Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've come to accept warriors in pods as an epic fail and just take small squads to sit on your home objective whie ading firepower. This is if I were to run wrriors, but personally I don't. This isn't a how to play nids thread so lets try to keep this with NOVA.

Matthias wrote:KPs for all armies fielded at AdeptiCon 2010? No - those stats do not exist.

someone could technically go through the pics of various armies and visually count up the KP. it may not be exact and is tedious but its better than nothing if someone is willing to do it.

does bolscon keep track of this stuff? did they use KP and keep track of lists?

Well, the SW armies of Tony and Stelek were almost similar;
Tony's army was a bit more HQ-heavy.

I'm curious to see the BA army list of the 2nd. Was it based on Razorbacks?

wuestenfux wrote:Well, the SW armies of Tony and Stelek were almost similar;
Tony's army was a bit more HQ-heavy.

I'm curious to see the BA army list of the 2nd. Was it based on Razorbacks?

No, it was based around rhinos and predators.

http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-mark-ferek-%E2%80%93-tournament-finalist/

Dashofpepper wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, the SW armies of Tony and Stelek were almost similar;
Tony's army was a bit more HQ-heavy.

I'm curious to see the BA army list of the 2nd. Was it based on Razorbacks?

No, it was based around rhinos and predators.

http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-mark-ferek-%E2%80%93-tournament-finalist/

Thank you! In fact, its an interesting list.

Wait, what? Was the winner's list 3 points over?

olympia wrote:Wait, what? Was the winner's list 3 points over?

Yes. This is week old news

Well, that's out of the blue. ><

Yes it was, and he's been dealt with by the TO. It has its own discussion thread and everything. And even several blogs with a section dedicated to it.

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, that's out of the blue. ><

Yes it was, and he's been dealt with by the TO. It has its own discussion thread and everything. And even several blogs with a section dedicated to it.

OH NOES! DASH HAS AWOKEN!!! RUN FOR DA HILLZ!!!!!

But seriously, what is the story behind the 3 points over? Was it found after the tourney?

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, that's out of the blue. ><

Yes it was, and he's been dealt with by the TO. It has its own discussion thread and everything. And even several blogs with a section dedicated to it.

can you post a link to the thread on dakka? i used the search function and couldn't find it (as well as being an active participant in the previous threads myself). i didn't hear anything about this until you posted it a few days ago.

edit: no mention on whisky40k's blog (isn't that the official one for the NOVA events?) ..... nothing in dannyinternet's 2 page gushing marriage proposal to a tourney that was his "impressions of nova open".... nothing posted here except for a mention of it by you.... nothing on BOLS... the only entry was one on blood of kittens saying the same thing (as in "why is everyone ignoring this?"). MVBrandt is so open and vocal about the changes he's trying to make to the 40k tourney scene; you'd think he'd want to mention something about this too. how did he deal with an illegal list winning his "gold standard" tournament? (not his quote but the title of a previous nova thread). why wasn't the list checked in the first place going into the last round for the top seeds at least? he had the army lists.

Good points Warboss. I've seen similar situations blow up in the internet before. Is this a change in how people care about such things? No answers, just cryptic messages. Interesting .....

It is discussed here in the comments section and just about everywhere else reporting in depth on the tournament: http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-tony-kopach-tournament-champion/

I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because (1) none of the players who lost to Tony cared, and (2) it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

mvbrandt dismissed using army builder as too labor intensive. However, it really is the only way to go. Participants pre-submit lists; they are entered into army buiilder and then posted; participants have a week or so to check for errors. So obvious. So simple.

Danny Internets wrote:It I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

Good I'm glad to hear that. I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year. Adepticon's 1850? Nope it's up to 1853pts. That way I'll be able to fit in that extra HK missile or combi-melta I need and according to this no one should ever care. Would you believe at our last tournament in Chicago I had to play at 1998pts because I couldn't fit anything else in, but now I know I can jump up to 2003pts and throw in that extra meltabomb on the tactical sargeant. It's only 3pts and what can a meltabomb do anyway. (BOOOOMB! goes the tank shocking Battlewagon)

DarthDiggler wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

Good I'm glad to hear that. I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year. Adepticon's 1850? Nope it's up to 1853pts. That way I'll be able to fit in that extra HK missile or combi-melta I need and according to this no one should ever care. Would you believe at our last tournament in Chicago I had to play at 1998pts because I couldn't fit anything else in, but now I know I can jump up to 2003pts and throw in that extra meltabomb on the tactical sargeant. It's only 3pts and what can a meltabomb do anyway. (BOOOOMB! goes the tank shocking Battlewagon)

wow buddy... You need to relax some...



Personally 3pts over is most likely a clerical error... I don't think it was on purpose... And I also IMHO think that anyone who is bringing up the 3pts after it was handled extremely well by the TO is just an Internet drama queen.

Danny Internets wrote:It is discussed here in the comments section and just about everywhere else reporting in depth on the tournament: http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-tony-kopach-tournament-champion/

I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because (1) none of the players who lost to Tony cared, and (2) it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

so its been taken care of by doing nothing? i'm not saying that it was on purpose but that doesn't make it any less significant. that 3pts means one less combimelta in the list. over the course of 4+ games, one less melta shot in a mech army can easily sway a battle and isn't insignificant. he took a list that was ILLEGAL to a tourney and won it. that's the new standard of 40k tournaments? weren't the top players known the night before? why weren't their lists checked again just in case?

frgsinwntr wrote:Personally 3pts over is most likely a clerical error... I don't think it was on purpose... And I also IMHO think that anyone who is bringing up the 3pts after it was handled extremely well by the TO is just an Internet drama queen.

and personal attacks/name calling is trolling. it probably is a clerical error but that doesn't mean taking an illegal list should be allowed (and therefore encouraged since there is no consequence).

frgsinwntr wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

Good I'm glad to hear that. I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year. Adepticon's 1850? Nope it's up to 1853pts. That way I'll be able to fit in that extra HK missile or combi-melta I need and according to this no one should ever care. Would you believe at our last tournament in Chicago I had to play at 1998pts because I couldn't fit anything else in, but now I know I can jump up to 2003pts and throw in that extra meltabomb on the tactical sargeant. It's only 3pts and what can a meltabomb do anyway. (BOOOOMB! goes the tank shocking Battlewagon)

wow buddy... You need to relax some...

Personally 3pts over is most likely a clerical error... I don't think it was on purpose... And I also IMHO think that anyone who is bringing up the 3pts after it was handled extremely well by the TO is just an Internet drama queen.

frg and danny are both missing the point. Three points makes a material difference in the list. To claim otherwise is ignorant. The issue is not whether the youngster was intentionally cheating, but what lessons can be learned so it does not happen again. Given that the final round, the elite of the elite, was so small, it is a strange error to have crop up.

To be honest, I was afraid something like this could happen. I was surprised that they didn't ask for lists before hand,(like weeks before hand to review them). When I turned my 9 lists into the girl on Saturday morning. She spent about 1 minute looking at the top list, then put a check mark on all of the lists. I was thinking to myself,"That's it?" I personally think they should have done a better job with it, and I hope they do a better job next year.

I do believe the winner should forfeit the win though. An illegal list is an illegal list. Just like using a corked bat in baseball. (Not implying the winner purposefully cheated)

But I'm not going to rage if he doesn't, or the TO doesn't force the issue.

GG

I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year.

So because someone makes an unintentional mistake that gives you license to intentionally repeat that mistake (ie cheat) in future events? What planet are you living on? This is a fine example of that whole "petty beyond measure" thing I was talking about...

so its been taken care of by doing nothing? i'm not saying that it was on purpose but that doesn't make it any less significant. that 3pts means one less combimelta in the list.

Actually intent has a very large impact on how significant it is. If someone forgets to roll leadership for a unit do you equate them with someone who intentionally does so with the express purpose of cheating you?

Furthermore, 3 points could be mean one less combi-melta or it could mean one less of, well, ANYTHING in the list. Dropping an 8 point Fenrisian wolf would be a more likely choice rather than eliminating something several times more effective and valuable. This would also free up 5 more points for a small upgrade elsewhere.

SHOULD this have been caught? Yes. Is it a ridiculously small thing? Also yes. It is also quite obviously unintentional--someone who plans to cheat at a national event doesn't do so in a way that is so easily caught (not unless they're completely slowed).

If one of his opponents took great offense to this error then there would be some merit to asking him to forfeit the win, but this is not the case. Everyone I've spoken to feels he deserved his victory, save for the internet peanut gallery.

I brought this up wherever it was mentioned by simply clarifying that the overage was my fault ultimately, no real other person to blame.

Tony's overage was not intentional (I'm satisfied about this after grilling the crap out of him), his opponents and the other attendees of the actual event in general did not have a problem with it (not an excuse, but an important constituency). I actually personally think 3 points can be material, as it can be that combi-melta, or whatever. Tony likely would have dropped a Fenrisian wolf, and turned his grey hunter into a combi-melta. Not that it matters.

Independently, Tony also came to me of his own accord to report the problem and offer to give up his prizes, title and Vegas ticket.

This was subsequently handled internally with the other Tourney Aces, and as needed Tony's other opponents throughout the first day. I offered to pass his ticket down (as did Tony) to the #2, who refused it.

Ultimately, it's my bad. QC missed it (Grogg - there was a backroom list check done during the day - the check on sign-in was just to mark each page with a colored marker to prevent list swap), so did I, so did Tony, so did all of Tony's opponents (until post-event), etc.

There's really nothing more to say about it. I don't consider it a point for non-attendee public consumption. I would ask any supporters of the Open to not respond to any flames or negativity either - it is what it is; I can't change back time, the other finalists for the Best General component by and large refused Tony's ticket to Vegas / did not want it to be made a big deal of, and as a TO I've stated where it's been asked by people who weren't there that it's my fault, so blame me all you like.

By and large, the accumulation of results from the Open - good things, bad things, mediocre things - are all being used to improve the event dramatically for next year, as well as expand it to a full on convention catering to literally every type of hobbyist. Moving forward, as it were. I think the lack of major negativity anywhere is largely the product of the fact that I've been open and honest about taking the ultimate blame for it, no one in attendance really wanted anything negative done about it (though many rightly had a problem with it not being caught, as did I), and we all move on with life.

I'm not a big fan of knocking anyone for not catching things like that; while important to the integrity of the game and the tournament, it's one of the easiest things to miss - which is why it gets missed other places, and why folks like Matthias at Adepticon have entire discussions geared toward the "best" way to address it. You take what you learn, take the blame as needed, and get on with life. The event's significant successes and the widespread positivity of those who attended stand rather on their own.



Generally, this type of situation is only really the concern of a) those seeking to generate drama, for whatever petty reason they have .... and b) those who actually participated in the event (who have every right to come talk to me over e-mail or otherwise about their feelings).


Shorthand - My fault, not going to retroactively eliminate his prizes or ticket based upon input from his opponents and majority of attendees, lessons learned moving forward. If you have a different feeling about this, especially if you attended, please contact me privately and I will discuss it all you like. If your intent is to just stir gak, please feel free to do so here or elsewhere, but I do ask those with positive feelings about the Open to NOT reply or participate.

Nicely worded response... just about covers it, imho.

Another reason why I'll be attending next year, even though I normally shy away from competitive events! Handled with class, just like most of the other issues that arose. Excellent

Danny Internets wrote:Actually intent has a very large impact on how significant it is. If someone forgets to roll leadership for a unit do you equate them with someone who intentionally does so with the express purpose of cheating you?

no, and i didn't in this case either. but the end EFFECT is the same... a leadership roll that could have been failed that wasn't taken; that changes the game regardless of the intent. the intent is important in determining whether to allow the person to compete again. I'LL SAY IT FOR THE THIRD TIME IN THIS THREAD SO YOU WON'T MISS IT AGAIN. I DON'T THINK THE PERSON WAS TRYING TO CHEAT. there... now stop trying to change the tone. i'm not questioning the winner's motives, just the response (or technically lack of) of the TO to an illegal list winning his premiere event and to the event's proponents (like you) intentionally leaving out this fact in their review of the event. while you were gushing over the event on your blog, it never occurred to you to mention that perhaps they need a better system of list checking for the next one? MVBrandt seems to wholeheartedly agree with me on illegal lists in the adepticon thread here yet decided to poo-poo the same exact thing in his own event with the same circumstances (a list with too many points). here's the opening paragraph (minus the historical references) and the closing ones of your review... you don't think that a lack of meaningful list checking leading to a winner with an illegal list deserves mention???

"And as of August 14th we can add one more to that list: The NOVA Open as the greatest Warhammer 40k tournament of all time. This is not a joke. It really was that good. Forethought was evident in every function of the event from the moment of registration and the day played out without any visible problems. The complete absence of online complaints in its aftermath is certainly telling of its successful execution."

"In a nutshell, the NOVA Open was a success because it embodied the trifecta of good tournament design: scoring transparency, logistical mastery, and equal recognition of different hobby interests. Tournament organizers, take note: this is how you ensure everyone both stays and leaves happy."

http://www.baldandscreaming.com/commentary/impressions-of-the-nova-open/#more-1113

this was written several weeks after the event so you can't claim ignorance, just willful deception.

MVBrandt wrote:

Generally, this type of situation is only really the concern of a) those seeking to generate drama, for whatever petty reason they have .... and b) those who actually participated in the event (who have every right to come talk to me over e-mail or otherwise about their feelings).

Other than porn and nerdrage what's the point of the internet? As long as the NOVA does away with comp. and sports scoring it will still be one of the best events in the states regardless of this slip up.

MVBrandt wrote:
Generally, this type of situation is only really the concern of a) those seeking to generate drama, for whatever petty reason they have .... and b) those who actually participated in the event (who have every right to come talk to me over e-mail or otherwise about their feelings).

but I do ask those with positive feelings about the Open to NOT reply or participate.

I'm calling foul here. Your results have an effect on all the others who will attend the Vegas event, regardless of whether those people attended Nova or not. The real problem, more so than the hush job attempted, is the lack of standard protocal when this type of thing occurs.

Step aside from the Nova for a moment.

Hypothetically a guy who wins is a friend who is nice and nice friends would never cheat so he gets a pass. His opponents don't care (or don't want to make a stink) so they pass on the ticket to Vegas. All is forgiven because we are all friends. The Adepticon Championship winner doesn't have the friends this guy has. His opponents made a stink about his omission and he had winnings taken away. DOUBLE STANDARD.

For all the claims of competitive superiority for Nova, it failed in the ultimate test. Golfers who honestly forget to sign their scorecard are zereod out. That's an infraction that had nothing to do with their play, but they broke a rule and they can not win. I'm not advocating this for non Golden Ticket events, but if we are going to judge intent, then friendship must be removed from the equation. You either brought an illegal list or not. Intent can never be known for sure and is unfair to judge. If the TO knows the guy, they will tend to rule an intent in his favor. If they don't know the guy they will tend to rule the intent against him because that friendship is more imprtant than a game (which it should be).

*Sigh*...

Yes, many tourneys DQ people for illeagal lists once it's found out. It was an option. However, as MVBrandt explained his reasoning above, I think they made the right choice here.

Hyperbole gets this discussion going nowhere but in circles...

If you're inferring I shenanigansed a 16 year old I barely know, infer away.

If you're looking for an irate reply from me defending the error, you won't get it.

I take all the blame, my decision is made and presented above. You win the internet, get flowers and candy and the nectar of the gods, etc. etc. I apologize, to you personally, and everyone.

Danny and others, please continue any direct back-and-forth with accusations of whatever to each other outside of any NOVA thread ... no sense dramafying it.

warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them. My final game of the Nova (that counted for placing) came down to a series of individual dice rolls throughout the game that each and individually played a significant impact on the game. A powerklaw that needed to cause a single wound. It was an *extremely* close game. To my understanding, Tony's games were not so close - the kind of thing you examine closely and realize that it wouldn't have made a difference.....which is why the relevant parties didn't care.

A hiccup at the end sucks, but the TO took the right steps to rectify the wrong - and in comparison to the absolute awesomeness of the rest of the event in EVERY FACET, it was a chink in the flawless glass, not the straw that broke the camel's back.

When two people get into an argument, a mediator gets involved and all parties (including everyone that the person argued with) leave satisfied.....bystanders screaming bloody murder who have no stake in the matter are just drama queens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I think I'm supposed to leave the thread. ><

Dashofpepper wrote:warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them.

*snip*

When two people get into an argument, a mediator gets involved and all parties (including everyone that the person argued with) leave satisfied.....bystanders screaming bloody murder who have no stake in the matter are just drama queens.

i didn't miss it; it was entered in AFTER i hit reply on my last response by MVBrandt but before i submitted (i was reading through the bald screaming blog for my quotes). as for the name calling at the end, you're hardly one to talk. you posted a "battle report" that was nothing but intentional drama on your part... and continued it on a blog... and continued to link it in your sig. if we're queens, you're the empress.

it seems like MVBrandt's decision is finalized to the argeement of the top players and in the end that's what matters most. that doesn't mean its still not an epic sportmanship fail on the part of the winner for simply not giving up the ticket in the first place publicly and a failing in the tourney organization to stop it in the first place and then not to address it publicly. does it seem like the event was still a success for those who attended? sure. does it have room for improvement? you bet.

For the record, the winner does not use the internet due to parental control; he does not even have his own e-mail address.

He specifically sought me out via telephone and the week after at Games Day to offer up his ticket, prizes, good name, title, trophy, etc. So, yeah, he did all you could expect of a young 16 year old and more.

Even more importantly - he figured out his error on his own, without hearing about it via the interweb. He came to me about it before anyone else had even noticed (publicly at least).

So, again, the hit is on me ... every event has room to improve and I will continue to work as relentlessly at improving the Open as I did leading up to our very first year, and that's about that.

That said, I hope all will realize that the most important input givers have been the attendees, and fellow largescale tournament organizers (i.e. Jwolf and Matthias, we three talk often, and my door / gchat is open to ANY OTHER TO looking to strengthen ties) ... all of whom better understand the realities of the situation. Snipes from non-attendees that are loaded with venom are not well-received, even if there's no desire on my part to jump into the muckety muck trenches with that kind of attitude.

MVBrandt wrote:For
That said, I hope all will realize that the most important input givers have been fellow largescale tournament organizers .

As a former Adepticon head organizerand initial INAT council member your own words betray you. I guess you have to recognize me then. I'm not impuning your tournament or the winner. You keep turning the discussion towards that direction and your passive/aggressive attempt to stifle conversation from others is shameful. I'm interested in a set protocal that supercedes the personal feelings you have for an underage participant. Not for the Nova, but for future events. You refuse to discuss this and that's your choice, however serious people who run serious events should realize that a set protocal for this type of accurance is benificial and superior to a "feelings" approach you have taken.

Maybe I am wrong and you are not the serious type of person to contribute to this conversation. I will bring this to the attention of organizers who can make a difference then.