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.

Even though AdeptiCon is still over 200 days away, we wanted to get these draft rules out to our attendees for consumption and feedback. There have been a number of significant changes to both the Warhammer 40K Championships and the Warhammer 40K Team Tournament. These changes are based mainly on attendee feedback, the needs of specific events in terms of attendance and the desire to give events at AdeptiCon their own distinct feel/goal while still maintaining some common thematic/logistical elements.

Please keep in mind these are still drafts, and while they have been through countless revisions and proofing, they are most likely not the absolute/final versions. Additionally, new codices and/or official FAQ documents in the months leading up to the event could require changes to the following rules.

We are currently looking for feedback, most particularly in the realm of clarity. You can post questions/comments/concerns here or contact us through the AdeptiCon website.

We have also recently started up the AdeptiCon 2011 Development Blog. This site will serve as a means to disseminate information regarding the development and planning of the convention as it enters its ninth year. Additionally, this site will allow us to discuss things such as event history, theory and the convention’s take on certain ‘hot button’ issues that might not truly be considered news in relation to the convention proper. Much of what is to follow has been in the works for many months and is the accumulation of hundreds of constructive emails, adaptations in game systems, conversations with other event organizers and most importantly attendee feedback. So please, feel free to follow us, link us and most importantly participate!

*** DRAFT RULES FOR 2011 ***

Warhammer 40K Championships
Warhammer 40K Combat Patrol
Warhammer 40K Gladiator Tournament
Warhammer 40K Team Tournament
Warhammer 40K Youngbloods Tournament
Special Operations: Killzonel
Warhammer Fantasy Big Brawl Tournament
Warhammer Fantasy Championships
Warhammer Fantasy It's How You Use It Tournament
Warhammer Fantasy Team Tournament
Flames of War Early-War Tournament
Flames of War Mid-War Tournament
Flames of War Take the Moneys and Run!
Warmachine/Hordes Tournaments & Events (Hardcore!, Mangled Metal/Tooth & Claw, Eternal War!, Steamroller Finale, Stranded Forces)
Battlefleet Gothic Championships
Ex illis: Survival of the Illest
Ex illis AdeptiCon Championships
Epic Armageddon Challenge
Lord of the Rings Championships
Lord of the Rings Team Tournament
Necromunda Tournament
Legends of the Old West Tournament
Stupor Bowl IV
Warhammer Ancients Singles Tournament
Warhammer Ancients Doubles Tournament
AdeptiCon 2011 Official Site (past rules and scenarios can be found under the Past Coverage section)
AdeptiCon 2011 Development Blog

Draft rules for the additional events will soon follow.

i'd suggest not going with round 0 player verification. what if someone does have an illegal list and the player verifying it for the entire tourney has NO CLUE what is or isn't kosher in that army? the list is verified for the tourney because someone who can't even pronounce half the tau units verified the list as legal? bad idea. *note: i play tau and just used them as an example since i generally have to refer to my unit upgrades as "veteran sergeant suit" instead of shas'vre to opponents in order to have them understand* what if the first opponent is a buddy of the illegal list player and *wink-wink-nudge-nudge* approves it despite an issue.

punt this to the rules staff and have a cutoff date of at least a week before the tourney for people to electronically turn in their lists. then assign them to rules judges that actually play the armies if possible. the process sucks regardless but at least this is the most impartial way.

@warboss - Yep - in general agreement with presubmission. That article was just sort of exploring the pro/cons of different methods and hoping someone would propose something unique and/or innovative.

The re-typing into Army Builder suggestion is ludicrous. Collection, verification, marking, duplication and returning of lists is manageable, but to introduce an additional element of error into the mix is unacceptable. If a player makes an error, that is one thing - if a TO makes an error entering a list...well, that is something else...

In addition to the above, you also need a strict penalty policy regarding late submission, errors in list and changes made to list after the cutoff date.

Interestingly, while it's easier to do verification the day of for a smaller event, it's also more feasible to successfully pull off verification in advance, or verification at all.


Feasibility shrinks on all solutions the larger an event gets, and margin of error increases. It's almost unavoidable, no matter what you do, until the game is professionalized and you have large enough staff dedicated to the task on a permanent basis.

Even then, one of the appealing things about Warhammer 40k and similar games is the immense customizable nature of things ... I've been casually polling a lot of NOVA attendees about their feelings on the subject, for instance, and the # of folks who made changes even the night before to tweak their list, or to account for new models they finished painting, or to remove things they didn't get to painting, etc., is pretty huge.

Spot on Mike. I think that has always been one of our major concerns - gamers procrastinate. Gamers change their minds. Gamers are testing strategies and list theories right up to the night before an event.

One one hand, as a TO you have the responsibility to guarantee legal list (although, in reality this responsibility should lie with the players and their ability to build legal lists) and on the other you don't want to box people out or stifle creativity. Additionally, while early list submission is also a ton of work, it also runs the risk of creating double that by the time you get done dealing with people changing armies, tracking down people who haven't submitted and all that.

That blog post was hoping someone would suggest a brilliant, new approach to list verification.

The other approach that I have had some discussion about it simply putting a definitive and harsh penalty system in place. Lists are collected, marked and returned prior to the event. Lists are spot checked throughout the event. Anyone in violation receives a penalty. What that is...not sure...just an idea that deserves some consideration.

The scale/scope of large events (say 240 players) is a different beast. Just want to explore the myriad of options out there and see if anything sticks.

Easiest thing to do is that if a player gets caught pre-game with an illegal list, the list must have units dropped until it is legal. If he's caught mid-game with an illegal list, he instantly loses the game regardless of result progress and the same thing happens post-game - drop the list down to legality without a chance to rewrite; you simply must drop entire units as needed until it is legal (so, you can't drop a marine if you're 16 points over, you'd have to drop an entire marine unit).

It's a really, really difficult situation in any kind of larger event to actually fairly and in manageable fashion do this in advance ..... not impossible, it's a ton of work ... I think warcon did it right/did it. Just ... hardly ideal in a very large player size.

Matthias wrote:One one hand, as a TO you have the responsibility to guarantee legal list (although, in reality this responsibility should lie with the players and their ability to build legal lists) and on the other you don't want to box people out or stifle creativity. Additionally, while early list submission is also a ton of work, it also runs the risk of creating double that by the time you get done dealing with people changing armies, tracking down people who haven't submitted and all that.

It is a ton of work, but it is something that should be done. In a game you can't police your opponent's list. It is just not possible to do due to time, and even knowing your opponents army. That is why if there are any mistakes they are always caught afterwords (either the game or the tournament) but I have a feeling that most mistakes are not even caught.

I like the idea that BolsCon (War Games Con) did was that each player received their lists on army builder format on a special colored paper.

I know it would be a ton of work, but maybe you can have a packet for each player that has the missions, their 4 or 7 lists that they give to their opponents (With the Adepticon watermark on them) as well as all tokens/objectives that are needed.

The big problem I see though is getting the army list in early. If you can get them in early, you can have a pool of people pull them out and verify them, convert them to army builder, then have the person that sent them in check off on it, and then submit them for printing.

The cost of printing those packets and handling those list are pretty high also.

Darkwynn wrote:The cost of printing those packets and handling those list are pretty high also.

5000 Sheets of paper $50
300 Envelopes $24
Printer ink $150?

That would be a dollar a person.

The problem I see with the plan is that you need the man-power to get the lists verified, and then people on Thursday printing out the packets, and getting them all together.

Let also add in this fact to the mix:

*If* you do this for one event, say the Championships, don't you have to do it for all events?

You are talking 980+ 40K Lists, 400+ WFB lists and countless other events...

It's way more than just the Championships being a large event.

Just do what they do in MTG. Random deck checks. Now these are usually done pre game since you actually need to look through all the cards.

In 40k just wait until turn 1 has started each round and randomly select 10 or however many you want tables. Take each players list that was given to the opponent and verify it was the one they turned in initially and that they have the correct models on the table.

I don't think everyone needs to be checked. Random checks usually do enough to dissuade anyone who might cheat.

If you get caught with an illegal list during this check, auto game loss.

Simple, no extra work needs to be done before the event. And you don't even need a lot of people there to do it.

I truly believe that controls at the event are more important than early list submission.

Good Controls:
Collecting and marking lists at registration.
Spot checking lists throughout the day.
Encouraging player checks.
Having a definitive penalty plan in place like Mike outlined above.
Double checking any list that qualifies for the Championships finals.

Early list submission will never stop the determined. So they can't fudge a few extra points on their list - they will still try to place additional models on the table, they will still try to swap out their heavy weapons based on the type of opponent they are fighting. If players are totally relying on the TOs to catch this stuff via early list submission - well, there isn't much you can do there at all...

AdeptiCon will have controls in place without question - what form those will take is yet to be seen, but this conversation is definitely a good one to be had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:Just do what they do in MTG. Random deck checks. Now these are usually done pre game since you actually need to look through all the cards.

In 40k just wait until turn 1 has started each round and randomly select 10 or however many you want tables. Take each players list that was given to the opponent and verify it was the one they turned in initially and that they have the correct models on the table.

I don't think everyone needs to be checked. Random checks usually do enough to dissuade anyone who might cheat.

If you get caught with an illegal list during this check, auto game loss.

Simple, no extra work needs to be done before the event. And you don't even need a lot of people there to do it.

+1 Timmah.

This is what we did last year in the Team Tournament and I think this is a solid approach when combined with a few other methods I mentioned above. The collection and marking of lists at registration is important I believe. It prevents people form swamping out legal 1850 point lists round to round based on their opponent. It also allows the event to guarantee list control going into the finals on Sunday.

In regards to questions of this nature, I usually nerd out and quote the following:

"Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battlestation."

*deleted as Matt already commented and covered it*

Good discussion.

Or just simplify a bit and get rid of anything that doesn't matter. AKA everything that is not the 40k championships.

-1 Timmah

Its all a step in the right direction and the cooperation between NOVA, BOLScon, Adepticon, and others will benefit all events.

I do remember talking about some things in a thread I made and it seems the staff have taking some changes to heart.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/287787.page

but thanks for listening.

Anything about the Fantasy side?

I would suggest making any negative (or positive) sports scores having to be explained in writing when giving them.

@thehod - As much as the drama-queens of the internet want to rant and rave about 'racist' events and how the sky is falling, we are all pretty much in contact with one another, have decent relations and are respectful to each other's events and autonomy. It's nothing new, but you are 100% correct - it absolutely makes better events. Hopefully more people recognize that.

The Championships change and the current state of the Gladiator have been in the realm of public discussion since January 2010. I briefly discussed them both a couple of days prior to your Suggestions on Improving Adepticon post here. Both ideas have been suggested and discussed from a hundred different angles, your suggestions in regards to the Championships (the BOLSCon model) were spot on - it just took a slightly different form at the end of the day after looking at how it fit into the AdeptiCon schedule, talking to other TOs, seeing how the NOVA played out, etc.

As to the 40K Codicer Quiz Show, like I responded in your thread:

Was always one of my favorite highlights of past conventions. No one has offered to run this since Brian Carlson did it in 2006/2007. If someone offers - I am sure it can happen again...but someone has to step up.

@skyth - Nothing at the moment. In addition to the new addition, we also have some new staff this year on that side of things. Hell, we haven't even had our first official planning meeting for 2011 yet - that is September 12th - we are just way ahead of the game with 40K due to the changes to these two events.

If you are going to do list submissions prior to the event in an event the size of adepticon, I suggest making the hand in required two weeks before the event and have one person who's sole job it is to check every list. Then have that person go around and make sure that people are actually playing what they put in the list. Its a ton of added work, but it stops 80% of the cheating cold.

Matthias wrote:Let also add in this fact to the mix:

*If* you do this for one event, say the Championships, don't you have to do it for all events?

You are talking 980+ 40K Lists, 400+ WFB lists and countless other events...

It's way more than just the Championships being a large event.

Nope.

I only said the Championships because I do not make suggestions without being the one to put in the work. I could handle the 40k championships, the rest your on your own.

If copies of the army list are provided to opponents then, in theory, extra models should be easier to spot ("ummm....where did that deep striking Land Raider come from? I don't see it on your list").

It seems that most people think using Army Builder is too labor intensive. Not in my experience, however. I find that the best system is to divide the work of data entry to people familiar with the relevant codices. For example, it takes me about 97 seconds to enter an Ork list into Army Builder.

Step 1. Have a submission deadline one month in advance of the tournament. Email people with illegal lists (e.g., "Your five points over").
Step 2. Using the event website or forum, post all army lists two weeks prior to the event. Players will check their own lists for errors and email with corrections. Only corrections are allowed at this point based on data entry errors.
Step 3. Three or four days prior to the event post the first round match ups.
Step 4. When people arrive to the event present them with an army builder print out and extra copies to distribute to their opponents.

The only problem I see with taking lists and entering it into army build is when you are entering 1000+ lists, there are going to be minor mistakes.

Which then, of course, hurts the player since you think he has an illegal list when he shows up the day of the tournament. Meaning, not only would you need all 1000+ lists on hand, but you would also need a copy of every single email so if discrepancies arose.

I see your step 2 attempts to fix this. But I know plenty of people who probably wouldn't even go check it out there.
Yea, they are dumb if they don't, but do you really want to punish them because of it.

Just a lot of time and data for something that can be done much simpler with random checks. Also, I would hate to have to decide on a list a month early.

random checks with a point deduction for every point over per game.

you spot sheck in round 4

guys list is 5 points over so he gets a -20

in round 1 you would get a -5

if you really messed up and forgot a required element for your list say a 100 point hq you could get a -400.

that being said if you were one point over and the cheapest thing you could remove from your list is 30 points you get a 30 point deduction.

adepticon isn't a local rogue trader filled with new players. Most people that go have played for 10+ years. they shouldn't make mistakes.

I agree with random checks.

Army Builder transposing isn't a bad idea, but it still requires someones list pass through another persons hand. The last thing Adepticon wants is to have a battlewagon missing a Deff Rolla, or a Dreadnought missing Blood Talons, or the wrong psychic power being checked, etc. etc. etc.

Minor mistakes that could be game changing. And with 100+ lists, there will be mistakes. Nobody is perfect enough to ensure 100% accuracy, not even Stelek.

Spot on Mike. I think that has always been one of our major concerns - gamers procrastinate. Gamers change their minds. Gamers are testing strategies and list theories right up to the night before an event.

I do this at almost every tournament I go to. In fact last year on the train to Adepticon I was play testing my list and changed it then. Turning list in ahead of time is really a waste of time. IMhO when you do this there is still room for someone to cheat. If a person is going to cheat then that’s what they’re going to do. Army builder is easy to manipulate I can turn in a list that will tell you space marines cost 10 points apiece all you need is word you can change all the numbers. If you want to list verify you’ll need to enter all the data of a list in your own personal army builder. But like you were saying it will take way to long and too much time.

What we did at our last tournament is tell everyone if you caught using a model or weapon that isn't in your list, you will be asked to leave the tournament. As the tournament progresses check out every ones models to makes sure there on the list they turned in. It isn't allot of work and the TO and staff should have enough down time to do this. Usually as long as you make the announcement that there tournament will be over they won’t risk it. This also means you need to throw them out if they’re caught. Allot of you have the right idea random list checks. I do understand however how many people come to your event and the amount of staff you will need is staggering to pull a complete “army check” of, It’s just a suggestion.

As always I can't wait to come back and play next year.

The other advantage that the Army Builder method has that I like is that everyone gets a copy of their opponents list in army build format.

That is much better that a random collection of typed out units and costs. It also gives you the benefit of seeing the unit stats with the codexes that you are least familiar with, and reduces mistake that people can make when the "misremember" unit stats.

I'm very happy to see you guys are looking to fix sportsmanship which has been meaningless for it's entire history. I hope my finances allow me to attend this year.

In some competitions at a certain point people are banned and then asked to judge. Like the X-Men in turntablism or awesome B-Boy crews in breakdancing. Hod should run the codicier quiz. Who better than the ultimate lord of champions?

You should not expect people to turn in lists before the day of the event. If this was a ccg or GW had a way to play online so that you could playtest adequately it might be conceivable but even in CCGs you just turn it in day of. If playtesting methods were popularized and widely used it also might be different, but this is a fun game and people don't take it so seriously that they laminate base sizes and use dry erase markers to test builds for just two turns to make sure they get in enough games that they can be ready for an event a month ahead of time. That's alot of work for a fun game with toy soldiers.

Validating lists? I have no suggestions and I usually am pretty opinionated. That tells me that there is probably no good system. I suppose it should be stated that players are responsible for the legality of their list and if their list is found illegal at any point they may suffer any number of penalties.

Validating lists? I have no suggestions and I usually am pretty opinionated. That tells me that there is probably no good system. I suppose it should be stated that players are responsible for the legality of their list and if their list is found illegal at any point they may suffer any number of penalties.

I agree a person needs to be responsible for the army he or she brings. Without this what’s next, "wait you mean my melta guns aren’t 24 inch" 3 turns in " my bad man". On the same thought thou if someone gets one over on you who's at fault?

Validating lists:

-Have an army of volunteers on your forums, or somewhere. Dakka would work if Yakface would make a section titled "Adepticon Army submission." Post every list that you get online. Take out the name and the title of the army; make an internal note (List 14a, List 7b, List 4c) etc where the number is attached to the order of submission and the letter is by army or whatever sorting method you choose. Let the internet vet your lists. Anonymous list posting. Within your community, screen volunteers - a lot of people would be willing to step up and vet your lists. Armchair generals who get to do something to help - you can offer them recognition or something if interest isn't piqued.

Basically, every posted list has its own thread, and has to be vetted by three to five people who unanimously agree that it is legal. Once vetted, you can delete the thread, and check it off as vetted.

If you don't plan on requiring lists in advance I would suggest that you either reward people who turn in their list early for screening, or punish those who do not. My suggestion: Take early list submission and vet it as I've described.

At the event, have two people with laptops and army builder and each with a printer set up. Anyone who did NOT pre-submit their list pays a $5 door fee to have their army list screened at the door (via entry into Army Builder). That $5 is for time, effort, annoyance, toner costs, paper, paying for the two liscenses of Army Builder....electricity, space, etc.

And most importantly, there must be a "cut into stone" rule that anyone who wins a prize will have their list THOROUGHLY checked before such prizes are awarded. Anyone found with an illegal list will immediately be disqualified from winning their prize, and all their games will revert to automatic losses. There is no way to distinguish between accidents and intentional cheating, and it is the ONLY imperative of the participating player to bring a valid army to the event. Case in point: The winner of the Nova Open had an illegal list. While I don't think anyone in the finals cared because his 3 point overage probably didn't mean much in any of his games - it was his bloody responsibility to bring a legal army to the tournament, and his prizes should have been revoked. *note, I don't know what actually happened, nor am I criticizing Mike, just making a general assertion that wrongful behavior, intentional or not needs to not be rewarded.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure some people are going to whine that having their list posted publicly is going to put them at a disadvantage; pay no attention to those people. My own variations of Orks and Dark Eldar are widely publicized, battle reported, copied and all else and it doesn't stop me from kicking ass when I go to a tournament. Everyone knows what I'm bringing. Sometimes they don't even want a copy of my list because they know my army and how I play it. Ignore the paranoia - at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if people know what is in your codex, and there are no unique takes on combinations of units that are going to result in a secret weapon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

After all this, you should have mostly pre-submitted lists that are getting multi-vetted by volunteers, on-site list validation that the players using the service are paying for, and a clear statement that the onus for bringing a legal list still remains with the players.











Automatically Appended Next Post:
*EDIT*

Oh, and the most important part......players need to ALL be informed that there will be a couple people spot-checking everyone's army throughout the day. IE, someone is going to come up during your game and check your armylist against your models on the table.

I went to a tournament shortly after 'Ard Boyz in Atlanta that was 2,000 points. I brought the same Orks that I had for 'Ard Boyz - I hadn't used the models since 'Ard Boyz, and my Orks were in 'Ard Boyz form - I got all my models out and set up for the first game - my opponent (Brian White) was like...'Don't you have too many models?"

Having an extra battlewagon, deffkoptas, etc is pretty obvious to an opponent....but things like, "Your list has 4 missiles and you have 5 on the table" is a "mistake" that roaming spot-checkers will keep players honest.

I think both scooter and dash have hit the heart of the issue, even if from different viewpoints.

You can vet lists all day long from 50 different angles, the truth of the matter is: if a player wants to put an extra model down, swap out heavy weapons or anything of that nature they will. Pre-submission has zero bearing on that.

Likewise I am still very much against rebuilding someone's list for them. That shouldn't be the TO's jpb. The player must be responsible and culpable in regards to their list. Checking and spot-checking lists, sure...but re-keying lists into a non-GW produced software with the compounding ability to make errors? 10 people on Dakka could say a list is legal, that doesn't mean I didn't make an error when transcribing it to Army Builder.

I think it all boils down to solid controls at the event - like I outlined above. Marked lists to ensure no list swapping between rounds/types of opponents. Numerous spot checks both on turned in lists and on the floor. Definitive and harsh penalties for illegal lists and/or willful cheating. Re-checking lists prior to the finals and/or awards. Add to this the eyes of the opponent, and I think you have a very manageable system that does not require a large amount of generally wasted effort.

Pre-submission is at best an illusion. It does not stop the determined and severely limits people's ability to playtest and tweak lists. It also puts a strain on painting in terms of finishing or not finishing certain units. How many people paint right up to the night before? How many people change list the night before?