12:28:29 PM
I'm in two minds about whether, if I were still running it, I'd have one score board that covers both scales or keep them separate.

On one hand, in theory everyone is playing the same game and there should be no difference between scales and no reason to separate the scores.  However, having analysed the scores from the last two tournaments, there does seem to be a tendency for more experienced players to give lower scores (presumably because greater experience gives them more ability to discriminate between what is really good and what is pretty average), and as the 54mm community seems to be, on average, more experienced than the 28mm one that could bias the scoring towards 28mm - but the effect may not be pronounced enough to care about.

Probably the thing to do is just try it one way and see how it works. Personally I think I'd allow players to switch scales during the event and relax the rules on how many characters they can bring. (But that would make scheduling games very difficult.)

Have you had one judge, or a panel, in the past?

The only time we've used judges was for the Painting & Modelling round, but this year I changed it so that participants score each other in all rounds including P&M.

The tournament pack can be downloaded from Dark Magenta if you want to see how the tournament worked this year.

Quote from: Kaled on April 26, 2012, 12:28:29 PMHowever, having analysed the scores from the last two tournaments, there does seem to be a tendency for more experienced players to give lower scores (presumably because greater experience gives them more ability to discriminate between what is really good and what is pretty average), and as the 54mm community seems to be, on average, more experienced than the 28mm one that could bias the scoring towards 28mm

This is largely what I was thinking. It might be counteracted to an extent by less experienced players/GMs getting fewer turns before time runs out and thus losing out on marks as a result, but I think any inherent bias in the scoring is probably a bad thing.

~~~~~

While I don't agree with Stormgrad's views on 28mm being uninteresting (there are some very nice 28mm ranges), I do however agree that it would definitely present challenges if there were mixed scoring. If nothing else, it's the whole point the scales disagree on.
(Also, I do wonder if the players who do throw a lot in with both communities might gain an less than entirely fair advantage because of their familiarity to both.)

Ultimately, I do agree with Stormgrad's last point:

Quote from: Stormgrad on April 26, 2012, 01:50:26 PMFrankly I would be happier if I was marked and competing against my fellow 54mm players than only marked by 54mm players and competing against 28 and 54mm players.

I support both scales, but the community is still laced with a rivalry, so I'm really not sure I'd want to start an attempt at co-operation with an event that could actually provide a justification for people's prejudices of either scale or the people who play it by scoring them against each other.

It'd be really quite bad if people were thinking things like "Oh great, I lost the P&M round because the X players are biased against Y models" or "You scored him high on what?".

In short, I think it's good to include 28mm in the IGT - this would be a good progression towards unity. I'm not however sure we want to be pitting the two scales against each other at this stage.

The worst outcome would be if the IGT turns into a competition between Inq28 and Inq54, rather than between Inquisitor players. If a significant number of 54mm players say something like 'working at 54mm is harder because the range is smaller, so I'll mark 54mm models higher than if the same model had been done at 28mm' and a significant number of 28mm players say something like '54mm is easier as the models are bigger, so I'll mark 28mm models higher' then the P&M round is going to be determined by whether there's more 28 or 54mm players - which would be a real shame.

Another option is to separate out the 28mm and 54mm P&M rounds, and award prizes for them seperately to the overall score which would be done on just Player and GM scores.

I am playing devil's advocate here, but for once I actually take this view. If I was presented with two models, one at 54mm and one at 28mm which were the same, I would score them the same, because each desrves to be recognised for the effort put into it. However, I think that 54mm models are sightly easier to work with (usually) due to the larger sizes of the pieces involved. However, this also means that there is more space available for detailing, trying out blends and other such techniques. If you put one of my 54mm and one of my 28mm models together, the 54mm would likely be more detailed, and have better painting overall.

Kaled, I think that most of the people on here are mature enough to try to make a combined event work and not turn it into a competition, as any attempt at a more unified community would seem to be ideal. I'm really not sure that there is a clear scale winner between 54mm and 28mm, and whilst each have their relative merits and drawbacks, it's generally down to player preference. I also think that regardless of which scale you prefer, you should be able to recognise a good model when you see one. I do agree that whilst people are more likely to score the scale they prefer higher, I think that we should all be able to put aside our instinct to say what we like more is best and to celebrate that inquisitor is still very much alive and kicking.

Hello, long time no speaky.

Am I the only person who trusts that we as adults (as we mostly are, certainly at tournaments) are not so petty as to try and 'one-up-manship' each other over a scale?

Personally in my experience I have never met a player on here who strikes me as being like that. And I think discussing it as some sort of big problem will only make such a division worse.

Trust in us being united by the emperor and if it all goes wrong then hey, EYHBTIAL :D

R

Unfortunately, while it would be nice to say "Yeah, I think it'll all work out", there is more than no enmity between the two sides. Not usually outright falling out, but the historical conflicts over which scale is better (using various, often mistaken, reasons) now mean that most of the "28mm dominant" players inhabit an entirely different forum!

While I utterly agree that we should be unified - and things are getting better on that front - I do think that at least the first "meeting" should not present any unnecessary opportunities for conflict.

I'll turn up either way though - I have, of course, got a title to defend.

Quote from: Draco Ferox on April 26, 2012, 05:25:09 PM
However, I think that 54mm models are sightly easier to work with (usually) due to the larger sizes of the pieces involved.

Having done loads of 54mm models in the past and recently a load of 28mm ones, I think it's fair to say that both have their challenges. If forced to choose I still find 54mm much harder as I can't get away with as much as I can on smaller models. For example, on a smaller model I can get some nice looking shading and highlighting with just a few layers, but on a larger model I need a lot more to get an effect that looks as smooth. Similarly with modelling, 54mm is more unforgiving due to everything being much bigger. But that's just my experience - I think we can all agree that there's no way to say that one scale is objectively easier than another.

QuoteKaled, I think that most of the people on here are mature enough to try to make a combined event work and not turn it into a competition

I would hope so too - hence why my preference would be for an event that's as fully integrated as possible, event though I can see there could be some grounds for people wanting to keep them separate. I vote for an integrated event, and we can always tweak the formula in future if need be. Sure there may be some differences in how people score one another, but we have that anyway as everyone scores people slightly differently depending on their preferences already.

Quote from: Shannow on April 26, 2012, 05:27:21 PM
who trusts that we as adults (as we mostly are, certainly at tournaments) are not so petty

i am, Mr. Poopy-pants!  ;D

in seriousness tho, on a technical issue, would arranging players by tables be difficult (i refer to Marcos' amazing number-crunching for player spots at the last GT)?
when signing up, could players make note of which scale(s) they are willing to play at? for example i can pretty much play a couple of my warbands at either scale :D

Quote from: greenstuff_gav on April 26, 2012, 07:42:13 PM
i am, Mr. Poopy-pants!  ;D

Oh how I've missed you Gav :P

Quote from: greenstuff_gav on April 26, 2012, 07:42:13 PM

Quote from: Shannow on April 26, 2012, 05:27:21 PM
who trusts that we as adults (as we mostly are, certainly at tournaments) are not so petty

i am, Mr. Poopy-pants!  ;D

in seriousness tho, on a technical issue, would arranging players by tables be difficult (i refer to Marcos' amazing number-crunching for player spots at the last GT)?
when signing up, could players make note of which scale(s) they are willing to play at? for example i can pretty much play a couple of my warbands at either scale :D

That requires you to have the same models in both scales. While we're a fairly casual bunch when it comes to the tournament, we still have rules, one of which (I'm pretty sure) is that the same characters must be used in all scenarios to provide as consistent an element as possible for GMs scoring a player.

I'm very much on the fence about integrating 54 and 28 into a single scoring sheet.

One big issue I feel is that by having the IGT specifically played in the official Inquisitor scale of 54mm, it proves that the interest in the original game and models continues to exist over 10 years on. It hopefully proves to GW that they shouldn't just dump the range and seal the vaults on it. If half of the attendants turn up with 28mm, it simply doesn't have the same impact.

I'm all for mixed-scale campaign days and such, I think some really cool things could come out of those – I'm just really not sure mixing scales at what is essentially our main self-promotion to GW is such a great idea.

Quote from: Kaled on April 26, 2012, 05:58:14 PMI vote for an integrated event, and we can always tweak the formula in future if need be. Sure there may be some differences in how people score one another, but we have that anyway as everyone scores people slightly differently depending on their preferences already.

Stormgrad put it quite well on Skype tonight, but I can't remember his exact wording, so you're getting a paraphrased version...

The scoring at the event has that nicely mutual nature - you score the people you're competing against and, in turn, they score you. Okay, you don't get to score everyone, but it's essentially randomly picked (this time, while the combinations of player numbers were known from the start, the assignment of those numbers was mostly down to Tzeentch), so it's a fair random sampling.
The moment you separate off half the players so you can't score them but you're still competing against them, that symmetry starts to break down. It seems less fair, because you never even had the chance to score those players, let alone the opportunity.

Now, me personally - I think my real worry is that we could see people (of either scale) opting out of the IGT because they feel that the competition isn't fair. We are not without precedent - we had that this year with Bloodpact.

I think, at least until we've had the chances to best patch the disagreements between the sides, it's best to start with what is effectively two separate competitions. There's no risk of anyone taking offence to any scoring fairness issues (either because the 28mm players think its weighted towards the 54mm players who've got prior GT experience or that the 54mm players think the 28mm crowd are scoring with shorter yardsticks) - any that haven't already existed, at least.

I would like to see it that we could run an integrated GT, but it is a radical change to be making all in one go.
So far, the majority of the two groups have never met, don't talk on-line, or have had any contact at all. I think the number of people who've been to an event for "the other scale" can be counted on one hand, a number that the INQvitational won't dramatically change.

So, I don't think the best starting point for trying to patch this relationship is to be having the two sides competing against each other.
I know it's most of a year away and things could improve before then, but we should be making the decisions based on whether the prejudices and disagreements have been patched, not whether they could be. If, eight months down the line when it's time to put the briefing pack together, everything's peachy, everyone's getting along and we haven't got people worrying about if it'd be fair... well, under those circumstances, it would be entirely appropriate to re-evaluate the decision.

~~~~~

But, unlike Heroka, I'm not sure that 28mm attendance is without its impact. It does show to GW that there are some "hidden sales" that Inquisitor is generating. The 54mm models might not be shifting, but hey - keeping the books on the website has conjured up some 28mm sales too, so it's making more money than you think it is.

And given how much attention the staff pay to what actually happens on the Inquisitor tables, they probably wouldn't notice that half of them are at 28mm. But they might notice player numbers. If the events team hears "Yeah, about thirty of us, all up here to play Inquisitor", then it'll impress them a lot more than the 9, 17 or 11 we've had in the last three years.

Also, the INQ28 scene has itself some real attention. The Forge World team watch the INQ28 stuff on Ammobunker, John Blanche and Molotov are in contact with each other... we can't hide INQ28 from GW. But it does mean GW will notice an event with 28mm at it more than 54mm alone.

I think including 28mm at the GT is a very good thing for Inquisitor, but I definitely don't want to see that marred with disagreements.

Quote from: greenstuff_gav on April 26, 2012, 07:42:13 PMin seriousness tho, on a technical issue, would arranging players by tables be difficult (i refer to Marcos' amazing number-crunching for player spots at the last GT)?

If the case that players could swap scales (which brings its own issues), both more difficult and easier.

More difficult in that there's too many input variables to be able to pre-calculate it as I did this year. It'd have to be calculated on the day (possibly even on the fly), based on which scale people wanted to play each game at. It'd also complicate the algorithm.

Easier in that the larger the pool of players, the more options where players haven't met yet.

What if the top score was the player (or GM or modeller etc) whose score was highest compared to the average of the people playing at the same scale?

So if the top Inq28 player scored 70 points against an average score of 50 for Inq28 players, and the top Inq54 player also scored 70 points, but against an average score of 60 for the Inq54 players - then the Inq28 player would win. This could be done for each category and for the overall prizes. Then it doesn't matter if one scale scores with a different yardstick to the other.

Or there must be other ideas for ways in which an integrated event could be run. We should concentrate on those rather than on reasons why it wouldn't work.


EDIT: I realise the above isn't a perfect solution as Inq28 is weighted the same as Inq54, and there will be differences between the two groups, however I don't think that assumption is unreasonable. Certainly in terms of P&M there's a broad range of abilities at both scales - probably with a higher average ability level in the Inq28 community. In playing terms I don't see that there should be anything between the two groups as the scoring is on the characters you create and how you play them. When it comes to GMing, the average ability is probably higher amongst the Inq54 crowd.  (Marco - you have more experience of both groups, would you say that's a fair assessment?)

So that assumption is not going to a perfectly level playing field, but there are enough other ways in which the scoring is not perfectly fair that I don't think it's significant enough to worry about.

But I'm sure someone out there will have a better solution or can improve mine, such that we can make this event work...

Ultimately the fact that it's the same game shouldn't mean there's much difference in how the two scales are viewed. Both should be as equally valid as the other. I fall into the 28 camp because A) I hate working with metal models B) there's a wider array of bitz from which to build C) I simply don't have the dexterity or the skill to use modelling putty of any type for anything more than filling gaps. However, I see no reason for anything to separate 54 from 28 apart from the scale of the models used -- my approach is "some people prefer one, some prefer the other, and it's not worth arguing about"

For administrative purposes, I'd support keeping the two scales separate (separate games, scorecards, P&M) but I honestly think Shannow has it right here. It's the same game at the end of the day, so who cares if it's at 54, 28 or some other scale?

If they're kept separate then they're really just two different events that are taking place on the same day, which defeats the idea of trying to integrate the two sides of the Inquisitor community.

However, given the ambivalence that has greeted previous suggestions of a dual scale event and the fact that most people are looking for reasons why this event should be two separate ones rather than looking for ways it can work, I'm beginning to think that the majority of both the Inq54 and Inq28 communities would rather not mix and that events should be pure one scale or the other.

Does no one have any other ideas about ways in which this event could work at both scales?

Perhaps the IGT is the wrong place, because it is, even in a very mild way, competitive. The less formal structure of a Conclave or campaign day might be more appropriate. I'd quite like to be able to bring both 54mm and 28mm (though currently I have only 3 INQ28 models), but having to bring the same characters in both scales would be impossible. If I could bring two different sets of characters, one in 54 and one in 28, and then use either depending on what the GM and other players prefer, that would be quite tempting.

Ah, a debate!  That's better.

Taking on board all that's been said so far, it would seem that there is a voice against running the IGT at both scales this time round.  It would seem that the main problem of accepting both scales is the element of competition and perceived imbalances in both player experience, modelling options and actual gaming (terrain and scale effects).  The split between 54mm and 28mm is by and large absolute, with only a few individuals straddling the lines.  Thusly, it's difficult to know what effects a twin scale tournament would have.  Experience is going to be key to working out whether it would work. 

As I said to begin with, perhaps it is too early for the IGT to go down the twin scale route.  Without testing the waters with a "non-competitive" event, we may never know if an IGT at both scales would work.  Perhaps it can't: there may be genuine effects on game outcome caused by playing at different scales (for one it would take much longer for a 28mm character to ascend the stairs on one of WHW's standard Inquisitor buildings we're used to playing on); and the perceived unfairness of being unable to play against all competitors, amongst other arguments that have been put forward.  My suggestion at the moment is to try events that encompass players of both scale with no requirement on players to bring warbands that they don't want to use.  GMing at your least favoured scale is a way to open eyes to the other way of playing and could lower prejudice either way.  A consensus actually may not be that far away.

Ruaridh

My own opinion is that we can all continue to put obstacles and reasons why not to do a joint scale event.  That's really easy, but I don't think continuing to operate like that and not take the first step will help resolve things.   

The sooner the IGT as the main event in the Inquisitor calendar embraces both scales the better.

I agree, why put it off further? If the plan is to integrate 28mm and 54mm at the IGT at some point, then lets put in place a plan to do it for next year.

Molotov has the INQvitational in the summer, so lets run a dual-scale campaign day in autumn/winter, and then we'd be in a better position for a dual scale IGT in 2013.

Quote from: Kaled on April 27, 2012, 07:14:05 AMWhat if the top score was the player (or GM or modeller etc) whose score was highest compared to the average of the people playing at the same scale?

I had thought of that, but I think it could actually exacerbate the effect that the same player might score highly differently depending on which group they played with.

QuoteWhen it comes to GMing, the average ability is probably higher amongst the Inq54 crowd. (Marco - you have more experience of both groups, would you say that's a fair assessment?)

Well, I GMed both games at the Bash, so I can't comment very fairly on GMing.

As Stormgrad says though - it did take longer to get games through, but at least some of that was down to the reduced scale (and thus slower movement, harder shooting, etc). Also, not having to be done and dusted in an hour fifteen meant we could take some more time over it.
We did pick up pace in the second game though once people had re-cemented their grip on the basics, despite the fact I had thrown in some of my characters too.

Quote from: Kaled on April 27, 2012, 12:12:09 PMMolotov has the INQvitational in the summer, so lets run a dual-scale campaign day in autumn/winter, and then we'd be in a better position for a dual scale IGT in 2013.

Under such circumstances, then I'd look on it differently. It would have done something to break the ice rather than starting out with a competition setting.

However, my assumption was that we had enough events on the table (RobSkib, Karandras and Bloodpact) that we would probably have to wait until the dark side of the next IGT to get my plans for dual-scale campaign day in. Mind you, I think only Rob actually has a date so far, so it might be that we could just jam something into November/December and tell anyone who hadn't got their date in by now to lump it.

I admit I've lost track a bit. Quite a few people have talked about running an event, but which actually have been arranged?

I think only Rob has a date. If the others have booked or contacted WHW yet, I don't think they've told us.

That's September right? So a Winter Conclave is do-able maybe? Assuming there's enough interest...

I have booked it provisionally, just for the sake of having SOMETHING in the books. I'm massively swamped under by my Final Year Project at the moment, so I won't be able to start organising it properly for another 3-4 weeks.

I'm still good for running it unless someone desperately wants to take that booking for whatever reason, but for the time being I've got the 15th/16th of September still in the diary to run the Summer Conclave.

On that note, it's probably worth pointing out that at this stage I have no intention of making my event mixed. This is not due to grievances with the 28mm range (I fully intend on recreating my warband in mini and attending the mixed/28mm events) but because the plans I have are complex enough without the addition of an extra scale of models. ;)

That said, if someone comes up with a slick way of integrating the two scales that would work with my Top Secret Planz, I'll definitely reconsider. At this stage, I'd much rather have a (relatively) smooth day of 54mm gaming than a choppy day of mixed-scale gaming.

Is that alright for people to wait that long, or would someone prefer to take that slot for a mixed event?

That seems to be the only solution that will bring this to a conclusion, but it seems to me it just pushes the issue off for another year rather than trying to resolve it in a positive way. Would it really have mattered if the scoring was slightly biased? It's just supposed to be a bit of fun.

Furthermore, given the amount of ill feeling this thread is likely to have generated and the fact that it's turned into yet another 54vs28mm argument means I wouldn't be surprised if we struggle to get enough Inq28 players to make it viable - we already struggle to get enough Inq54 players. (And to be honest, at times it made me wonder whether I'd even want to attend given all the bickering about what is essentially just two groups of like minded people playing the same game but with slightly different sized playing pieces.)

I vote this thread be purged by order of the Arbites for inciting public disorder and we start again with a more positive discussion of how a combined IGT could be made as exciting as possible.

MOD MODE=ACTIVE

i've done my best to tidy it up so only discussion of the events themselves is here, the rest has been split off (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1983.0).
if anyone has questions / points / things i've missed, PM me. otherwise let's try discussing intricacies of scale in the other thread please.

/MOD

I'll just repost the event-relavent part of my last one:


Actually you know what might be the simplest idea for the 2013 IGT? Run parallel GTs on the same day/place/times/etc, keep the scoring of the two scales separate, but (in addition to having the best GM/P&M/Overall awards in each scale) also have a "Grand Master" prize for the highest overall score in either scale – with the prize being a small bonus or joke trophy added to their existing "Overall winner in X scale" prize, rather than some great big I R CHAMPION prize.

It also means the prize pools can directly reflect the number of players in each scale, which seems fair.

This way we get a joint event that doesn't really raise any issues with scale difference and it's effect on gameplay, yet still produces a nominal "outright" single winner (not that we're a community with an "only the winner matters" attitude).

This will also give [the organiser] the opportunity to compare average scoring biases within each scale and thus determine whether or not a single scoresheet would be workable for the 2014 IGT.

My own contribution to the subject of trying to make this viable has been added to my "dual scale event" thread, and I invite you all to discuss it there.

But to summarise, we move that up the calendar so it's before the GT so we're not making our first mixed event competitive (or even pseudo-competitive), and potentially run the IGT scoring in the background to give us an idea of how much scoring/scale bias there might actually be.

And my post above was a reply to that when Heroka originally posted it. I was agreeing that his solution seems the only workable one for the moment.

Quote from: Kaled on April 26, 2012, 04:07:01 PMThe worst outcome would be if the IGT turns into a competition between Inq28 and Inq54, rather than between Inquisitor players. If <lots of bias> then the P&M round is going to be determined by whether there's more 28 or 54mm players - which would be a real shame.

It has occurred to me that a possible solution here would be to work out the average given by each scale of players, then take half of each of those scores. (Essentially averaging the averages.)

This way each scale's voting would have a completely equal effect on the score.

Since about half of the scenarios I remember from previous IGTs could have been run at either scale, some Inq28 GMs could run games for (and thus score) Inq54 players and vice versa. Plenty of scenarios I've played in (and run) don't require NPCs and any terrain/markers they did use could have been used at either scale without looking too out of place.

By encouraging (but not mandating) players to bring scenarios that could work at either scale it would mean some of the symmetry in scoring could be added back in, and might push people towards designing clever scenarios rather than just hoping to get points by building some big vehicle or cool NPCs (something I too have been guilty of in the past).

As for scheduling games, we could have tables that show who is playing on each table in each round, and who is GMing that round, then match GMs to tables. Everyone could GM at their own scale, or swap to the other scale depending on what scenarios everyone has brought.

Continued as my phone only allows me to post so much text in one go...

Or, more radically, the change the rules for the IGT so, much like with terrain, there's no guarantees which scale you'll have to GM for. That would encourage good scenario design, force people to think about the challenges of playing at the other scale, and, most importantly, get people mixing together. Those people who decide they really need a particular NPC would then have to build them at both scales just in case, which would give them a chance to try modelling at the other scale (or they could arrange to borrow a model from a fellow participant).

I suspect my first suggestion will be more popular. But given that everyone gets plenty of notice for the IGT and thus more than enough time to figure out a scenario (even if some people do leave it to the night before), I don't think this one is unreasonable and would be better in the long run.

Either way, I still think we could/should have integrated scoring.

I really, really don't like that second idea, especially with regards to forcing GMs to have an NPC at both scales if one is needed for their scenarios.

In my view, any switch in scales should be entirely optional - if someone wants to GM at 54mm, and is prepared for that and doesn't want to play or GM at 28mm, the IGT is not a good place to say "No, you've been drawn to GM at 28mm, tough" - that'll take the fun out of it, and the IGT is supposed to be fun, right? Forcing Inq28 (or Inquisitor, for that matter) down the throats of those who don't want to play it is not a good strategy, and is far more likely to cause antipathy than integration.

just have a checkbox on the entry form stating the scale/s the player will be bringing and whether they will be willing to GM/play at a different scale, that way you can try your scale-swapping experiments on willing participants, rather than dragging someone kicking and screaming into a scale they do not wish to play at.

Scoring won't be very different, everybody's playing the same number of games (although if all the boards are the same size, inq28 games effectively get twice the space, maybe that should be taken into consideration)

I agree with Charax on that count - as the organiser I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to play the way they enjoy it. Encouraging all players to attend no matter the scale is a noble goal, but mandating how to play is not my place.  Allowing the entrants to choose how they want to participate is much more in line with the ethos of Inquisitor.

Ruaridh

Don't misunderstand me, as with terrain and having to GM a second game, there could be some element of choice just no guarantees that everyone would get their first choice. No one ever wants to GM a second game, but sometimes someone has to for the event to work and participants are advised to prepare for that eventuality. I'm suggesting that we could do the same for scale.

I really don't see that going down very well at all, it's subverting the GT to push an integrationist agenda. It would work better as its own dedicated event where everyone goes in willing to swap between scales.

frankly, the possibility of being forced into a scale I don't want to play in would be a dealbreaker for me.

Stick up a poll so you can figure the current lay of the land.   

I think any poll should ask (at least) two questions. Firstly, the short term one of what form the next IGT should take? And secondly what should the end goal be? Should we be aiming to eventually have a tournament that integrates the two scales as fully as possible? Or keeps them entirely separate? Or somewhere in between?

Quote from: Kaled on April 29, 2012, 08:31:52 AMOr, more radically, the change the rules for the IGT so, much like with terrain, there's no guarantees which scale you'll have to GM for.

After our earlier suggestions of "you could bring two different scales" managed to turn into "You should really have 54mm models", I don't think this is at all good as an idea.

It means that attendees have to write scenarios with an even narrower set of criteria or have all their resources on hand for both scales. And a lot of people won't want to do that, at least at this stage.

The former - well, an NPC or two in a scenario often adds flavour. I fear that if everyone had to write their scenarios as to be able to play at both scales, we'd see less interesting ideas.

The latter is, aside from being more (and quite possibly wasted) work, biased in favour of 54mm players, I feel.
As quite a lot of 54mm players have 40k or Necromunda experience, there are probably more than a few who could dig out roughly equivalent NPC squads - a IG squad, a hive gang, etc - for both scales. Perhaps even matching vehicles.
There aren't, however, going to be many 28mm players with a 54mm thug squad on hand. So this does mean that 54mm players will have at least some advantage.

It's one matter if people can choose to GM at either scale, but we definitely don't want to be forcing people to. As Charax says, this is a recipe for resentment, not unity. And likely a lot of "Sorry, don't want to come this year".

Moving on to the question of a poll, I think this might be counter productive at the moment.
As I said on Ammobunker, I think the current issues are quite heavily defined by how little the two groups know each other and how they play. We don't want to be cementing opinions just yet, so I think we should be looking at these issues later - at least after Kaled and I have been to the INQvitational, but ideally after (if it can be done) a dual-scale event.

I agree with what I think MarcoSkoll is saying here, that we should basically pause any further discussion of developing the IGT until such a time as at least one "non-competitive" dual-scale event has occurred.

I do stand by my IGT "Grand Master" suggestion however as the best first step before possibly integrating further in the future.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on April 29, 2012, 04:05:16 PMThere aren't, however, going to be many 28mm players with a 54mm thug squad on hand. So this does mean that 54mm players will have at least some advantage.

I know some others have offered their services in the past, so I'll speak for myself here. I have more 54mm goons than I know what to do with - if I'm attending an event, there's no reason why people can't rifle through my model case for the mooks they need.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on April 29, 2012, 04:05:16 PMI think the current issues are quite heavily defined by how little the two groups know each other and how they play.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

I'll be signing up to Ammobunker and miniaturising some of my favourite 54mm characters over the summer.

I should say that the first (and only, so far) response I've had on Ammobunker to trying to iron out any creases by "testing" the GT scoring at a non-competitive day has been positive.

Quote from: RobSkib on April 29, 2012, 06:38:30 PMI know some others have offered their services in the past

It's a bit different between a friendly and a scored setting. The idea that it's not all their own work and that that might affect how people score them might put some people off.

In any case, I doubt we want to be going too radical with our first mixed GT, lest we end up with it being declared Excommunicate Traitoris as a result.

Then go with the test-at-another-event suggestion. There's a massive gap of eleven months between now and when you want IGT'13 to happen, which is enough time to run a fair number of mixed events and hammer things out left right and centre.

In practice, there's maybe a six month window. We want to have the plans for the GT sorted at least a couple of months in advance, organising another event would take about the same... add in some leeway and a reasonable amount of time between events, I doubt we'll have more than two events in the time. And I think we can only count on one of those being a test bed.

And just because one person has taken it well doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will.

Okay, so maybe in practice it's less time than I imagined, but six months is still a long time in which you can do some testing. Maybe you'll also be able to stimulate some sort of civil discussion about it with other people, in person rather than on a forum. You won't know if you don't try.

To be honest as one of the others that straddles between the two sites I don't see much antagonism at all from the INQ28 crowd on scale or much else.

It's just like racism. Nothing is racist until someone says "Hang on, isn't that racist?".

Can we get a definitive list of which events are being planned by which people? There's obviously the IGT '13, but there's talk of what, at least 3 different events being rumoured to happen before then. Who is running what?

*Krenshar has suggested in the Dual Scale Event thread that separating the Painting and Modelling round from the main scoring and having a competition for each scale instead.  I'm just adding this here to get some feedback on that idea.*

As for the last couple of comments in this thread:

A poll sounds like a good idea, but I have one dunder-headed question: how do I set one up on this forum?  Can't for the life of me see how to do it!  I could always start a thread with the questions and simply ask people for a set response I suppose.

I think I may head over to Ammobunker and see what the thoughts of the bigger 28mm community are, and at the very least, nudge those chaps towards any poll that appears here.

Although there are 11 months until the next IGT, I would prefer to have all my planning sorted out in advance of that so that the player packs can go out around the time that the date is confirmed (WHW have told me October for a confirmation on the date).  That leaves 6 months for everyone to prepare, plus ample time for publicising the event. 

Ruaridh

Quote from: Van Helser on April 30, 2012, 12:20:02 PM
A poll sounds like a good idea, but I have one dunder-headed question: how do I set one up on this forum?  Can't for the life of me see how to do it!  I could always start a thread with the questions and simply ask people for a set response I supp

Id need to look when i get to a pc if i can start one, but polls are disabled by Saussures order :-P

Quote from: RobSkib on April 30, 2012, 12:11:30 PMCan we get a definitive list of which events are being planned by which people?

This, as I know it, is the current state of Inquisitor events:

   
• INQvitational - Molotov - 9th June 2012
• Kaede Mack Conspiracy - RobSkib - 15th September 2012
• Dual-scale event - MarcoSkoll - November/December 2012
• IGT - Van Helser - 30th March 2013
• Balanced event - Bloodpact - No date
• Informal meet - Karandras_sh - No date

There's no reason that Karandras' informal meet couldn't also be open to 28mm play, given that it's just a chance to pre-arrange games with people. In fact, if it does happen, I think I would try and get one of my games in at 28mm.

*Krenshar was a dolt and should have posted his idea here in the first place.*

On scoring for dual-scale, what about running any p&m section as a competition separate from the score?  It would allow for a category -and thus a winner- at each scale, plus it leaves the gaming aspect universal across the event if one assumes that the game is played in the same spirit, no matter a warband's height.

To encourage mixing, players could be expected to score the models of both categories, with the option to abstain from one scale should a player feel too disinterested/inexperienced in that scale.  That way there's no pressure, a model's average score won't be skewed by low scores from players resenting having to score, and it would hopefully lead to discussion and inspiration across the scales.

Granted, that's two more prizes to find than currently but as someone already pointed out, the potential increase in attendance should balance that out.

Out of interest, how did the player-scored P&M run this year? Did all players have to score all of the submitted models? Or was it a rank your favourite three setup?

Splitting off the P&M isn't a bad idea, but slightly detracts from the idea that the tournament is about showcasing/rewarding creativity across the whole of the hobby, from playing to GMing to P&M.

I still think the key issue with a single score sheet across both scales is as Stormgrad says, you are competing against players that you have zero chance of actually playing against during the tournament, which just seems wrong at a basic level.

P&M you gave each individual model a mark out of 10...

The prob with t "scoring people you wont play against" is that the more who play, the gratrr chance of that anywho... At t gt you should encounter 15 diff people, but im sure i encountered a coupl of peeps twice... either them or myself gming and then facing ingame...... not that im worried as marcos math was great, but tgat issue will occur anytime... atleast we dont place peiple by score in which you woll only face t
same people :-P
typed on t phone so please forgive speelnig!

Quote from: greenstuff_gav on May 01, 2012, 01:19:22 PMAt the gt you should encounter 15 diff people

It's a maximum of twelve. Up to four people for each game, of which you are one, so three others per game times four games.
(You're in every game you play, so you have to count yourself for all of them, not just once.)

But you only score six normally (You score three GMs, and your three players).

However, prior to the lot drawing on player numbers and table assignments, you have the potential to be scoring anyone and be scored by anyone, which isn't changed by increasing a single player pool. Whether we've got six players, sixteen, or sixty, I'd be as likely to be scoring you as I would any other attendee.
That symmetry is changed by introducing a second, mutually exclusive, player pool - after that, you haven't got an equal chance to be scoring any other player.

Whether this is actually a problem or not remains to be seen, but I can certainly see why it could put people off.

While I appreciate there's a difference in theory, in practice I see no difference between only scoring half of the participants because you weren't drawn to play the other half, and only scoring half of the participants because the other half are playing at a different scale. Add to that an option for those players whose scenario is not dependent on a particular scale to GM for the other group, then I don't see much of an issue.

But I think my views on that are pretty well known already (radical and subversive as they may be!).

It's a wasn't vs. couldn't issue. I wasn't drawn to score Gav this year (despite playing with him), but that's quite different to saying that I couldn't have been.

As is, having now seen the average scores, I can see I'm a little more frugal about the points I gave than others - I feel less guilty about that knowing that everyone had an ab initio even chance of being drawn to be scored by me (and equally, by players who might be more generous than average) than knowing that I had unfairly disadvantaged one group from the start simply because the others had no chance of being drawn to play against me.

While I'd like to be able to see a combined GT, we probably want to (and I quote little brother from AB here) "minimise the risk of adversely affecting the IGT, (which is a long established and successful event) and dealing with the fallout of that", so I think we should tend towards a moderate approach and build up to it, rather just praying it's all going to work.

Pessimist! ;)

Since I've seen no evidence or foundation for the suggestion that there may be an adverse effect on the IGT then I'd be happy to risk it.

Out of curiosity, would people feel differently if there was no entry fee and it really was all just for fun?

You'd have to manage a free tournament pretty carefully else you'll probably end up with some players turning up mostly unannounced. At least with a token entry fee and tickets before entry, you'd have a rough idea of how many people for whom to prepare.

The other Conclave events are like that and people turn up unannounced and it's never been a problem.  Plus, I only sold a handful of tickets before the IGT both years I ran it - the majority were bought on the day.

Anyway, I wasn't really suggesting Ruaridh do away with the entry fee as it does allow us to get good prizes.  I was just curious how much people's feeling about the level of 'fairness' was influenced by having to pay in order to take part.  I've no idea how 'fair' the other events have been - I've never really thought to ask and it's never been an issue.

Quote from: Kaled on May 01, 2012, 05:16:34 PMSince I've seen no evidence or foundation for the suggestion that there may be an adverse effect on the IGT then I'd be happy to risk it.

You said as much about the experience of players (not that I'm sure how you quantified experience) tending to affect their scoring. Taking that, and quoting Molotov, "the INQ28 community (such as it is) is still in its infancy" (http://s3.zetaboards.com/The_Ammobunker/single/?p=8259669&t=7506686), I can certainly see why the two together might raise concern.

The fee and prizes do have a minor part in it, but I'm more concerned about how "whoops, the 28mm/54mm players are all at the top/bottom of the scoring table" isn't going to foster the desired sense of unity and equality.
I want both sides to be able to walk in and out with neither feeling one-upped by the other. And I can't say with any reliability that would happen if we just winged it.

I think fairness raises it's head the moment there is a scoring system; even without prizes there is the recognition to compete for.  And while the Inquisitor mindset puts fun above winning, a perceived bias can dampen that fun in the same way that seeing another player lift Artemis from their carry case is prone to do.

That's not me advocating that the scoring system be dropped outright.  If nothing else an Inquisitor grand tournament showing up on the WHW calendar probably draws more attention from the wider GW player-base than 'campaign day' or 'grand conclave' would.  And you can't really have a tournament without a way of keeping score.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on May 01, 2012, 08:04:45 PM
You said as much about the experience of players (not that I'm sure how you quantified experience) tending to affect their scoring...

True, I did say that - and at the time I was going from memory so now I've gone back to have a look at the data.  I'm talking here about the 2011 data (just because I have a better spreadsheet with the breakdown in).  I assigned each player an experience rating of high/medium/low based on my rough assessment from seeing them in action at this and previous events.  As you'd probably expect, I put a higher proportion of players into the 'high' category than either of the other two, but I think that's probably reasonable looking at the list of attendees.  (If you or anyone else wants to have a go at assigning their own experience ratings to the attendees and sending that to me in a PM, then I'm happy to re-crunch the numbers and post the results.)

The average score handed to GMs was 31.8.  The averages were 30, 33.6 & 36.0 for the high, medium & low categories respectively, with standard deviations of 4.9, 2.5 & 3.2.  There were two outliers - one player in the high category handed out an average of 17.7 points and one in the low category handed out an average of 39.3 (these were the two which had sprung to my mind when I made my earlier comment).  With the two outliers removed the averages were 31.4, 33.6 & 34.3 for high, medium & low, with standard deviations of 2.5, 2.5 & 1.9.

For the scores handed to players there was much less difference.  The average score handed out was 32.3.  The averages for each of my categories was 32.4, 32.7 & 31.6 - so actually there was little difference, with the low category handing out less points this time.  The standard deviation of the scores was 2.3 overall; and 2.6, 2.9 and 0.5 for high, medium & low respectively.

Not sure whether that helps or hinders the case I was making...

Quote from: krenshar on May 01, 2012, 08:43:18 PM
I think fairness raises it's head the moment there is a scoring system

We've always had a scoring system and something to compete for - scoring has generally been done in terms of resources of one kind or another, then we've (usually) had an overall winner of the campaign.

My bad, I meant to include a sentence about fairness being a bigger issue as an event gets larger, but I must have imagined typing it.
I could be wrong to think that players would worry over fairness but as Marco has said, if there's a polarisation of the two scales on the scoreboard or among the winners then it might strengthen the perception of differences and even biases between the 'camps' when the idea is to disprove just that.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on May 01, 2012, 08:04:45 PM
and quoting Molotov, "the INQ28 community (such as it is) is still in its infancy" (http://s3.zetaboards.com/The_Ammobunker/single/?p=8259669&t=7506686), I can certainly see why the two together might raise concern.

Another thought. Molotov is probably right in what he says about the Inq28 community, but I understand that there are some within that community who have a higher level of experience. Plus are there other Inq28 players on here who might enter who have some Inquisitor gaming experience. And also, there have been quite a few experienced Inq54 players who have either taken up, or are considering taking up, Inq28 and may enter at the smaller scale.

(I've certainly considered the idea myself - mostly because I have quite a few good ideas I want to turn into characters and I think I can do that more quickly at 28mm. As it is I have far more ideas than time, and I'm much slower at building & painting 54mm characters than I am 28mm ones.)

Quote from: Kaled on May 01, 2012, 05:16:34 PM
Out of curiosity, would people feel differently if there was no entry fee and it really was all just for fun?

As it is those such as myself and VanHelser are already paying at least in the region of £100 for the weekend to cover travel, food & accommodation, so paying £0 or £10 for the IGT entry makes no odds.
I do however feel the the entry fee of the IGT is necessary to provide the prize pool, otherwise the day becomes no different than a more strictly run campaign day.

Seeing as this is down to only a few months away, any clues on date or when the event pack will be available?

Do we have a date for this event yet?

I might actually be able to plan ahead far enough to attend something Inquisitor related next year

i gots my scenario pre-written, started work on the NPC, got group ready for playtesting week after next :D

Quote from: greenstuff_gav on December 07, 2012, 09:31:27 PMi gots my scenario pre-written

My scenario will entirely depend on whether Leander is or isn't done by then. After all this time, I'm not counting on it... but if she is, I've got two ideas pretty much ready to go.

My warband will depend on whether I can decide who to do. I may go back to Katlien Vance (who was supposed to appear two IGTs ago, but who I'll probably start over on, given my improved skills), I might do one of Rhodes' acolyte cells (likely lead by "Gala", who I lament not getting to use as a character) or I could get on with the Ecclesiarchy band.
I'm probably leaning towards Vance, as there's some fun dynamics in that group, but I'm not entirely sure.

my crew will depend on the 28/54 situation.. would like to know sooner rather'n later so i can start work :lol:

Hi everyone.

It hasn't escaped my attention that there are no concrete plans for the event, and even before Marco posted the other day I had made plans to contact the Warhammer World Events Team by phone on Monday to try and nail them down on confirming a date for the event.  When I was last in contact with them in the summer I was told to hold on until the calendar for March had been completed in October time.  I sent an email at the end of October which has yet to be replied to, so I will take action myself.  It would seem that the Throne of Skulls Fantasy and 40k tournaments are set to run in March, so we may be looking at April.  If the Events Team can't get us stapled in the diary as an Event then I will do as we do for every other campaign day and simply book some tables from the Warhammer World guys instead.   I doubt it will make much difference functionally to the day.

Once that's sorted I will see about putting together a player pack. 

As far as scale is concerned, I would assume that there will be the numbers for a 54mm tournament, and if there's demand I am happy to have 28mm as well.  For ease of scoring, the tournaments would be kept separate, with separate prize pots, and possibly one special prize for the best scorer of either scale on the day.

Ruaridh

Quote from: Van Helser on December 08, 2012, 01:31:39 PMIt hasn't escaped my attention that there are no concrete plans for the event, and even before Marco posted the other day...

I would have asked on Skype, but it rather skipped my attention until after you'd left and Koval said something that reminded me.

QuoteI sent an email at the end of October which has yet to be replied to, so I will take action myself.

I mostly don't e-mail them any more, because it does have a habit of getting lost in the system.

Quotewe may be looking at April.

At least it's a few more weeks to not get things done.

I fully intend to attend again this time. Its been too long. 2009? I forget... Thanks to all for making the effort of organising this sort of thing.

I can field either 54mm or 28mm these days. Also have extra minis that could be brought along in either scale as grunts. If that helps.

So, phoning the Events Team results in 8 tables being booked on the 30th of March 2013 in about 5 minutes flat.

Once I get the pack sorted out I will have it up on Mediafire or somewhere similar for download.  I'll start advertising on other sites once I'm ready to offer the pack for download.

Ruaridh

Hooray! Provided I don't suddenly have to work you can count me in!

Quote from: Hadriel Caine on December 09, 2012, 08:18:29 PMIts been too long. 2009? I forget...

Must have been longer than that; that was the first time I appeared, and I was one of only 8(+1) people that year - none of whom were you, as I recall. Unless you were in disguise...

@Van Helser: Cool beans. They're usually more responsive to phone calls (I did ring once and get told they were in a meeting, but they did call me back fairly pronto).

I've been assuming, based on your earlier statements about no significant changes to the format, that the event pack will tell me that my character and scenario needs will be much the same as previous years. (And thus working on three PC models and a ~75 minute scenario is a safe bet.)

If I recall correctly I missed this years and last years but have been too all others

I'll need to sit down and think about my scenario and I'm swayed to 28mm at the moment though if there are no more 28mm entrants I'll do 54mm, could do with know who'd bringing what as my scenarios will be dependant on what scale I'm using, could we possibly get a list on the front page of what scales people are planning to use?

Greenstuff_Gav: 28mm & 54mm (prefer 54mm)

isit 75min per game? there's a turn limit on my scenario and it'd be good to time the playtests :) 

Quote from: Necris on December 10, 2012, 01:59:16 PMIf I recall correctly I missed this years and last years but have been to all others

Nah, you must have been at 2011 - you GMed the game where Kaede Mack had kidnapped the astropath. (One of seven alleged Kaede Macks that Inquisitor Skoll met that day). But you're not on my mental list of who I remember at IGT '09 though.

QuoteCould we possibly get a list on the front page of what scales people are planning to use?

If the two competitions are separate, I'll be 54mm for this one.

I enjoy both scales, but 54mm is mostly me making the models for the characters I want (even if that's a character who was inspired by an appearance in artwork), and 28mm is mostly me making the characters for the models I want to buy.
Both approaches are fun, but I'm usually stronger on a character first approach.

Also, 28mm doesn't give me any impetus to finish the Warhound.

I'm not intending on too many changes to the day at all - everyone will have 75 minutes to GM a game (including set up and player briefing) and be a player in another three as before.  Three model maximum for the warbands (no substitutes), and the GM decides how many characters play in his/her scenario.

I will add a list to the front page of the possible attendees, with their preferred scale.  It would be good to have an idea of numbers so I know whether it will be worthwhile to run one or either scale.

Ruaridh

Ah Crap. You've booked Holy Saturday. Well that's me out then. :'(

You've booked during Passover, so while I can definitely come along, I'll have to eat strange food and won't be having any beer (as it's made from grains we're not supposed to have during Passover).

I can theoretically do both scales, but I'd rather play at 54mm scale as Alice is at that scale, and so are the characters with whom she'd have a reasonable chance of interacting.

54mm for me. I'll certainly be there as i missed the last one, and want to go one better than my 2nd place in 2011!

Now to plan my warband...

I'm provisionally there, at either scale - my 28mm warbands are coming along nicely.

I'll be there - as an atheist I don't have any issues with the date you've chosen! ;)

I'll be playing at 54mm. I could bring 28mm if necessary, but 28mm doesn't really do it for me.

Quote from: Kaled on December 10, 2012, 07:29:57 PMI'll be there - as an atheist I don't have any issues with the date you've chosen!

Hooray for us heretics!

Quote from: Bloodpact on December 10, 2012, 07:14:41 PMI want to go one better than my 2nd place in 2011!

Beyond simply trying to retain my title, I wouldn't mind "Best GM" to round out my collection.

I think the date and other events rule it out for me.

Hoping to get down to this one having missed everything this year. Currently the 30th looks clear for me so fingers crossed.

There was an updated article just recently on the GW website for the Events team and "Feature tables" (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=2200008&aId=6900034a). It'd be cool if we could request the Zone Mortalis board, plus we've used Dheneb Capitalis a few times before in the past and I recon Helsreach Bridge could work pretty well too. Obviously they don't suit everyone or all possible scenarios, but there's always a little bit of fudging scenarios and terrain to fit on the day (unless like me at the IGT2011 you bring your own Space Hulk tiles for terrain).

If we can swing them being included in the 8 tables it still leaves 5 of the usual city ruin and countryside setups we're usually given - and I don't recall there ever being more than 5 games going on at once during a GT (or any event of ours really).

Quote from: Heroka Vendile on December 12, 2012, 02:15:35 PM... we've used Dheneb Capitalis a few times before in the past and I reckon Helsreach Bridge could work pretty well too.

These are both eight-by-six tables, so probably too large to be used to their full potential in most 75 minute games.

However, I would absolutely love to get my hands on the Helsreach Bridge table (along with an assortment of the normal Necromunda and Cities of Death terrain) in the event the Warhound was ready to grace the table - if I want to run the game where it's mobile, twice as much table space (particularly with a large river bed where there's no buildings to get in the way) would definitely come in useful.

Personally for a scenario on the Helsreach Bridge board, I would run something along the lines of a nighttime road block at one end of the bridge as part of a surprise attack on a convoy/lone vehicle. Focusing the game mostly on the bridge, I've less interest in the other half.

Sounds cool, although I'd worry that darkness alone wouldn't completely compensate for the lack of terrain over that end of the board if a character with Nightsight, infra-goggles, warpsight* or similar turned up.
*Although interpretations here may vary. In my mind, their "sight" isn't based on light, so lack of it doesn't have any bearing on their ability to "see". (Any more than a place being dark would stop you hearing). Whether they can still sense light levels or colour is up for debate, but as an astropath's senses are often described as more keen than sight, one could reasonably assume so.

What I have in mind is the other way around, mostly in the city end (although with extra buildings). The river/bridge half of the table would be used to give the Warhound a bit more space, and maybe as the escape route if the game got that far.

As an addendum to my comments on Skype, Ruaridh, even if you don't find an excuse to join a game or two during the day, I should be around until about 9 in the evening. So do at least bring some models.

Count me in, will book it off work and... Grab a lift from Gav again.. I hope. :D
Was bouncing a few ideas around with Gav a few months ago regarding a scenario to run so just need to get it written down.

I can do 28mm and 54mm but would rather the 54mm.

Update time!

I am in the process of finalising the briefing pack and hope to have it available for download very soon.

I have begun updating the front page with the names of those folk who have shown interest in attending so far too.

On the subject of acquiring special tables, I can get in contact with the Events Team and see if we can book specific tables.  I see Helsreach is popular, any others I could attempt to book?

Ruaridh

Well I intend to come this year (finally), even though I'm still yet to pl

Quote

ay a game- apart from a few hypothetical situations with a few models to get an idea of the rules. I'm in hampshire (farnborough) if anyone is ever down this way- I did look on the list but couldn't see any nearby.

54mm as that's all I have!

Great to have a new face joining in.

I hope you can find a fellow player before then, but fear not, we have had complete novices join us at Grand Tournaments before, and place fairly respectively in the standings too.

Ruaridh

Hi folks,

I'd love to come along, but I'll have to find out whether I'm on placement over that period first. I should find out by the end of the month - I'd best start trying to get a warband back together!  ;D

You should totally join us if you can, dude, it'll be a laugh.

And the briefing pack is live:  Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2013 Briefing Pack Download Link (http://www.mediafire.com/?az7zavrs882cg9r)

Many thanks to MarcoSkoll for hosting this along with the Inquisitor Archive where all the reference sheets are available to download (links are within the Briefing Pack).

Thanks are also due to Heroka Vendile for coming up with some great certificates for this year's winners.

Feel free to start buying your tickets now!

Ruaridh

One thing that's come up a couple of times now is people asking about what the theme/setting for the tournament day is.  Essentially, there isn't one!

The IGT is different from the campaign days run at Warhammer World in that there's no grand plot the participants are trying to unravel. Each competitor is free to dream up a scenario to run without any thematic restrictions. If you find your characters somewhere in the galaxy that doesn't fit with their backstory, a way to get around it is just to say "the warp did it!"

Ruaridh

quick suggestion, having read the pack, isit possible to put the GM's 3 scorecards on a single sheet? would help with notetaking / filling out than wrestling 3 different bits of paper (reading names and remembering who did what)

else think this'd be a good idea?

I imagine it's done that way so that Ruaridh can group people's individual cards by person, rather than have to grapple with all the paper himself to find out who got what.

Having said that, this isn't anything a pair of scissors can't fix. :P

I'd be fairly certain ruaridh will hand out actual paper slips on the day, with the ones printed in the pack just examples of what to expect.

Precisely - I will be bringing a pile of slips to hand out on the day!

The scoring sheets will probably be three to a sheet when I print them off, so I suppose I could just hand them out before cutting.

Ruaridh

Tentatively, I'd like to put my name down for this. I have already booked the day off work (fortuitously) and I will have a warband ready too! Just need to work on a scenario and familiarise myself with the rules after having not played for years...

I'm gonna have to pay on the day I'm afraid, will also be bringing both scales just incase

I'll be bringing an additional player (or he'll be meeting me at gwhq) and it looks like 28mm players are having an event the start of the month too, I'll be bringing both scales anyway seeing as I've managed to finish some 54mms this week and plan on doing some more work on the 28mm stuff.

Finally remembered to buy my ticket. Still not sure whether tickets count as purchase of goods or services.

Now need to book trains. Then complete character designs. Then work on characters. And then, maybe, titans.

Just got around to buying my ticket.  Doubt I'll be building any new models as I'm busy working on models for Malifaux, Infinity & 7TV, so I'll probably bring Kaled and co. or my Rogue Trader and his crew.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 06, 2013, 04:21:29 AM
Finally remembered to buy my ticket. Still not sure whether tickets count as purchase of goods or services.

i gifted mine; if you are paying from a Paypal Balance (like i did) there's no fee :)
(if you're using a debit/credit card you take the fee, not the receiver!)

QuoteDoubt I'll be building any new models

got my new character done (bar character sheet), finishing the details on my scenario terrain piece now, the scenario is tested so hopefully i'll be ready early :D

5 weeks to go!

I hope everyone's final plans are falling into place.  I know I have plenty of work still to do!

So far I've sold 4 tickets.  I'm hoping to see some more competitors sign up in the near future.  Get to it people! 

Ruaridh

Quote from: Van Helser on February 23, 2013, 11:34:37 AM
5 weeks to go!

I hope everyone's final plans are falling into place.  I know I have plenty of work still to do!

So far I've sold 4 tickets.  I'm hoping to see some more competitors sign up in the near future.  Get to it people! 

Ruaridh

i gots mine :D

also finished assembling my terrain peice (damn rivets!) and it's sprayed silver for paintings :D
my character has had a varnish and the damn Army painter stuff's made my metals go weird :(

I guess it's safe to assume this will be a 54mm event good thing I have a 54mm scenario in my head

Unless there's a massive surge in interest from 28mm players I don't think there will be enough competitors to make a worthwhile contest at that scale. You never know though, there may be a bunch of people planning to pay on the day. My advice would be to prepare scenarios and models for both scales so there's no disappointment.

Ruaridh

My scenario will admittedly work slightly better at 28mm (as I am guaranteed at least one psyker, albeit as a NPC), but it's capable of working at either scale, with any kind of terrain, with any combination of characters. Ffy'xzshw'rrl cares not.

Hadn't realised my name was on the front-page list, but you should probably remove it as my appearance is highly unlikely at this juncture.

adrianp needs removing as well... some lame excuse.about eyesurgery... :-(

Quote from: greenstuff_gav on February 23, 2013, 03:30:54 PM

my character has had a varnish and the damn Army painter stuff's made my metals go weird :(

Testors Dullcote is the only varnish i've been able to find that never frosts your mini's or has any other weird and frustrating effects.

As for the event, im planning to be there. Nearly finished a new character, so might add him to Angstroms party, or possibly take my other new Warband (although this one includes an arco-flagellant, which are anathema to IGT scenarios due to having to stop the game for 5mins as soon as he is activated to pretty much reroll his stat-line...)

Shame about Adrian, but having missed last years due to a clash with shoulder surgery I understand the horrible decision he had to make!

I will have to owe you lunch at another event then Euan as thanks for the work on the certificates.

Good to know you're coming along Jim.  Can't remember a warband with an arco-flagellant at any event before... combat servitors yes, but not an arco-flagellant.  As for not slowing the game down: perhaps if you took a bunch of different coloured D10s/D6s (pre-assigned on your character sheet to a different combat drug) at the start of the game; put them in a cup, place the cup rim down on the table edge and wait.  When the trigger word is activated, uncover the cup and do the additions/subtractions to/from the statline there and then. 

Ruaridh

Under 2 weeks to go now, and I have ran out of black ink for the printer!  So many things to print...

I am working on the special prize for the outright winner today as well.  I hope that drums up some more interest!

Ruaridh

I successfully got everything painted from start to finish in three afternoons. Langley is not my finest work (I hate doing faces!) but I'm really pleased with how Nowatschenko came out. Maybe I should capitalise on my apparent ability to paint neutral tones.

Oh, and Cals looks like he's got a face hugger on his face, which I suppose is an unfortunate if humorous side-effect of using Gruss' head.

i've got my scenario typed (need to get to the printers!), character sheet planned (again.. printers!) and model finished.. till i dropped her  :'(
so, some printing and some repair work and i'm all ready :D

My own scenario needs a little streamlining, and possibly the loan of a 54mm psyker if I'm running at 54mm. (If I'm running at 28mm, I do of course have Astrid for 28mm Psyker Stand-In.)

I don't, however, have character sheets written out, so I'll need to do that. Economy V2 is awesome.

Quote from: Koval on March 18, 2013, 07:47:39 PMI hate doing faces!

On the other hand, I rather like doing them. For me, I much prefer working on small detailed bits rather than large expansive areas. That said, I may feel differently when it comes to time to paint Nyi, as my experience painting dark skinned models is limited.
(As is, it turns out, getting the ethnicity of the sculpt right. I don't do many "African" faces, but  I guess I can always use her mixed ethnicity as an excuse.)

I do however still have to decide what damn scenario I'm doing. So many ideas, so little time limit.

After finally getting my act together I just booked my train tickets 32 quid which is not bad!

I have also planned a scenario, semi build models and read the rulebook (whilst playing hypothetical situations on my living room floor!)..... no if I can just survive quarter end at work and get some painting done!!

Still, be gentle with me this will be my first actual game

Dont worry Dirk, weirdly many peoples first game comes at the IGT!

was it you who was "persuaded" to come to a clave meet as your first introduction to inq?

some of us only get to play at 'clave event so it wouldnt surprise if you knew more'n i did :-)

As long as you know the basics of what you can do, you'll probably find the other players/GM quite willing to call out the actual modifiers.
Really, as long as you understand how actions work, the rawest idea of how things are modified (the logical basics like aiming helps you hit, but a fast or distant target is a harder shot) and how damage works, you're peachy.

The system is much simpler than it's actually given credit for. It's somewhat reference table and paperwork heavy, but it's not cryptic and doesn't need mastering (as the objective of the game is not to win, but to play your characters).

The only advice I think is needed is play fast. Don't spend ages umming and ahhing over what characters are going to do, and don't overcomplicate your scenario. The day has very tight time limits, so there aren't the minutes to be indecisive or the room for a Greek epic.

~~~~~

And, as trivia, regarding what I said about Nyi's face earlier, I've actually gone back to my first attempt (I took two, was considering a third). It looks better on the model.

Quoteas trivia,

oh snap! i forgot theres The Inquisition quiz!
must start working out my bribes / blackmail targets!

It's always good to see new faces Dirk. We have had many people playing their first games at Grand Tournaments, and as Marco says, there's a spirit of cooperation during games of Inquisitor which will see you through.

We have one week to go now, and I thought I'd better put up a checklist of things to bring along next Saturday:

1-3 models representing your player characters.

Character sheets for these models.

Your scenario.

Stationery - pencil, eraser, spare paper.

Gaming aids - D10s, D6s, D100s, measuring tape, reference sheets.

The above are the definite things to have on you, and you'd be advised to bring these things too:

Rulebook.

Annuals, faction sourcebooks, Dark Magenta articles (if you have them, and/or need to refer to them for Special Abilities etc).

A copy of the briefing pack (download from my signature).

A name badge (I have stickers for those who don't manage to make one)

Doors open at 1000, and registration begins at 1010. The first game will start at 1030. You can register up to 1400, but won't get points for the games you've missed and you may not get to run your own scenario.

Clear as mud?

Ruaridh

I should bring this up. Apparently, parts of the canal towpath are inaccessible at the moment, so anyone walking from the station will need to take a diversion:

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/6312_577182612301223_381282221_n.jpg)
Facebook link (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=577182612301223&set=pb.212614545424700.-2207520000.1364061202)

Come off at Water's Edge pub, cross bridge and onto footpath on other side of canal, onto Alderney Street, left onto Grove road (until the end), follow cycle path, turn left when you reach Lenton Lane, proceed as normal.

That may all have changed come next weekend, though -- worth keeping an eye open for updates?

Latest (http://www.thetram.net/pdfs/construction/mch22/Lenton%20and%20Dunkirk.pdf) news (http://www.thetram.net/pdfs/construction/mch22/Lenton%20Lane%20Clayton%20Bridge.pdf) from the authority involved says work on Clayton Bridge will last until early May, but will remain open to pedestrians.

There is a possibility of snow next week, predictions are for snow Tuesday till Saturday

Also remember part of Lenton lane is closed for road works so there is an alternative route to gw hq

Well, I'm all set for Saturday - I've a scenario planned, warband picked, and all my gaming paraphernalia packed up ready. Looking forwards to seeing you all there. :)

is now a bad time to have doubts about my scenario?  :-[

just need to write character sheets and pack; terrain and character have been repaired :-)

I just need to print everything and then I'm all set.

Again, if I'm running a 54mm scenario I'll need to borrow a psyker, but that's the only thing I need for the scenario aside from players.

Still need to do quite a bit, but have all day......and my train isn't till 5am- that's loads of time!!

Quote from: dirkthe1 on March 29, 2013, 09:33:51 AM
Still need to do quite a bit, but have all day......and my train isn't till 5am- that's loads of time!!

More than one person has used the 4-5 hours spent on a train to write their scenario and fill-in character sheets - no matter how much notice you give people for these events things always get left to the last minute and generally at least one person pulls an all-nighter to get their stuff finished!

And that's everything printed, all my models packed, and shenanigans ready to be had. Bring on the games!

...though I am of course liable to lapse into Dark Heresy at a moment's notice. :P

I'm trying to avoid rushed stuff and all-nighters as far as possible now. That has meant having to change which models I'm bringing, but I'm sure not being sleep deprived will be better for my enjoyment.

So really, my only problems are deciding which of three scenarios to go with and finishing putting the paint on the centrepiece. It's no Titan, but it's what I've got right now.

You are going to have to give me a crash course in scenario design, in that case.

I mean, I've written one, but I did have to think for a while before I could come up with an idea that wouldn't have worked better as a Dark Heresy game.

The thing with Inquisitor is to just focus it on the five or ten minutes of action that you'd get at the end of a movie. The investigation's all done. This is the climax of it all.
So really, take the finale or some other turning point from a Dark Heresy game, then work out how to get it so the players are in conflict with each other (as opposed to fighting the GM).

~~~~~

I've decided to go with two of the scenarios, one of which is optimised for two players (but can work with three), and the other vice versa.

I'll go with whichever is more appropriate at the time, and save the other one for if I do need to run a second game.

Hmm

Minis - yes
Scenario - in my head yes
Character sheets - not yet

I am mostly disorganised this week

I had hoped there would be an app for inq sheets for the iPad, something I may have to fix. Will be hand writing them out soon

Is anyone catching the train and know what time they are getting in?

I will be on the 0730 out of St Pancras, arriving at 0926.

And yes, I am still up.

I hate my brain. I get some sleep before an event, and it decides to dream about having set my alarm clock wrong.

If its any consolation  I snatched about half hour, still didn't get all my painting done and have now gone on a train that appears to be touring London with no particular Destination .....

I'll be getting the 06:51 out of Ely, getting into Nottingham some time between 8:30 and 9:00.

And I woke up at 3am for no reason.

I am sat at gw hq since when did bugmans not open at 9 for breakfast I'm having to be healthy with a fruit salad from sainsburys

Also is it bad that after a walk round the rhino it's still not big enough

just a quick one as ive stopped at the gfs parents house due to sleepytime:-[

thanks to ruadah fpr running tpday, a good time was had!

hopefully my players enjoyed the acenario; i .need to rewrite it quite a bit i think

also, 10points to necris for his easter egg hnt!

Had a great day got home 10.30 which makes a long day

Good fun though

Hooray! I am home.

I am content with my 2nd place and Best GM rankings - I now have a round set of "Best" awards.
I had been worried that my GMing score wouldn't survive "Live Cargo" having gone somewhat anti-climatically fast*, but good gods did "Countdown Run" make up for it. The combination of players, characters, table and the metal bawx just worked really well - it's games like that which make my four/five hour journey in each direction worth it.

Also, I have pictures to sort through - 163 of them from just the main camera. Some are crap and will need to go, but here's a good one of the ending of the aforementioned "Countdown Run":

(http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy3/MarcoSkoll/Inquisitor%20Events/CIMG9246.jpg)
It probably needs more motion blur, given it is a Rhino speeding away from an (impending) nuclear explosion with three characters clinging to the roof, but such is the limitation of static models.

You'll have to wait for the rest of the photos. I are tyred.

*I probably win the award for "Most games GMed in the same GT" with three fully completed games. In two timeslots.

I'd have to say that Countdown Run was, by far, the best of the three I played, though that's not to say the others were in any way bad -- it's just that Countdown Run started with high stakes and kept the tension going. (And allowed me to do strange things like hang onto a moving Rhino for dear life.)

i enjoyed countdown run... even if i only got 1 action a turn for most of it!
i must auto-include Heroic on 1 man bands!

be heading hme soon so can upload pics and write a report :-)

EDIT:
and Pics Are Here (http://buildyourimagination.co.uk/minis/conclavegt13.php)
need to manually resize all the portrait-style ones as the software isn't smart enough to do what i want with it (so need to reinstall photochop!) but atleast we can see what's going on :)

One photo set (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcoskoll/sets/72157633129955013/). I may end up repolishing some of these to a higher degree manually, but annoyingly, my version of Photoshop can only be automated to a very basic processing routine, rather than some of the useful lighting adjust functions.

Report from the top:

The IGT went nice and smoothly this year, with some rather excellent scenarios being run throughout the day which I dropped in and out of.  GMing was at a high level all round, with some participants standing out with excellent NPC creations and memorable ways of delivering objectives to players.  All the games were played in the spirit of the Inquisitor ethos with good cooperation all round.  Everyone's playing and GMing scores were tightly bunched,  but David Knowles came out on top in the playing stakes, with David Fincher taking home the best GM award (considering he ran three games in two timeslots he was a deserving recipient on enthusiasm alone!).  You will find a haul of photos from the games here (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/vanhelser/library/IGT2013?page=1).

The Painting and Modelling competition was hotly contested, with only 0.33 difference between David Knowles's winning score of 8.5 for Jessamyn Rae (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0444_zps53cce6b9.jpg) and Gav Fry's second place score of 8.17 for Magos Tiamat (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0451_zps2d230094.jpg).  Pictures of all the models entered in the competition can be found here (http://s7.photobucket.com/user/vanhelser/library/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013?page=1).

Ultimately, David Knowles's success in the GM and P&M categories took him through to first place and the title of Grand Master.  David Fincher came in second, and thanks to his high painting and modelling score, Gav Fry took third place.

Tony Wallace just missed out on a reward in fourth, Joseph Lawrence picked up fifth place, Nicholas Carpenter sixth and Geoff Silk seventh.

The full breakdown of points was as follows (with links in the P&M scores to each player's respective entry):

1st) David Knowles:
Playing score: 34.33/40, GM score: 30.5/40, P&M score: 8.5/10 (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0444_zps53cce6b9.jpg)

2nd) David Fincher:
Playing score: 32.5/40, GM score: 31.2/40, P&M score: 6.83/10 (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0466_zpsda9ef998.jpg)

3rd) Gav Fry:
Playing score: 29/40, GM score: 29.33/40, P&M score: 8.17/10 (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0451_zps2d230094.jpg)

4th) Tony Wallace:
Playing score: 29.33/40, GM score: 26.5/40, P&M score: 6.5/10 (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0449_zps08ba4132.jpg)

5th) Joseph Lawrence:
Playing score: 30/40, GM score: 23.33/40, P&M score: 6.33/10 (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0470_zpsad58e0e0.jpg)

6th) Nicholas Carpenter:
Playing score: 26.67/40, GM score: 26/40, P&M score: 6/10 (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0459_zps8ce8f75d.jpg)

7th) Geoff Silk:
Playing score: 29/40, GM score: 23/40, P&M score: 5.67/10 (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/vanhelser/IGT2013/Painting%20and%20Modelling%20IGT%202013/DSC_0480_zps25ab34b4.jpg)

In conclusion, a fun day was had by me, and if I can speak for everyone else, I think we all went home happy having had a chance to get some models on the tabletop.  Numbers were on the low side, which was disappointing, but we made up for it with some excellent games (especially the bonus Easter egg hunt in the Zone Mortalis – good job Tony!).  I must give thanks again to Euan Forrest for producing the certificates for me, and promise to buy him lunch next time we're both at Warhammer World as reward for the hard work.

Looking ahead to next year, I will most likely not be in a position to attend as I will be on my honeymoon.  That leaves a vacancy to fill in running the day.  Aside from having to book tables and keep score on the day, there's little taxing work involved.  Some dates in the player pack will need changed, and new certificates will need produced, but aside from that there shouldn't be anything to stop anyone from taking the reins.  Do we have a volunteer?

Ruaridh

Thanks Ruaridh for organising the day - it was a lot of fun. Great to see everyone there - including new faces and a few people I haven't seen for a while. Thanks to Gav for donating the collection of Inquisitor related White Dwarf issues - I've been flicking through them and there are quite a few articles I haven't seen before. And thanks too to Ruaridh for the nicely painted Nerf gun which has already proved to be lots of fun (but which did get me in trouble when I shot my wife in the face and she had a red mark on her cheek for an hour or so!).

For completion's sake, here are my photos (http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/Koval32/library/IGT%202013?page=1). :)

Quote from: Kaled on April 01, 2013, 11:20:13 AMbut which did get me in trouble when I shot my wife in the face and she had a red mark on her cheek for an hour or so!

I'm mildly surprised. I don't think my Maverick has ever left a lasting mark, and it shouldn't surprise any of you that the internals of mine have been somewhat upgraded.

QuoteThat leaves a vacancy to fill in running the day. Do we have a volunteer?

I'm open to the possibility, but would probably want to arrange things such that I could still get involved with some gaming. (Definitely so if it looks like we're only going to have one more event this year).
I'm down with eight or nine hours of travelling to only GM and not play (as for a campaign day) but it's another thing if it's simply to do photography and paperwork.

So not quite "yes", but it is a "maybe".

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on April 02, 2013, 12:31:31 AM
I'm open to the possibility, but would probably want to arrange things such that I could still get involved with some gaming.

I played in three games the second year that I ran the IGT - having a computer with me meant entering and adding up the scores took hardly any time at all. The first year we had 16 players, or was it 12 - either way it meant all tables had a full complement of players and GMs so there wasn't really space for me to join in a game anyway.

So it should be possible for you to get in a few games even if you're running the event.

My photos will be up next week I'm awayfom home visiting parentals

Shame about the numbers - so much for the dual-scale tournament increasing our presence.
Glad things went well though.

Quote from: Kaled on April 02, 2013, 06:48:52 AMI played in three games the second year that I ran the IGT

I know it's theoretically possible, but it would certainly get more radical the more I were integrated.

GMing a game, for example, would be questionable - effectively voiding an entire round of scoring for the players involved.
I'm not saying that is in mind... but I do enjoy GMing. Volunteering to GM in two rounds on Saturday wasn't just a ploy to get an extra shot at the GMing prize. (In any case, Ruaridh counted the scores from both games anyway).

QuoteThe first year we had 16 players, or was it 12

Sixteen - it was a circumstance I remember referring to when modelling player/table arrangements.